mich-b

I think it makes sense to go bid 4D with all Diamond fit hands , keeping both 4C (5-5) and 4NT(quant) as natural and forward going.

A lead problem from yesterday : (IMPs , good opps) [hv=d=e&v=e&s=sthq72dkjt865ct74]133|100|Scoring: IMP 4♠-P-4NT-P 5♠-P-6♠-X All Pass[/hv] (5♠ showed 2/5 KeyCards+♠Q) So what do you lead?

This is surely standard in Lebensohl when we opened 1NT. But , Is surely non-standard (I think most play this as about 9-11). Looks like we have to accept there is a difference between Lebensohl after opening 1NT , and Lebensohl after a weak 2 , right? And since we don't have a GF ♥ bid, when they opened 2♠, maybe we dont need a GF ♠ bid when they opened 2♥?

I am curious how others play the following sequences (within a Lebensohl context): 1. 2♥ - DBL - P - 3♠ 2. 2♥ - DBL - P - 2NT P - 3♣ -P - 3♠ The second is normally played as invitational. So is the first one forcing (like with Lebensohl when we opened 1NT)? Or just a stronger invitation? or an invitation without a ♥ stopper? or something else?

[hv=d=s&v=e&s=saj9h6da63caq9863]133|100|Scoring: IMP 1♣ 4♠ P P ?[/hv] You opened 1♣ favourable , LHO overcalled 4♠ What would you do now? Would different vulnerability affect your decision?

I would suggest that we remove the "SAYC / 2/1 ambiguity" temporarily, by considering the sequence 1♥ 1♠ 2♦ 2NT 3♠ I play this as forcing , and think this would be a popular position. (This obviously has nothing to do with playing SAYC or 2/1). Now , since in the original sequence , responder showed the same (invitational)values , and never implied that his 1st suit is longer than 4 cards, I would suggest that 3♣ in the OPs hand is forcing as well.

small ♦. Hoping for something like Ax or Kx in partner's hand.

Answer 1 : without special agreements, I would probably select 2NT, reluctantly. My Suggestion : In this sequence (4SF after opener rebid 1♠) play 2♠ by opener as showing exactly this hand (no conveniet rebid) , and if you happen to have a 6-5 , jump to 3♠. Answer 2 : That is a possible agreement , but I think showing 4 cards in the 4th suit is more important. I only use the "raise" as neutral , if I denied holding the suit previously, like : 1C- 1D; 1S - 2H; 3H Answer 3 : This style has been gaining popularity, but personally I dont like it, mainly because I would hate to miss the ♠ fit when responder is weakish with 4423, 4522 or similar.

How about trying to regulate the use of destructive conventions , by changes to the scoring rules of the game of Bridge , rather than by regulations imposed by organizations? I mean , for example change the scoring of the game so that 1. If a pair goes down 4 or more tricks (maybe 3 tricks on the 1 level) , the contract is automatically considered doubled. Or : 2. If a pair reaches a suit contract with 5 or less trumps between them, and then go down , the penalty is automatically doubled. I realize that better , or more precise suggestions may be made, I was just trying to show where I am aiming. It seems to me that once such scoring changes are applied , the "anything goes" crowd can be free to design systems quite freely, because the very need they will have to arrive to reasonable contracts , will prevent them to use too much of destructiveness . On the other hand they will be free to do whatever they like within the rules of the game. The various federations will no longer have to devote much effort to system regulation, because the bizzare , destructive, hard to defend against systems will become unplayable. The (Many) "let us play normal bridge" players , will be able to play the game as they love it , because the scoring changes will have only a little effect on them. So, does anybody think there is any merit in this?