Bermy

OK lets go over this one more time for all of you so slow that maybe you can justify this garbage. So pd opens 1NT NV (never mind best hand) and opps overcall 2H Capp Vul. You are sitting with 4x hearts good minors and good hcp. your options are. Pass? 2S Natural with spades 2NT a relay 3C shows clubs 3D shows diamond 3H no stopper with spades 3NT to play Every bid is part the convention except.......... What is double there for? Another take out? for what? What for? Oh it does not exist because it is not part of the convention because everybody plays weak doubles are take outs these dsys ......even here in this bidding sequence? What nonsense everybody knows Ron Anderson did not write leb he wrote his book on leb, and even he agrees with me. How can anybody justify that as good bidding logic? Show me a hand where double is a good take out and I will show you a 1NT hand where opener is totally blind to the situation. and we are only half way yet, I haven't even got to leb after a pre-empt yet the leb everybody forgets( system is either on or off), whatever they have to do with each other.

How pointless is that? so what good does your available double do? All references point to the same wiki conclusion and you still argue?

And so on and on we go. Nothing produces more bridge argument than leb. Husbands dont play with wives over it, and great long friendships can be broken. Believe me, and we are still arguing. I brought up the subject for a reason today. I was in the mood for a good argument. Look how much productive time we have wasted over this, I teach beginners just to double penalty when they think they can beat the contract profitibily. What better moment, than when you know your partner has 15+ HCP and two cards or more in trumps, do they want to run to another suit (3 level Capp ha) we will then decide what to do or where to play Other bids are available and of course you can switch leb to "on" if you like. But please, at least to play leb properly and competitivly "The reward is simply not worth the effort" just lets get the double right.

Perhaps Generally is actually referring to the meaning of the double. Please dont get cheap on me and question Wiki references. If you have a better reference, show it.

No perhaps Im not finished with leb arguement just yet. I just look up the wiki verdict on double in leb and found this. A Double by responder is not part of Lebensohl. However it forms part of the entire set of bids available to responder and its meaning is the subject of a partnership agreement. Usually its meaning is, in turn, dependent upon the meaning of the overcall and the meaning of the overcall can vary widely because there are a number of conventional systems available to an overcaller after a 1NT opening. Generally, a Double is for penalty. When the overcall is in a suit held by the overcaller, the double shows a decent non-game forcing hand with a four-card or very good three-card holding in the suit specified. It is for penalty (not game forcing) but opener may choose to bid 3NT based on information now or later available. When the overcall is in a suit, which by partnership agreement specifies another suit or suits, the Double is for takeout indicating that responder holds a minimum of something like AKxxx, AQJxx or KQJxx in the doubled suit. So it really means, 1) "Generally" does not represent the majority of players or modern trends. 2) The double by responder is most definitely part of the convention, or this is a paradox. Read parra 2 again a second way to understand the paradox. confusing?

well what can I say, carry on defending the excuses. My argument on leb is closed, unless someone convinces me which as I have already proved to be impossible. I am really saying that if Gib wants ACBL support, lets us put an end to novelty bridge here and play real contract bridge. Money (a lot of it) is changing hands here. We as paying members of the public should give our argument for real ACBL bridge standards. Can we all pull together to promote the game of "Contract Bridge"

You are most definitely setting standards. I wont have any arguments about that. Thousands of new and experienced players are playing with your robots every day. The future of modern bridge is in your hands, do the ACBL even realize that? My campaign is for higher and better standards, ones where we can have experts planning the sequences, and more choice of course.

You should go see how many hands should be doubled when Gib gives us leb, or how many hands have to be passed because double is not an option. Perhaps that even says something about your E/W Gib bidding, that we are not allowed to double. We have had countless feeds about that. One when I remember West psyched a false Capp bid, hopeless realy.

Phew, as I predicted this one is going to go on forever, so Im not going to get sucked into it indefinitely. My point is that is a tool, a poor one at that and explains why 2/1 can get such bad results when other options are better. Also Gib is totally misbidding 1NT openings, as I have already pointed out, with this convention, not to mention weak twos. You seem to agree with me on that. As for "modern trends" who is setting them, you? Do you even realize what a role you are playing? Sometimes trends head into an area where the "experts" want them to go in perhaps to fit their own agenda. It is new and good trends, not modern trends that are needed, If you want to bid well.

errr......doubly inefficient.

Oh for goodness sakes and you guys are the logical programmers? This is the sequence of events that occur after the 1NT opening. (leaving the pre-empts out of it) All other parts of 2/1 is now inconsequential. Should opps pass.......Staymen rules and Jacoby Transfers etc, universal conventions that work and work well. Should opps bid, they have conventions too, Now everything changes, all depending on what they bid and how well they are bidding it. Now leb comes into play. leb is an option that one chooses to use if one is playing it. However the controlling partner( the guy that didnt open) who knows that he is playing with 15-17 hcp and cards in every suit, must place the contract at its best location. How can doubling the opps at this point for punitive reasons not be an option, surely? So indeed this is all part of one the conventions and the system.

There is no point in being result driven here, as I didnt produce any hands. Sure it works on some hands, mostly I find for poor results with players really, however if I want to play with the house I must play the house way, so the results are inconsequential anyway. With Gib I don't have choice. Gib is really not allowing us to double for penalties, when opps make a poor overcall after 1 No openning. Responder is now the controlling hand, why are we not getting the penalty double we deserve, rather than wasting our time and effort with all this drivel about a convention named after who? Go on, argue your leb, I bet this one goes on for ever.

Perhaps one of the reasons it fails is that it really appears to be 2 completely different conventions combined into one. One for your strong No Trump opening and one for Pre-empts. Therefore one cannot generalize any argument. Simply because the club bid is artificial, does not blend the convention like Staymen does. It is not even named after anybody, read wiki on that. I am not saying it cannot work, I am the saying result does not justify the effort. It is a poorly written convention that should be separated anyway. Its is an option one can live without.

It is perfectly possible to play 2/1 without leb.

I really am not trying to make excuses here. I have no motive for that. I am merely trying to make a point about 2/1 bidding in general, and how it is managed by Gib.

Perhaps one of the reasons it fails is that it appears to be 2 conventions combined into one, occurring in different situations. confusing?

Yes, as I said "complicated and hard to learn" and usually not worth the reward. You know I once had a strong partner who gave me same or similar argument. This convention causes more argument than any other so carry on. When a few hands later he missed the leb, I knew it was time to find a new partner.

Robot bridge is fun, I have already commented on that. However, playing "best hand" is not really bridge, but novelty bridge. It gives one unauthorized information about the hidden cards, that should not exist at the bridge table. It effects the bidding and defense. But wait a minute, they giving away ACBL masterpoints here. Surely we should differentiate what is Contract bridge and what is Novelty bridge.

yes I get that, I have played before. If we open 1NT and opps make a poor overcall, what is the point of any convention that does not allow me to double them for penalty really? It really is a poor convention, bidding naturally and properly will have the same effect I assure you. Leb never helped me with anything, rather it places me too often in a poor suit contract, when NT was a better option, and doubling them was the best option? You you also need to rethink about when a take out double is take out and when a double is penalty. Perhaps a simple 2 level take out and 3 level penalty would be better.

Have it your way, opinion is what makes this a great game. If we all played the same way, what would be the point of Bridge? Perhaps I do not like 2/1 because it is the common system, That does not mean I should not learn it and play it to the best of my ability and use conventions that work best to my advantage.

Before I continue, and post notes that you may want or need allow me to explain that I too am guilty of making modifications to Wei’s Precision. I have modified some sequences and conventions in order to comply with the CP rule that first to bid is always blind, unless opens 1 club and does not return to NT. These have been done to very high standards, and comply with what many Precision writers have suggested in the past. First to bid is always blind If first bidder opens 1 club , it announces 16+ and that it controlling the bidding and is not blind. Responder now accepts that it is now the blind partner. However if the 1 club opener returns to NT it is balanced and limited and cannot take control, as it is really as blind as a bat (or perhaps a flying fox) . Responder must take back control. Try this, read up CC Wei on how to play Precision and try this, find a partner who can play Wei the Wei way and get on with playing. See its working already.

"After an overcall of a 1NT opening[edit] Lebensohl can be initiated by responder after partner has opened 1NT and right hand opponent (RHO) has overcalled with a suit bid at the two level: Responder’s Bid Meaning and Subsequent Bidding 2 of a higher ranking suit than overcaller’s Natural and non-forcing. 2NT A puppet bid (sometimes incorrectly called a “relay bid”), requiring opener to bid 3♣. After opener’s forced 3♣ bid: 3 of a lower ranking suit than overcaller’s is natural, to play. 3 of a higher ranking suit than overcaller’s is natural and invitational. 3 of overcaller’s suit is artificial: like Stayman, it asks opener to bid a 4-card major, but it also shows† a stopper in overcaller’s suit. 3NT is natural, to play, and shows† a stopper in overcaller’s suit. 3 of a suit other than overcaller’s Natural, forcing to game. 3 of overcaller’s suit Artificial: like Stayman, it asks opener to bid a 4-card major, but it also denies† a stopper in overcaller’s suit. 3NT Natural, to play, and denies† a stopper in overcaller’s suit. †These explanations assume the partnership has agreed that “slow shows”, i.e., that the slower sequences, which start with 2NT, show a stopper in overcaller’s suit, while the more direct sequences deny a stopper. It is also possible to agree the reverse—that “slow denies”, in which case the sequences which start with 2NT deny a stopper and the more direct sequences show one. Double of the overcall[edit] A Double by responder is not part of Lebensohl. However it forms part of the entire set of bids available to responder and its meaning is the subject of a partnership agreement. Usually its meaning is, in turn, dependent upon the meaning of the overcall and the meaning of the overcall can vary widely because there are a number of conventional systems available to an overcaller after a 1NT opening. Generally, a Double is for penalty. When the overcall is in a suit held by the overcaller, the double shows a decent non-game forcing hand with a four-card or very good three-card holding in the suit specified. It is for penalty (not game forcing) but opener may choose to bid 3NT based on information now or later available. When the overcall is in a suit, which by partnership agreement specifies another suit or suits, the Double is for takeout indicating that responder holds a minimum of something like AKxxx, AQJxx or KQJxx in the doubled suit. Other applications[edit] After a Weak-two[edit] After a Weak-two opening and a takeout double, Lebensohl is used to enable a better indication of the strength of the responder to the doubler. For example, after (2♠) – Dbl – (P): With 0-7 points 2NT is bid forcing a relay of 3♣. This is either passed or corrected to another suit. With 8-11 points suits are bid at the 3 level. With values for game it is bid. If there is space to bid a suit at the 2 level; e.g. after (2♥) – Dbl – (P) and the suit held is spades: With 0-7 points bid 2♠ With 8-11 points 2NT is bid forcing a relay of 3♣. Then 3♠ is bid showing the invite. 3♠ is now game forcing. With a very strong hand the doubler can by-pass 3♣. After a major is raised to the two level[edit] The same scheme can be played after the sequence: (1M) – P – (2M) – Dbl; (P) – ? or (1M) – Dbl – (2M) – ? After a non-game-forcing reverse[edit] After the sequence 1♦ – (P) – 1♠ – (P); 2♥ – (P) – ?: 2♠ shows a weak hand with spades 2NT shows a minimum hand and forces 3♣. Preference is usually then given for openers suits. Any other bid is now game forcing. This has the effect of saving space when responder wants to force game and show support." Wiki This is one I cannot get my head around. After years of arguing with partners, and watching opps argue with each other, I always prefer this convention to be "off" It is extremely complicated, hard to learn, and often missed or mistaken to be a natural bid. It appears to me that it really exists in order to punish with a punitive double, should the opponants make a poor bid. Gib does not understand that, and therefore makes the whole convention useless and unnecessary. One is better off bidding naturally.

"In contract bridge, Bergen raises are conventional treatments of responses to a major suit opening in a five-card major system.[1] Developed by Marty Bergen and first published in April 1982,[2] Bergen raises are based on the Law of total tricks, a hand evaluation concept which states that with a combined nine trumps in the partnership one should compete to at least the three-level regardless of combined high card strength. Bergen recommended that instead of the more rare occurrence in the use of the 3♣ and 3♦ response as a jump shift to show a strong hand, these bids should be redeployed to provide more precise information about the length and strength of support held by responder for partner's five-card major suit opening when responder has four-card support. Bergen raises are used in response to a 1♥ or 1♠ opening bid to show hands of specific length in trump support and strength as follows: 1NT followed by 3♥/3♠ on next round – invitational to game (typically 11-12 high card points) with three-card support 2♥/2♠ – weak (7-10 high card points) with three-card support 3♣ – weak (typically 7-10 high card points) with four-card support 3♦ – a limit raise (typically 11-12 high card points) with four-card support; invitational to game 3♥/3♠ – very weak (preemptive, typically less than 7 high card points) and four-card support 4♥/4♠ – very weak (preemptive, typically less than 7 high card points) and five-card support Over 3♣, Opener may sign off in trumps, but a bid of 3♦ asks partner to bid three of the major with a weaker hand, i.e. 7-8 points, or bid four with a stronger hand, i.e. 9-10 points. Many partnerships which employ Bergen raises also use Jacoby 2NT and splinter bids in response to major suit openings for game-forcing hands with trump support. A direct raise to game is then preemptive on a very shapely hand (often with five card trump support). Modifications to Bergen responses do exist. One such method (usually called Reverse Bergen) is to reverse the meanings of the two minor suit responses at the three level, thereby creating a system of responses that denote progressively weaker hands on subsequent bids." wiki Wouldn't it be nice if Gib gave us Marty's lovely convention, at least as an option.

Yes the Cue absolutely illogical, like answering a question with a question. When South Doubles it is forcing North for more information, especially looking for 4-4 in the unbid major. But he is blind to Norths hand, and needs to know Norths strength and long suits. The last thing he needs is a cue bid, that tells absolutely nothing and reverts control back to the blind hand who should not be making these decisions.