Echognome

Thanks all for your replies. I asked this question because of an article in the current acbl magazine. You can see the discussion about it here: http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=3958 I personally do not see why we would assume lebensohl applies to 2-suited overcalls in the same way that it applies to 1-suited overcalls. Would we apply the same defense to a natural 2♥ as we would to an Ekren 2♥? I certainly wouldn't! I might apply the same defense to a Lucas 2♥, but not an Ekren 2♥. So I don't think it's clear at all that I would assume the same agreement. Let's take it to the extreme. Suppose the opponents played 2♥ as 3-suited short diamonds. Would one assume that 3NT denied stoppers in ♠, ♥, and ♣?? If that sounds ridiculous, where is it clear to draw the line?

This is kind of a weird question. Suppose you have only agreed "standard lebensohl" with "slow shows". Partner opens a strong NT and RHO overcalls 2♥ showing both majors. What would you assume 3NT meant?

Yes. Forcing through 2♦ same as mikeh. I'm not claiming it's best, but seems to work out in practice.

Which I believe is 3♥....

Happy Birthday Clee! Party like it's 2009.

A very belated happy birthday to the young gun.

Gratis pa fodelsedagen!

I never learned the "traditional" way and always have played it as 18-19 (or in some cases 17-19) bal.

5♦ next as I'm willing to drive to slam now. I will bid 5♠ over 5♥ and 5NT over 5♠. Up to partner now.

The support double was invented by Eric Rodwell. I don't know whether or not he based it on the Law, but I think it's pretty presumptuous to think he did.

Pretty much agreeing with the others. If I'm only worth one call (which is a pretty narrow range) and I'm generally a 3-suiter (perhaps I have Hx in the other minor, but typically at least xxx), then I will double. Otherwise, I'm generally overcalling and doubling back in.

It's also less likely that opener would push on freely to 5♥ with defensive spade values. I was wondering whether I wanted to start initially with the ♠Q at trick 1 or whether I felt that was too dangerous. It's certainly too dangerous if partner has the ♣A, but I think the bidding makes that unlikely.

1. I'm going to buck the trend and pass. It's not that I'm worried about getting in trouble with bidding, but rather worried about giving away my hand on defense when it's unlikely we will win the auction. 2. 5-5 GF with the rest of the folks. I will cue up to once above game. 3. 2♣ seems clear, after the reopening double, I will redouble and correct a ♥ bid from partner to spades. Of course I'm not really sure what happens next. 4. I lead an unimaginative ♣K.

There's an option button to "Kibitzer partner while dummy." That should do the trick.

Is it supposed to follow that since you play them too these aren't bad methods? I would have thought the converse. :(

If I made a forward move, I'd bid 5♠. I'm not reshowing my heart control again (despite it being the A). I think I will pass however. Harald gave an example of the 5-level being unsafe.

[sOAPBOX] The big problem with losing trick count, high card count, or whatever count is that it's a static evaluation of a dynamic problem. You come up with a "value" for your hand based on some measure and consider your hand in isolation of everything else that is going on. You then assign a guess of a similar measure from your partner based on what you have heard thus far and then think this is a good tool to examine the combined value of the two hands? Why not just consider the problem more fluidly. You can consider things like: Honor location Fitting values Extra trump length Useful shortness Offensive vs defensive holdings etc. Notice that when the good bidders give reasons for their choices, they are based on knowledge from the entire auction (including opponents) as well as how their hand has increased in value or decreased in value based on the auction. Can you tell me how losing trick count increases in value or decreases in value based on the auction? If not, then how can we possibly consider it a useful guide for bidding decisions? [/sOAPBOX]

♦ for me. I can be talked into a ♣ though. My guess at the shapes is 6=1=4=2 on my left (with a stiff honor) and 1=7=2=3 on my right. Just a guess.

When given this problem I bid 4♥. I am assuming the stfu period is over. :)

Agree, 1♣ - 1♥ 2♣ - 2♦ (most play as ART) 2♥ - 2♠ 2NT - 3NT Seems like a good auction to me.

What would 2NT have meant by South? Not that it really matters. I don't like 3♥ on the North hand despite the 6th trump. Pretty flattish hand with a secondary honor in each suit (more defensive oriented). South should have bid 2NT with his hand, because then he could have shut up for the rest of the auction having bid his hand. It's hard to judge more than that without really knowing what 2♦ showed in terms of high cards or what 3♥ showed in terms of offensive and defensive values.

We've made 3 calls to describe our hand and have been quite fortunate to be able to do so accurately. Dare I say a WTP hand?

I would just bid 3NT on both hands.

I hope the real ploy was to get Jeffrey to start contributing to these threads regularly. That would be worth something.

Average high school student from what country? Given worldwide populations, it reasons that the "average" high school student will come from China or India. :)