luis

After 4♥ - 4♠ I bid 4NT 6 aces keycard. I think it will be quite clear that the 6 minor suit keycards are important. If I get a 4KC response I can ask with 5♥ about a minor suit queen and go to 7♦ when pd can show the club queen. If we don't have the 6 keycards then I can signoff in 6♦. Luis

Ben you are doing an outstanding job as the moderator and Elianna is doing a fantastic job as well. If it were up to me I'd love you to keep doing this forever.

4♥ I have a monster hand and I want to know if pd can cuebid 4♠. Seems easy.

I really don't care about serious 3NT, I'm fine with it if its used only when the fit is in a major and a game forcing situation is already stablished. Example after 1M-2NT or similar situations. Abuot LTTC I'd say that it doesn't need to be asked, in some situations it's clear that a bid is LTTC for example: 1♠ - 4♦ 4♥ What would you guess 4♥ is? Opener has only one option between a 4♠ signoff and asking for aces with 4NT so it's clear that 4♥ may or may not be related to the heart suit at all and is showing a hand that has doubts about going to slam or signing off in game. In competition there're some similar situations, for example. 3♦ - 4♠ - 5♦ - 5♥ Again between bidding competitive 5♠ and deciding to go to slam there's only one bid: 5♥ os it may or may not show a heart suit or control but it does show an invitation to slam. I think most people that have said "I don't know what LTTC is" are capable of figuring it out at the table without any agreement as in the situations I describe. Not knowing the name of something is not a crime for some players some "bridge" bids don't need a name and I think this is one case. So in conclusion I think serious 3NT is fine with a major suit fit in a game forcing situation and LTTC is part of bridge so I wouldn't even ask. Luis

Heart but just a guess, if declarer is 7-5 or something with a diamond void he may be discarding his heart on the dA.

Take a look at the Viking club where 1M-1NT is GF and 1M-2♣ is INV. And if you like to open light consider a variation I made with my pd: After 1M-1NT we play 2♣ = I have a hand that a normal human would have passed, then 2♦ = I don't care GF anyway.

I bid a direct 3♣ invitational bid over 1♦, Jxxx is not a real suit and if pd has 4 hearts and a strong hand he will bid 3♥. I strongly hate the 1♥ bid. After 1♦ - 3♣; 3♠ I bid 3NT.

7NT if we have the aces right then we can take 7 diamonds, 4 spades and 2 aces for 13 tricks.

Pass, no options.

I disagree with everything you say With the hand you post I just bid 6♠ how many times will I hold such a hand?

Just for the record these are the last 2 hands I opened a weak 2 in third position: 2♠ Jxxxx Kx xxx xxx 2♥ xxx QJTx xxx Kxx So my answer is that if you want to open a weak 2 in third position you can do it whenever you feel it's right. No rules please, no rules. Rules lead to fear, fear leads to the dark side.

3♠ is not forcing at all to me, I like to bid 3♠ when I think 3♠ is a logic option to release some pressure from pd. Passing with hands that can bid 3♠ only increase pd problems. A direct 4♠ is usually a intermediate hand with 6 or 7 spades. Double followed by 3♠ is strong(ish). Maybe it is too simple but I confess it is what I play. Luis

Double is automatic at IMPs, at MPs I think I'm bidding 6♥ since the 6d they bid is probably going to be a very cheap save if we could make 5♥ and who knows maybe 6♦ is cold and it's me the one who is saving. I don't think X is going to work at MPs, maybe it can be 30% instead of a 0 but is not worth trying.

3s double is out since I don't have 4 diamonds. In the pressure position we are I'm quite happy with 3s

I don't think there's benefit of the doubt since whatever the defender was thinking there's no reason in the world to assume it had anything to do with the suit being played. I can only admit some adjustment or TD decision in a really really low level game. Again if you have Qx and dummy KJxx what are you thinking? Assume I think for a while and play then you finesse and the finesse is right are you claiming you found the right play because of the hesitation? I admit this is difficult to understand since many players hesitate on purpose to misslead declarer and deserve to be punished but this case I think is different. Maybe I wasn't able to explain it well.

It really doesn't matter the range of weak twos, in fact having a range for weak 2's is very stupid to me. In my CC the range reads 0-12 (bite me). No matter what the range is there're a lot of 0HCP hands that I would like to open 2♥ before even thinking about opening this hand with a weak 2.

Crystal clear 1♥ opening. I find 2♥ absurd and pass is very questionable but better than 2♥ for sure.

I'd play a Spade to the J, If this wins good if it loses then we still have some chances...

When you have 3 parking spaces you can't park 8 cars. This is very simple. So you are not going to find a way to describe all the different holdings that you can have after such an auction. With my pd I play: 1s-x-4s X = General values, not sure about where to play, denies 2 suits, generally 4333 or 5332 with a 5 card minor. 4N = Can play in 2 suits. (4-4 or 5-4) 5c,5d,5h = To play.

I wouldn't bid 3NT even without the toys. I think 6♣ should have a play.

Actually the defender could have been very ethical, let me explain it in this way: If you need to think about your defensive plan in the middle of the hand then you should do it when your hesitation can't carry any information to your pd or declarer. And a very good example is: "Situations where a defender is clearly not thinking about what card to play but about something else" When you have nothing and declarer is leading towards KJxxx of trumps in dummy after cashing the ace then you can think in the same way you can think when there's only one card left in a suit and you are about to play it. Then it's clear you weren't thinking about your play in the suit but about something else and there's no clear information about what that was. Declarer's guess is not affected by your hesitation since with Qx you are not going to play the Q so you are clearly -very clearly- not thinking about what card to play but about something else. In a recent f2f tournament exactly the same thing happened, declarer called the TD and the TD asked him to explain his reasoning after West hesitation, declarer said "well he must have Qxx and is thinking if he has to play low or the Q in his 2nd turn", the TD asked if that had any logic and declarer admited it didn't. So there was no damage, declarer can play from the top or finesse no matter what the defender does in the 2nd turn, nothing changes. West was also asked and he said he was thinking if he was going to falsecard in a side suit when declarer played that from his hand and he decided it was a good time to do that. This is clear like the water to me. There're other positions where accidentaly a defender hesitation may induce declarer to make a mistake and then we can rule that it may have been done on purpose and change the result but in this case there's no way to damage declarer, with Qx you are never putting up the Q in front of KJ. Luis

I think "other" is clear with this hand. The sequence 1? - 1?? 1?? - 1other shows a weak hand with 6 clubs and two top honors. Singleton in diamonds. Pd can now place the contract or relay bidding 2something. Over 2something I'd bid 3?! showing interest in what's happening.

Using RKCB to play 6 missing two aces is out of my patience range. The only time I've seen something like this was when pd bid 7 missing 3 aces after 4NT saying "To prevent a double". I don't like 4♦, I prefer 3♠ showing the spade control that we do have, nothing extra promised with 3♠.

Was this online or face to face? If online this was a very obvious case of connection problem, or the player going for a drink in the middle of the hand, maybe a restroom expedition, a phone call, the dog biting the cables, who knows? As others have written there's nothing to think about with QTx when you play towards KJ so I don't think this position can be even analized. If you finsessed with 9 instead of playing for the drop it's your problem. In a f2f expert game I'd say that the guy with Tx was trying to read some kind of trump signal from his pd. I would actually impose a penalty procedure on declarer if he intends to say anything about this board. Luis

I'd bid 2♠ at the first turn, showing a weak hand with spades which is exactly what I have, passing and then bidding only increase the risk of being doubled for a number. ABout 2♠ vulnerable Marty Bergen once said "Colors are for kids" Luis