OleBerg

No standard as such. A good general agreement on "choice of games vs good raise" principles will be handy in any partnership. In my partnership 4♦ is automatic.

That would be standard. I play it as only 10+ though. In part because opener has an artificial GF in 2NT available on the second round. So openers secom bid shows a minimum, and responder will rarely need to establish more than a one-round-force.

(3♣) - ? [hv=d=e&v=n&s=sq107ha1087543djca8]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=39185

If GF has been established (2/1), then I would find 3♦ easy.

I must be as wacky as they come. On the first round, I would open 3♦. If my partner had no sense of humour whatsoever, and I had a weak 2♦ available, I would try that. Might seem to rich for most people, but I am third hand favourable, so partner should not run amok. Even if he overcompetes with 4♦ on a three card suit, or 5♦ on a four card suit, we might get away with it. They might bid, when we are way overboard, or they might forget to double, or they might misdefend (Typically by not leading thrumphs.) Having opened with 1♦, 3♦ is the one bid I will definitely not make. North has already described his hand fairly accurately, by not bidding 2♦. And they still have the 3♥ gametry available. By bidding 3♦ I confirm that our fit is real, and not just implied. I consider this information to be more valuable to the opponents, than missin a few nuances in the invites is detrimental. So it is either a sneaky pass, or a 4♦ preempt. And yes, I know I am masterminding (a thing I generally hate, especially when partner does it), but I already took that road, when I opened 1♦. After the session, the merit of the ambigious 2♣-agreement will be scrutinized. And finally; if I was asked to take the chair of a player that bid 3♦ after 2♠, I would pass 4♠. Bidding on might be right, but the opponents will have all the information they need to do the right thing.

1♦ - 2♣ 2♦ - 2♠ 2NT - 3♣ 3NT/Pass Honest.

3½♦

If you bid 3♥ with only "opening hands which could not act directly over 2♠) ie. something like: Axx KJxxx KJx xx you lose the purpose of lebensohl in my opinion as partner will be lost if he has normal t/o double with say 15hcp (as you are now 0-11 basically). I think those hands should just bid game. If partner has some shape those games will have some play. But those 15(+) hands are less frequent. Sometimes preempts works. What you have to do is minimize the damage. Edit: Thats why I am 10.5-11 as responder to a reopening double.

I am 2.5. I expect partner to reopen om a decent 10-count, so I would definitely like to have a way to tell him to raise with a decent 14.

Robson and Segal did when they wrote "Partnership bidding in bridge".

1) 2♣, but I could easily be persuaded to pass. 2) 3♦ WTP?

At a glance this might look like a toss-up.. But there is one really good reason not to double. You take away partners chance to double for a heart lead. So a large post in the cost/benefit analasys, is the games that slip home, because we didn't lead the heart, that partner might have requested.

Seems obviously simple.

Like others have said; X invites us to the party. If partner had either taken a stab or simply wanted to penalize the opponents, he would have passed. 5♥ seems like a good call.

I don't care. On the plus side, it is -1 at most, and might easily make. On the minus side, 5♦ might not be the standard contract, which could make -200 look a little silly. And I would consider 4♦ to be as strong as any other possible bid.

I consider this extremely close. So I choose the option that will not upset my partner if it backfires. With my regular partner, that would be pass. Should I one day face a partner that didn't care, I'd double, just for the fun of it.

One of the following has to apply: 1) We have forced to game via a cuebid or a conventional constructive agreement. 2) We are red vs white, and we have bid game via the strongest possible route. 3) We have invited game constructively (That is; an opener facing 10+) and the opponents are at the 5-level. 4) We have opened 2♣. (Gameforce or 20-21 bal.) A fitbid NEVER establishes a forcing pass. #2 refers to the bid actually taking us to game level : So; 1♠ - (Pass) - 3♣* - (4♥) 4♠ * = 6-9 and four card-support. Would be forcing red vs white, as the 4♠ bidder had no stronger option. And yes, it can go wrong, but so can not playing it as forcing.

Unimaginative indeed, but probably right. If my agreements for double over 1NT were slightly more conservative, I would bid 4♠. (I might even bid it vs some opponents.)

Indeed you are correct (or rather; would be, facing a regular expert partner.) On a somewhat funny note: In the late 80's you could see sequences, in Denmark, like this: Red vs Red 1♥ - (1♠) - 4♥ - (4♠) Now both sides would be in a forcing situation.

I like to play FP then. Probably in a forum minority on this issue. Limit+ values and them on the 5 level is FP (even after a 2/1 in competition). I play that too. (I also play pass as forcing, when we are red vs white, have bid game, and no alternative route was available, like: 1♠ - (4♥) - 4♠)

My favourite agreement would be: Non-forcing against some opponents, forcing against others. My partner is not into such things, so we play it non-forcing. (Such matters would become even more delicate, if you try to distinguish betweem the raiser being a passed hand and not.) Anyway, 5♥ is my bid. If I had the option of a pass-pull, I wouldn't use it.

Example: 1♦ - (1♠) - Pass - (Pass) X - (Pass) - 1NT = Lebensohl Any takers? Why/Why not?

I wouldn't, but I agree with the meaning of the bid.

Obvious 2♥.