karlson Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 x Axxx AKJxx Axx 1st seat opens 2s. You double, and partner tries 2N (edit: standard lebensohl agreements). Enough for 3d? Do colors and scoring matter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 Is 2NT Lebensohl? If so, 3♣ is enough. Partner might be broke. If 2NT is not Lebensohl then you should bid 3♦. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 I'll squeeze out 3♦. Its only patently wrong when pard has a real bust with 5 clubs and 3♣ is the limit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fromageGB Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 3♣ all the time. LHO is unlimited, partner is marked with useless spades, playing in ♦ means you are ruffing in the long hand, playing in ♣ (if that is his suit) is much better. Also if he bids ♥ (why not ?) you'd kick yourself if partner passed a 3♦ bid, thinking you had a strong hand in diamonds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 I think it's close. So many controls! But I'll stick with the chicken 3♣ for now. I still don't know p's intentions on the hand. 3♦ for me would show an additional Q for me in one of the suits besides spades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 3D I doubled showing hearts, and I have a really good hand and really good diamonds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 3♣ for me, if you call partner's range 0-8 then our combined range is 17-24, so I don't see why this is a problem. Sure our hand is nice, but if partner passes then we are our worst suit anyway, and if he bids another suit we can decide to raise then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 3♣ for me, if you call partner's range 0-8 then our combined range is 17-24, so I don't see why this is a problem. Sure our hand is nice, but if partner passes then we are our worst suit anyway, and if he bids another suit we can decide to raise then. Me too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karlson Posted April 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 I thought it was reasonably close, but also went with 3♣. Partner passed and tabled AT9x xx xx QTxxx. I was very happy to avoid 3N, but since it was destined to make on the layout, I was a bit worried (it was teams, short matches). Another Q seems like an easy 3♦. I don't see why this should cause me to miss hearts when partner has them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted April 9, 2008 Report Share Posted April 9, 2008 I have minimum values! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmat Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 I thought it was reasonably close, but also went with 3♣. Partner passed and tabled AT9x xx xx QTxxx. I was very happy to avoid 3N, but since it was destined to make on the layout, I was a bit worried (it was teams, short matches). Another Q seems like an easy 3♦. I don't see why this should cause me to miss hearts when partner has them. you mean p didn't make a penalty pass with AT9x? :) 3♣ for me too... it's not like i have substantial extras or a self-sufficient suit. why distort the hand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Agree with Josh, 3♣ and dont see this as that tough a call Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 3♣ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 I'm gonna risk a 3♦ bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
655321 Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Agree with 3♣, but I do think it is quite close, and would not criticize 3♦. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 3♣ for me, and I don't think it's really close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 3♣, not close. Partner is about 0-7 in my book, so I will need considerably more to bid something other than 3♣. Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilkaz Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 3♣ for me, wanting just a bit more for 3♦ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 I still agree with 3♣ but in fairness there is one good argument for 3♦ that I don't think has been mentioned. If partner is 3-4 or 4-4 in the minors then we reach a better suit (though likely at a higher level?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Am I the only one who likes to use 3♦ artificial in this auction? Suppose you have a "normal takeout double" with a lot of extras, something like: ♠Ax♥KQxx♦AQx♣AKxx You could've bid 3NT, but you doubled because you want to find the potential 4-4 or 5-4 heart fit. So you double and partner predictably bids 2NT lebensohl. This shows 0-7 or 0-8 or something, but much of that range is still enough for game opposite your hand. So you don't really want to bid 3♣ and hear partner pass. If you bid 3NT now, partner won't know if you have four hearts or three hearts or maybe even two hearts, so again you miss all those nice heart fits. Presumably 3♥ would show five hearts (and extras) and 3♠ is forcing but seems unlikely to induce partner to bid 3NT without a spade stopper when he has no major. I like 3♦ as an artificial force to solve this problem -- partner bids 3♥ with a heart suit or 3NT with a spade stopper and no heart suit, or 3♠ lacking either. The only real loss is the "flexible hand with diamonds" where you can of course bid 3♦ anyway over lebensohl (it is forcing after all) or bid 3♠ if you have only three hearts and mostly want to get to 3NT if partner has a spade control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 An italian friend showed me something here called reverse lebenshol, Where 2NT shows limit or more values, and bidding shows nothing. after 2NT doubler would bid 3♣ as minimum, and 3♦ as GF opposite limit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 An italian friend showed me something here called reverse lebenshol, Where 2NT shows limit or more values, and bidding shows nothing. after 2NT doubler would bid 3♣ as minimum, and 3♦ as GF opposite limit. Sounds like a variant of Rubinsohl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.