Double !

Unfair, you already know the hand!! lolololol. ;) DHL

This hand was the subject of considerable discussion during a small, after-game. chat room. game is imps/ imp pairs/ whatever opps are vul, you are not You hold the following: ♠ 3, ♥ AT652, ♦ QT8, ♣ AQ93. You are playing 2/1GF with no unusual conventions other than your misbids. Partner opens One Spade. Pass on you right. Your bid. (More to come on openers hand later. I promise. ;) ) DHL note: Please try to limit the "wtp"s. Thank you.

Game is imps (imp pairs)/ typical MBC game. You are second seat, nobody vul. You hold: ♠ 9643, ♥ 6, ♦ KQJ86, ♣ AT4. The bidding goes Pass on your right. Your call. Would you open this hand or not? If your answer is yes, what bid would you recommend? TIA: DHL

Roland: I wonder whether or not the fact that the stiff is in spades, causing rebid problems, is a major determining factor for you on the hand. DHL

I recall first hearing about some convention called Lebensohl during the SummerNABCs in Boston in 1970. (There was also a very fine player named Ken Lebensold who reportedly consistently denied being the author of the convention. As the story went at the time, he reportedly refused to play it!) The intent of the convention now and at that time was to try to distinguish between game-going and competitive bids at the 3-level after P had opened 1NT and rho overcalled. The extensions of the convention to responses to doubles of wk 2 bids as well as being the basis for the Good-Bad 2NT convention have been presented. My experiences with playing traditional Leb have been that the convention works well as long as responder to the overcall doesn't bid. If the responder does bid, and you are above the level of 3 of your suit, then some problems arise, especially if the partnership doesn't have agreements regarding the minimum high card or defensive values need to make a Leb bid. I have been wondering whether or not it might be more effective to make an immediate bid of 3 of a suit competitive, and to first use Leb. to show a game-going hand (possibly making it more risky for lho to bid more. Interested in feedback! DHL After

Ask this question to 20 accomplished bridge players, and I suspect that you'll get 21 different answers. In most cases it will be those person's preferred methods, as well as methods that they've played and worked on for a while in established partnerships with success for them. Is there any one best escape method? I doubt it. There are many escape methods that are written up in one place or another (e.g. Meckwell, DONT, BROZEL, System On, etc.) and I suspect there are a number of homegrown methods. You might also wish to peruse convention cards of top-flight (pro) players to see what methods they use. My suggestion to you is to select one that seems to be consistent with you and your partner's style and comfort level (and memory capacity), and to then work on it with your partner(s), discussing how to handle various situations. IMO, not knowing what a bid means or asks you to do is much more of an issue than whether or not some expert plays that particular escape method. DHL

As much as I despise the convention, it is unclear to me why you chose a 1 heart overcall instead of 2NT showing red suits, assuming that you were going to bid in the first place. However, given that you are playing matchpoints and are vulnerable, I'm not sure that you might not have been better served by passing initially. Your suits aren't good enough to ensure safety at the 3-level. And, should partner have a good fit for one of your suits, then the opps also have a good fit. The more you can make, the more the opps also are likely to make. And I don't want -200 vs partscore or a big minus vs opp's game. DHL

PASS unless you enjoy hanging your partner who (assuming that 1NT was not forcing) is marked for some degree of length in spades and not much in the way of hcp's or trick-taking potential. DHL

Helene: I can understand your initial pass after rho opened 1♣ although i must admit that I would have been very tempted to make the underbid of a 1NT overcall. In many instances, many matchpoints are won by the partnership that gets to 1NT first. Given your initial pass, I believe that you must either bid 2C (natural) after rho rebid, or else double 1NT. Otherwise you have been shut out on while holding a very good hand. (A side point, although I am very much in the minority, I strongly recommend considering playing nonvulnerable 1NT overcall as being 13-16. Then you don't have to pass with a decent opening bid, and then hope the bidding goes in such a way that you or partner eventually are able to balance. Trap passes are certainly made on certain hands, but with the 13-16 NT overcal, you will find that you often wind up in a playable contract or that you disrupt the opps' bidding. Only twice in many years can I remember going for a telephone number after making this bid. [Yes, I am promoting one of my toys.]) DHL

Very Well Done, Han!!! See, You're a poet and you didn't even know it!! DHL :P (I can't believe that I just wrote that-yuk :) .)

I am usually unhappy when a system forces me to open an xxx suit (except for precision or the ilk) unless i have extra values, especially when the opps pre-empt and my partner is sitting with a decent hand but has no clue whether or not my bid suit is legitimate. I have seen many situation where opener has been forced by system to open an xxx minor suit while holding 4-4 in the majors, and interference by the opps have resulted in an impossible situation for responder. It also makes it more difficult for responder to assess the combined assets of the two hands should you bid a non-existent suit. DHL

LOL it can't show a legitimate or near-legitimate 1NT opening because, once partner decides to evaluate his hand as being worth 1NT, he can't change course in the middle of the bidding...................unless. PARTNER PSYCHED 1NT! I can't think of anything else that makes sense opposite a GI 2NT raise unless playing some form of checkback for unstopped suits. DHL

IMO, part of the recommendation depends upon what kind of weak 2 bids you are playing, i.e. disciplined vs. undisciplined. If playing disciplined weak 2 bids, then I think you need a good reason to run (not just a void, but a good alternative suit). Partner's hand is likely to be of minimal value to you in another suit. If playing undisciplined weak 2 bids, then the hand became a turkey shoot the second you opened your mouth as partner now doesn't have a clue r.e. what your hand looks like other than containing (assume) a 6-card suit. Regardless, after bidding weak 2, partner has 7 unknown cards and would be lucky to have a 3 or 4-card suit to fit for one of your suits. And savvy opps would be leading trumps. Good luck! You might be jumping from the frying pan into the fire but sending the double back, sos XX. (Sometimes pressure bidding blows up in your face. C'est la vie.) DHL

Just a little question about hand 2: Why did this hand not open 1 diamond in the first place? DHL

Matt: Thou Shalt Not Lie - it's a sin. I would double, not bid 1NT to show the hcps. If partner bids diamonds, I can live with it. The hand has 4-4 in the majors and prime cards that are well placed. IMO, a 1NT overcall rates to make it harder to find a 4-4 major fit as well as implying at least one club stopper. :) DHL

Hmmmm. Wayne. This hand looks familiar............lololol. I just knew it would wind up on the forum. DHL

There are many votes for 3NT, and many votes for 4♣. Right or wrong, I decided to double. I got lucky: don't know what I would have done had partner responded 4♦. (Pass, I guess. There's always next hand.) THIS WAS THE FULL HAND. East: ♠832, ♥96, ♦AJ654, ♣ A64 South: ♠ KQ964, ♥ KT7, ♦ 987, ♣ T5 West: ♠ 75, ♥ AJ8532, ♦ QT2, ♣ 32 North: ♠ AJT, ♥ Q4, ♦ K3, ♣ KQJ987 As you can see, 3NT would not have been a big success. What does one hand prove? NOTHING But I thought that this hand was very interesting. Thanks to all who looked at the hand and/or responded. DHL

This hand came along during a 2-session imp pairs game in Nashville. You are in fourth seat holding: ♠AJT, ♥ Q4, ♦ K3, ♣ KQJ987. You are Vulnerable. The opps are not. After two passes, your rho bids 3♥, nv. Red vs. white, your bid! DHL

OK, the result is posted, and those geniuses who found a better lead than a diamond are to be congratulated. The diamond lead didn't work on this particular hand: one sample proves nothing. I, too would have led a diamond (that proves absolutely nothing), and where is it written that I couldn't hit partner with Ax(x) or even KJx. Now the lead has become psychologically favorable because, should declarer have a 2-way decision to make in a side suit, then your hand would be the dangerous hand and declarer might finesse into partner (losing). Little things like this can lead to matchpoints, too. I doubt you got a bottom for your lead unless partner could have taken some action (even if risky) but chose not to. Again, I would need Luis' sunglasses to know better than to lead a diamond. DHL

You put so much work into this post: you are to be commended. You mentioned that you omitted regulations regarding opening leads. How about the following for starters. Any opening lead, by partnership agreement, may tend to either guarantee or deny possession of the card led, but not both as that would constitute a dual meaning which might also contain additional meanings known only to the partnership. In addition, the lead must indicate possession of at least one specific, known card. DHL

So, opener has a 3 or 4 point range for his 1NT opening bid and is supposed to chop that into 3 strengths? Tim, One doesn't need to split it into 3 rebids. One can simply play 4C as asking for min or max. That's not really the point. When playing the traditional way, responder has only one of two choices: to ask for aces or to ask for range. All I'm doing is proposing reversing the two bids. If need be, this gives responder two options. And if using 3 steps, it permits opener to say "I'm not sure". (Not trying to be super-sophisticated here.) DHL

This post is intended for those who play the auctions 1NT- 4♣, 1NT -2♣- 2♦ - 4♣, and 2NT (or 2♣ - 2♦ - 2NT) - 4♣ as asking how many aces partner has, and who play 1NT or 2NT (with or without the stayman and negative responses included in the bidding) as Quantitative (invitational to 6NT). I believe that these venerable, traditional methods have their priorities reversed, and I would like to propose an alternative way that basically involves reversing the meanings of 4C and 4NT. If responder to the 1NT bidder wants to determine whether or not the partnership is in the slam zone, why not provide the 1NT opener various ways to co-operate rather than guessing with in-between hands, and still keep the bidding below 4NT ? I suggest that the 4C response (1NT-4C, etc) should be quantitative and that opener responds in the following manner: 1) with a minimum 1NT opener, responder bids 4♦ over 4♣, 2) with an in-between hand, the 1NT opener rebids 4♥ over 4♣, and 3) with a maximum NT, opener rebids 4♠ over 4♣. 1) If opener rebids 4D showing a minimum, responder can now bid 4NT to play. 2) If opener rebids 4H (in-between hand, not sure), responder now bids 4♠ which tells opener to bid 4NT. Responder then passes or takes some other bid as responder sees as being appropriate. 3) if opener bids 4♠ over 4♣, showing a maximum, then 4NT can be whatever you wish: asking for aces, asking for controls, anything but passing 4NT. The complement of this set of responses is that 4NT is always ace-asking ("now remember, Myrtle, 4NT is always Blackwood"), and, more importantly, it makes the G-word obsolete and unnecessary, and will make Roland happy. It's not often that I dare to propose a different way of doing something or a new convention. It's just that this seemes to make more sense to me than the old G-word and 4NT quantitative method. I know that there are many of you who probably don't play the G-word, but many players in the states are taught this old method, and I think there is a better way. I would appreciate feedback and comments. Just please monitor your language when cursing me or this proposal out. As always, thanks in advance. DHL

Han: Thank you for responding. There were four purposes of this survey along with my own curiosity and seeking ideas: 1) to demonstrate the obvious, that there are a lot of creative players out there who have developed their own response structures (as opposed to whatever standard is); 2) to see how many of you play 4-suit transfers (with or without pre-acceptance a la BBO-advanced - not many), 3) to see how many of you play Stayman followed by 3m as the weak 4-6 (4M-6m - admittedly more of an issue at MatchPoints, but the bid used to be virtually standard when and where I used to play live), and 4) to find out how various people make slam invitations in a major after Stayman and a 2M response (i.e. when responder has that in-betweener type of hand where you're not sure whether or not it is safe to go beyond 4M and want to know if opener is min or max or fitting well). There were a few other relatively common sequences or bids that I was interested in. Although this sample is relatively limited, I am impressed by the great variety of interpretations of bids and sequences that one might anticipate to be relatively basic. Look at the variety of interpretations of some of the initial responses to 1NT. So, I wish to thank all of you who took the time and effort to respond to this "little" survey. I have been reconsidering the response structures that I play and looking for viable alternatives. You all have provided a lot of valuable ideas: my sincerest thanks! DHL

My objective when playing match points is to try to minimize artificiality, to have opening bids of one of a suit to actually show that suit (usually 5+ unless I have 4 spades) and to make it more difficult for the opps to compete by opening 1NT a lot, playing 13-16 1NT bid. This is complemented by an opening 2D bid that shows about 11+ to 15 with 4-4 in the majors (an attempt to reduce the frequency of missed 4-4 major fits that might occur with so many 1NT openers). There are some gaps in the structure, mostly the good 16-17 hcp hands, but this insane system seems to work pretty well in practice, especially with the addition of a gazilli-like structure to address those good 16+ hands. If not this, then I prefer a weak NT system or a modified version of Precision such as MatchPoint Precision. SAYC and 2/1 are my least preferred matchpoint systems because of how much easier it is for the opps to start competing at the 1-level. But, then again, sometimes I march to the beat of my own drummer and try to be creative instead of doing what everybody else is doing. Boring.............. DHL

Justin, I recall one hand that I played against you and, i think, David G where one of you led the jack of a suit, partner got in, and returned the suit, permitting me to make the contract. I remember your comment to your partner after the hand was over, saying something to the effect that "we gotta code this s**t". I thought that you meant using coded 9/T/J leads. Maybe I was wrong, perhaps you had some other "s**t" coding in mind. Just the same, that might have been the only contract that I made against you guys during the set and, as usual, you crushed us. DHL