Infidel

Well, W felt free to discuss because it was a friendly game with lots of byplay and discussion going on. And I posted here becuase I wanted some expert opinions, and because when I try to discuss Leb with non-experts I tend to get "that's just too complicated" from most. Please feel free to ignore.

when leb is used after interference with our 1NT opener, we often have three ways to get a spade suit into the auction: Assuming the overcall is below the 2S level, we can sign off in 2S, bid a GF 3S, or use the Leb relay to get to 3S with limited strength, inviting game...but does this also apply to other lebensohl applications? the hand: [hv=pc=n&s=shkqj5daq8cajt753&w=s86ha8732dj532c92&n=saqj432h6dk964c86&e=skt975ht94dt7ckq4&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1cp1sp2hp2np3cp3sp3nppp]399|300|South's 3c bid was originally 3d; W explained the alerts to N, who then changed the call to 3c[/hv] I was North. P and I have discussed Leb, but not deeply. ("Leb? OK; over reverses? Sure, why not...")P is also aware that I will reverse on slightly weaker hands, knowing Leb is there as a control. I used 2N as a "range finder," planning to push to slam if Partner bypassed the relay. The conversation at the table caused me some ethical difficulties, but that's a whole different story...I hoped the jump after 3c meant I still wanted to get to game, and that I had a very good spade suit, then didn't think I could move over 3NT...turned out wonderfully, since 4S had no chance, much less any slam. Very simple question: Is my use of Leb, followed by the spade jump, a reasonable use of that sequence? Or what else might it mean, among folks who knew what they were doing? I "invented" the call on the spot, with full knowledge it might be misunderstood. Now...what if P had instead bid 3d over my 2N (I think it's a close decision, actually)...then, of course, I get to an impossible slam of some sort, but I'm not sure what strength 2N-3d-3S should be showing...I'd guess it's a bare minimum that was attempting to sign off over 3c, but was now forced to continue to game, at least. any other suggestions also welcome, of course

I play this with one other person on the planet (he's also insane): We build responder's bids around the meaning of overcaller's bids (not necessarily on the suit called). Since 2H here explicitly shows H and S, I promote my H stop to a "suit," and bid it as a c-H 2-suiter: 2N transfers to clubs,and after opener completes the transfer, I bid 2d to show hearts...at this point, there is limited value in completing the transfer, unless opener wants to inquire about the length/quality of the club suit. Here, S would bid 2N over 2d (he still doesn't know responder's strength, but has no worries about d or S) and N has the easy raise. Can't help you on getting to the slam B-) If there had been a 2d Capp overcall, showing the same HS hand, we'd have been able to double 2d to show the H stopper, followed by 2S, showing clubs...similar results, and explicitly denying the S stopper. When the opponents' system identifies only one suit, we still our stopper to a "suit" in building responses, but the "blabbermouth" explicit 2-suiters make it work really nicely...sometimes even have a "4-suiter"

How does everyone play 2c (x)? I thought I knew, P had other ideas...responder (GIB) bid 2d, I had a pathetic hand with Jxxx in clubs, decided to introduce a variable by bidding 4c (indefensible, but it had been a long session) Of course, I was assuming P had a decent club suit for her double. Opener promptly doubled, and the gib took him out...into 6H!going down 4...P had a 4450 with 12 hcp, cashed 3 top tricks and let the gib find a way to give up a couple more. Opener, with 8 clubs to the AKQT, was not amused...P seemed surprised that I expected her to have clubs...opinions?

even if I am the lone voice in the wilderness, I object to the phase out: I have had the opportunity for many years to play with either system, and have "voted with my feet" for the windows version. I have tried the web version only a few times, but each time got frustrated and left it. I fully understand the lack of updates and maintenance, which will eventually render it unusable, but would really like to stay there until the bitter (natural) end, not a unilateral cutoff. I (obviously) will try to make the transition, but it will immeasurably lessen my enjoyment of the site.

I have been playing some on the "just play bridge" option, and really dislike the new billboard-sized cards on the newest "upgrade." Might it be possible to make the older format an option? I can't really explain my reaction, but the huge cards are really offputting for me.

I had this discussion with a partner a year or so ago; she could not grasp the distinction between the reverse and Jump shift here...so I gave up, treated opener's jump shift as if it were a reverse, which let me use Lebensohl to control weaker jumps. So we wound up rebidding 2S in the questioned sequence on 16+ (which immediately became "a good 15," and at least once on 14...), limiting the 1S rebid to a (clearly NF) minimum. It worked so well I now advocate it to partners who DO understand the difference. B-)

I do not quite understand the point here: a 1/1/1 auction can't be a 5-5 by opener, since the higher suit would be opened; and I don't see where Gazzilli comes into play: In the 1d-1H-1S auction, opener doesn't have the 2c relay available, unless he bypasses his 4-card Spade suit, does he? Or is there some other way to play Gazzilli that I'm not familiar with? I also don't know how to do the quotes here, and am groping around as I go; apologies if I'm not clear.

P and I have been arguing for at least 2 years, with no sign of resolution, about the forcing/non-forcing nature of an uncontested 1/1/1 auction, e.g., 1d-1H-1S. Either way, either the 1S rebid has an unwieldy range of 12-to 18 or so (just short of a GF jump shift), or there is a huge rebid problem with intermediate hands. I may have devised a solution (which starts out, of course, “do it MY way and treat 1S as nf”): make the jump shift on the intermediate (16-18) hands, and use Lebensohl as a control, just as if it had been a reverse, not a jump shift. Of course, the Jump Shift may also be the full-blown game force, so responder has to bypass the relay whenever he can’t stand a signoff, similar to Leb over a double of a weak 2. Usually, when I come up with oddities like this, I get one of two reactions: A) “you, idiot, that is unworkable because…” or B) “you idiot, that was part of the (xxxxx) system proposed by (xxxxx) back in ’74…” or some such. Which is it this time? If it’s part of some previously- hammered out system, I’d like to read up on it; if it won’t work, I’d appreciate input on why. If relevant, we play a gadget-infested 2/1. (Feel free to weigh in, also, on the theory that 1d-1H-1S is forcing in standard bidding…) Thanks in advance

I don't understand this one: There;s no takeout double to replace; The double I'm replacing with the relay is the penalty double. That "moderate balanced hand" is in there, too, but my interest was mostly the frequency of a 1N (2x) p-p-p sequence. And, despite the opinions here, it still seems to me I never see that happen. (purely subjective; that's why I was asking)

Just looking for some opinions; I realize this is a shy and reluctant group, but thought I'd see if a few might express an opinion... 2/1, strongish NT (15-16, if interested)... When 1NT is overcalled, I wonder if it is EVER (or often enough to be considered) a good score to let the opponents play in 2x? I am messing with an already-messed-with Lebensohl, trying to transfer at a lower level by incorporating the much-maligned shadow double. To avoid giving up the penalty double, the current plan is to use a forcing pass over 2-level interference: It forces opener to double, after which responder will pass with a penalty double, or take out to show certain specific 2-suiters. This does mean I have to take some other sort of action with a 4333 2-pointer, but I am telling myself that, with THAT hand, we're not winning the auction anyway, and that it will be difficult for opps to stop off for a penalty when they haven't finished looking for a fit (especially when the 2x bid was some artificial thingie). Anyhow, the gist of the question is whether the "resistance is mandatory" idea is sound: Do you ever get a good score by giving up meekly when the opps overcall a strong 1NT? And if so, how often does it happen? Many thanks

I am away from home and my bridge books, but my memory of Bergen's Walsh treatment (in BBB1) is that the reverse into a Major after 1c-1d-1N guaranteed game-forcing strength, not invitational-plus. So that diamonds were bypassed in favor of the 4-card Major with any lesser hand, not just those "worth only one bid." Am I misremembering? Or was there a subsequent change/clarification?

I HATE it I HATE it I HATE it...I don't use the browser-based access because I prefer the older format, and wish I could keep it for hand review also. I did find that if I "open a bridge movie" from the desktop icon, it still comes up the old way, but that eliminates some other features. I hope I'm not simply resisting anything because it's new, but the newer format just feels wrong to me, and I'm uncomfortable with it. I'd really appreciate being able to continue pulling up the older format.

Can someone please make the case for this? I've seen it both ways, and can't really convince myself either way is clearly superior. Seems either way gains with one responder hand, loses with another, but it's hard to see which "wrong" way is less damaging.

That "intuitive" answer that the lowest response shows the worst hand should be questioned: "Fast Arrival" says to go the other way. I. e., the rebid of the suit at the 3-level should deny any interest in whatever partner is cooking up. The "feature" players do it this way; Ogust should be modified to conform. Over a 2S-2N sequence, the entire response structure can be inverted: 3S=bb; 3H=bad hand, good suit; 3d=good hand, bad suit, and 3c=gg. 2H takes a bit more work, since we can't use 3S for anything not forcing to game, but the other responses can be scrambled along fast arrival lines. OR, the Ogust "trigger" can be 1 step, rather than an arbitrary 2NT: 2H-2S is a strength/suit quality inquiry; ditto 2d-2H. Dunno if it will pass ACBL muster, though...