Lebensohl agreements

[csdenmark]

As to competitive hands, I think the idea is to distinguish between:

 

(1)

 

♠xxx

♥AQxxx

♦xxx

♣Kx

 

(2)

 

♠xxx

♥AQxxx

♦xxx

♣xx

 

The first hand may well make game opposite a takeout double. But with only nine points and balanced shape, bidding game is rather pushy. We'd like to encourage partner to raise 3♥ to game though, if he has a bit more than a minimum takeout double. For example partner might hold:

 

(3)

 

♠Ax

♥Kxxx

♦Kxx

♣Axxx

 

(4)

♠xx

♥KJxx

♦KQx

♣QJxx

 

The point is that re-opening 1♠-X-2♠-P-P-X, the second double should show real extras. So we can't afford to pass with good competitive hands like (2) as there are many hands where both sides can make a partial yet partner is passing out 2♠, like takeout double (3). On the other hand, we also can't really make the same 3♥ bid on both (1) and (2) since partner needs to know that opposite (1) he can bid game with mild extras like takeout double (3) whereas opposite (2) he is supposed to pass unless he has "serious" extras. And we can't really just bid game on hand (1) because we will quite often fail opposite a true minimum takeout double like (4).

 

Of course, we could probably use double to make this distinction, and the issue is more critical when we have hearts since game in hearts is more likely on the bidding than game in notrump. But it seems useful at least in the case of bidding hearts at the three level over 2♠ to be able to distinguish a six-count from a nine-count.

I have no intensions to discuss your sequences. Makes no sense. You are on a wrong track.

[gwnn]

Claus,...

 

http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2000...ingAtBridge.ZIP

or?

http://www.acbl.org/learn/ltpb.html

but maybe this would be more appropriate?

http://tinyurl.com/2chn7u

[cherdano]

but maybe this would be more appropriate?

http://tinyurl.com/2chn7u

Yeah we should invite Claus for a visit.