kgr

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sakq97hkxdxxxcxxx&s=st8haqxxxdkqxxcak]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] No bidding by opps, North is dealer: 1♠-2♥ ....We play kind of SAYC (not 2/1), but If North bids 3♥ now then bidding is GF (North can bid that with 3 card support and 15+), 4♥ by North would show 4 cards support and 12-14. 2♠ by North is the catch all bid, 12-14: 2♠-3♦ 3♥-4NT 5♥-6♥ 4NT is RKC since ♥-fit is established, ...or not? - Probably South overbid this, but then it would still have been better to reach 6♠ or 6NT. Who is to blame? - Maybe it is better to play 2♥ as GF, even without a forcing 1NT? - Maybe South should have bid 5NT (pick slem) iso 4NT? Thanks, Koen PS: 6♥ was down 1, 6NT and 6♠ both make

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sqtxxxxhxxdxxcaxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] (1♥)-3♣!-(3♥)-??? Partner's 3♣ is an intermediate jump, around 10 to 15 pts and mostly a 6 card ♣. Normally he will not have 4 cards ♠ (2♣ by partner would have shown 4 card ♠ and better/longer ♣'s). You play all DBL's as info, but do you have enough? Should 3♠ be forcing here? ...What do you bid now?

Hand and bidding: [hv=d=n&n=sqjxxxhxdaqxcqxxx&s=sakxxxhqjxxxxxdxc]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] P-(3♣!)-3♥-(P) 3NT-(P)-4♠-All Pass 3♣=♦-preempt or something strong, eg 2 suiter minors GF...I expected it to be 2 suiter minors GF, 3♥=Did not expect that this would be passed out & wasn't sure partner would understand 4♦

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=skqtxhkqtxxdtxxct&w=sxhxdakxxcakxxxxx&e=sjxxhjxxdqjxxcqjx&s=saxxxxhaxxxdxxcxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP (1D)-2D-(3D)-3S (4NT)-P-(5C)-All Pass[/hv] I thought to re-consider 5M when it was my turn after a 5D bid of LHO, but that didn't happen

...seems you have a good memory... You can call it bad Michaels (weak to intermediate with less distribution). with KQxxx KQxxxx - xx or KQxxx AKQxx x Qx we bid 3D

In standard if you first bid 2♣ and then ♠ , isn't this Game Force? ...why then bid different in 2/1 and standard?

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=saxxxxhaxxxdxxcxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 1D!-(2D!!)-3D-(??) 4NT-(P)-5C-(??) 5D-(P)-P-(??) 1D!=4+c♦, can still have much longer ♣'s 2D!=both majors (can be 4-4 and strength like an normal overcall) 5C=30/41 What bids do you choose?

Seems like correct translation of Dutch "wereldconventie" is Leaping Michaels (not sure if that is also used for both majors).

[hv=d=n&s=sakxxxhqjtxxxxdxc]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] P-(3♣!)-??? 3♣=preempt ♦ or GF both Majors or GF both minors or GF ♥ What do you bid now? (partner will take 3♦ as a take-out DBL and 4♦ as worldconvention)

If opps DBL a cue- or control bid then it is 'standard' to play: RDBL: 1st control in DBled suit control bid: 2nd control in DBled suit and 1st/2nd control in new suit. But how do you play Pass/bid game? What about?: Pass=Extra's and slem interest if you have not yet limited your hand. If you have limited your hand or if partner's hand is unlimited then Pass simply denies 2nd control. 1D-(P)-1H-(3C) 4C-(DBL)-? - 4H=no slem interest - Pass=not minimum (Does not deny 2nd round control, but denies 2nd control C togheter with 2nd control D) 2C-2D 2H-3H 3S-(DBL) - Pass= no 2nd round control. Even if minimum, Bidding 4H is no option because partner is unmimited? 2C-2D 2H-3H 4C-(DBL) - Pass= no 2nd round control C, 1st/2nd control S. Even if minimum, Bidding 4H is no option with a S control because partner is unmimited

[hv=d=w&v=e&n=sa8752hq95d874cj8&w=sk4hat6dqj62ck952&e=sj3hj732dak95cq74&s=sqt96hk84dt3cat63]399|300|Scoring: IMP 1C-1D 2D-2NT 3NT[/hv] I did lead ♠6 and partner took his A after which ♠ blocked. Partner said I should lead ♠T with this.

Without special agreements - probable for beginner and intermediate forum - I think that 2♣ is an overbid. I will bid 3S now.

[hv=d=w&v=e&s=sqt96hk84dt3cat63]133|100|Scoring: IMP Opps bidding: 1C-1D 2D-2NT 3NT-Allpass[/hv] You are South and West started the bidding. Your lead?

..... Even in super-expert circles, my perception of how LTTC is played is: 1) LTTC means nothing more than "I am still interested in slam" (as opposed to showing or denying controls in a specific suit). 2) LTTC is only used if there is one step available below game. For example, if spades are agreed and 4C was the last bid, 4H would be a cuebid in hearts (as opposed to LTTC). 4H as LTTC would only apply with spades agreed if the last bid was 4D. ....... Thans a lot for the answer! Do you feel like if partner is rather unlimited and the bidding goes - with 3NT either serious or non-serious : ... 3S-3NT 4D-?? That you always should bid 4H with a C control because that is probably what partner is looking for, or should 4H promise some extra's?

Nobody uses Non-serious 3NT with LTTC?

Not really an answer to the original question. Let me rephrase it: Playing LTTC and non-serious 3NT what are following sequences (First bid sets trump and game force). I gave my proposal for every LTTC. Please comment. First 2 additional questions: - From where is the name LTTC coming? - Maybe it is easiest to agree that if most unlimited partner skipped a control bid then other partner always should indicate it, even without control in LTTC suit? 1) 3H-3NT 4D => 4D promises Spade control, slem interest opposite min partner, denies C control, but does not say anything about D control 2) 3H-3S 3NT-4D => 4D sows slem interest opposite min partner, denies C control, but does not say anything about D control 3) 3H-4C 4D => 4D promises Spade control, but does not say anything about D control. Partner has extra's and his 4C bid was mostly asking a S control. 4) 3H-3S 4C-4D => 4D sows extra's with or without D control...It should probably promise a D control?? 5) 3S-3NT 4D-4H => 4H promises Club control, but does not say anything about H control 6) 3S-3NT 4C-4H => 4H sows H control 7) 3S-4C 4H => 4H denies D control, shows extr's with or without D control??? 8) 3S-4D 4H => 4H sows C control, I does not promise H control

Has anyone 'translated' Fred's article about LTTC to non-serious 3NT. I wonder how the given examples can be best played if using non-serious 3NT instead of serious 3NT. Thanks, Koen

I thought this combination was appropriate for intermediates but I did post it here because: - I wanted adv/ experts to answer it and not be withhold by the type of forum the post was in - I suppose that beg/int also read this forum and learn from it. (That opens the question of what forum is most appropriate if you have a rather easy question, but prefers expert answer).

You can loose 1 trump trick with: AJxxx vs Txx You need to finesse J and play A OR Play small to the T followed by the depending on who you think has Hx? - Probably small to J is best, because it also wins if LHO has HHx - Small to T is better if you think RHO will play H from Hxx Is this correct?

I took ♠Q in my hand and played 3 rounds of ♣'s, RHO discarding a small ♥ on the 3th. ..This made me think that LHO had ♥Q, probably wrong thinking. I now played a small ♠ to ♠K and tried to lead ♥J to see how fast RHO would follow. Maybe there was a very small delay, but I decided to take ♥A and did let ♥9 run which lost to ♥Q by RHO. (RHO had 4=4=3=2) RHO now returned a ♠...but I could still not make it because I blocked my ♥'s. :) So probably I must have hands in original post wrong and the really were something like: [hv=n=sak32hkjtdjxxcxxx&s=sqxha9xxdxxxcakqx]133|200|[/hv] As said in original post: opps are not very good...=> Maybe it is best to take ♠A in dummy and run ♥J immediatly?

..I can add that RHO has ♠JT98, LHO did lead top of nothing.

Right, but Adam is correct IMHO. You haven't made a call yet. ...same during play. I you say 7 of... and there are 2 7's in dummy then you can still change the play to any other call. Maybe even if there is only one 7 in dummy?

If you play 3 ♠'s then RHO shows ♠89T and on the 3♣'s RHO follows twice and discards a small ♥. Where do you place ♥Q?

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sak32hkjtxdjxxcxx&s=sq4ha9xdxxxcakqxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] You open 1NT and end in 3NT after North showed 4=4 majors. Opps are not very good (RHO a little better then LHO). LHO leads ♠7, you play small from N, RHO plays ♠8 and you take the Q. Do you first try for ♣3-3 or do you immediatly play on ♥ and setup your 9th trick if opps don't find ♦ switch? If you first try ♣'s then Hidden: .

could very well be true Yes, I didn't like my singleton ♦ in fact. ...Thanks for the answer!