Funny Hand

[rogerclee]

IMPs, All Red, Fourth Seat

 

♠98x ♥Ax ♦J97xx ♣T8x

 

(1♠) - Dbl - (2♦) - P

(2♠) - Dbl - (P) - ?

 

If it is relevant to you, at the table, 1♠ was actually 11-15HCP and RHO bid 2♣, a transfer to diamonds.

[OleBerg]

2NT, Lebensohl.

[Codo]

I would bid Lebensohl and 3 Diamond- at the table with a bigger confidence that 2 Diamond was a joke or 2 club a messed up sequence.

When I know my opponents and belive that they really have diamonds, I try Lebensohl and pass 3 club.

[whereagles]

I think pard has a big hand. He might well be 3424 or similar. I'll just pass.

[louisg]

"If it is relevant to you, at the table, 1♠ was actually 11-15HCP and RHO bid 2♣, a transfer to diamonds."

 

I think it's very relevant. In the problem as given, I'd have doubled 2D last round and gotten this off my chest. In the ATT problem, this double might not have been available (since it would probably be taken to show clubs). I have to bid 3C now, expecting partner to have something resembling a big 1=4=3=5.

[gnasher]

2NT, minors.

 

I too would have doubled a natural 2♦ response.

[louisg]

Well, we now have votes for 2NT (minors) and 2NT (lebensohl). Does the OP have an agreement for what 2NT would have meant for him? I certainly wouldn't want to risk bidding it without an agreement.....

 

Edit: By the way, I personally wouldn't use lebensohl in this auction, but why can't 2NT be natural? What else do you bid with something like Qxx xxx Qxxx Kxx? A penalty pass is very risky, 3C doesn't express your values, and 3NT seems like too much.

[Apollo81]

This is pretty disgusting. I would bid 3♣ at the table.

[whereagles]

Edit: By the way, I personally wouldn't use lebensohl in this auction, but why can't 2NT be natural?

 

(...) What else do you bid with something like Qxx xxx Qxxx Kxx? A penalty pass is very risky, 3C doesn't express your values, and 3NT seems like too much.

2NT cannot be lebenshol because you already had the chance to bid a lebenshol 2NT over 2♦. So 2NT must be either scrambling (i.e. minors) or natural.

 

In line with the theory that "2NT in competition should never be natural", I'd define it as scrambling. Note that I'm not saying this is the best use for the bid; only that it's the use I would give it.

[ArtK78]

It seems to me that 2NT should be natural in this auction. I would bid 3♣ on the problem as posed.

 

And I would have doubled 2♦ earlier on the problem as posed.

[hanp]

I don't like lebensohl here, both scrambling and natural seems more useful. And suppose that we did play lebensohl, wouldn't an ace and a 5-card suit be enough not to use it?

 

I bid 2NT scrambling, partner should expect longer diamonds than clubs.

[jdonn]

I bid 2NT scrambling, partner should expect longer diamonds than clubs.

Don't you mean longer clubs than hearts? They bid diamonds. I mean if they psyched they psyched, but I'm not sure diamonds should be part of the equation here.

 

In any case I also bid 2NT scrambling. Whether partner thinks diamonds are involved or not we will be fine.

[ArtK78]

I don't like lebensohl here, both scrambling and natural seems more useful. And suppose that we did play lebensohl, wouldn't an ace and a 5-card suit be enough not to use it?

 

I bid 2NT scrambling, partner should expect longer diamonds than clubs.

Are we playing adjective bridge? You can attached one adjective to any bid that you make.

 

"Scrambling" 2NT.

 

"Penalty" double.

 

etc.

 

:rolleyes:

[gnasher]

2NT, minors.

Sorry - 2NT, scrambling. I'd temporarily forgotten that hearts rank below spades.

 

I think partner will assume hearts and clubs, but cater for the possibility that we belong in diamonds. That is, with a 2443 shape he'll bid 3♦ rather than 3♥. I don't think we'll get to diamonds opposite 1444 or 2434.

[hanp]

I don't like lebensohl here, both scrambling and natural seems more useful. And suppose that we did play lebensohl, wouldn't an ace and a 5-card suit be enough not to use it?

 

I bid 2NT scrambling, partner should expect longer diamonds than clubs.

Are we playing adjective bridge? You can attached one adjective to any bid that you make.

 

"Scrambling" 2NT.

 

"Penalty" double.

 

etc.

 

:rolleyes:

I play it as scrambling, I thought that was clear from my post. I do not know what standard is in this auction. Actually, I suspect that there may not be a standard.

[OleBerg]

I still say 2NT should/could be Lebensohl.

 

When the 2♣-transfer (or 2♦) bid can be made with very few points, our bidding has to be constructive on 2♦.

 

Thus, if we had bid the first time, it would have shown genuine fit, and a little more than we have now.

 

Partner will still need to know how strong we are, in the context of our first pass.

 

With a fourth club, I would have bid a "good 3♣".

 

It certainly has it's merit to play 2NT as natural or scrambling, but under me agreement: "If it can be Lebensohl - then it is" that's how I would interpret it.

[MFA]

For me, 2NT would be scrambling. Which is (of course) fair to discuss the merit of.

We have the general agreement that whenever 2NT was lebensohl on the previous round then 2NT is scrambling now. At least it's an agreement.

[Phil]

2N should be Lebensohl when they've bid two five card suits.

 

Why do we need a bid to say, I have two places to play, when there are only two places to play?

 

3♣.

[ASkolnick]

I have no idea what 2N is, but it is right.

 

If partner takes it as Natural, OK.

If he takes at as minors, if he picks the right one OK.

Even if it is scrambling, he may realize there is no fit and pass.

[hanp]

2N should be Lebensohl when they've bid two five card suits.

1S - Dbl - 2H - p

2S - Dbl - p - 2NT

 

This has no use as scrambling? Lebensohl seems rather useless to me.

[jdonn]

2N should be Lebensohl when they've bid two five card suits.

 

Why do we need a bid to say, I have two places to play, when there are only two places to play?

Because I don't know which one I want to play in? I don't understand how you reached your conclusion.

[Apollo81]

FWIW I would take 2NT as natural if I were doubler

[Phil]

2N should be Lebensohl when they've bid two five card suits.

 

Why do we need a bid to say, I have two places to play, when there are only two places to play?

Because I don't know which one I want to play in? I don't understand how you reached your conclusion.

I reached my conclusion because there's more utility in 2N being used to parse hands that pass over 2♦ but want to show some values versus hands that are busted.

 

When responder has equal length in the unbid suits, you will get to the longer fit.

 

When responder needs to show a six count versus a yarb, I will be able to clarify better than you.

 

I hope you appreciate the tradeoff here.

[jdonn]

I didn't say your conclusion was wrong, just that I don't know how you reached it. You claimed:

 

There are only two potential places to play

therefore

We don't need a bid to show two places to play

 

And for the life of me I still don't see how that follows.

 

I agree there is a tradeoff, one of us can get to the better fit and one of us can distinguish strength. That is a much more reasonable thing to say than your prior post. I do not agree with han that lebensohl is useless, I just think it's less useful. All either of us can have here is our opinion, no one can really present much evidence of anything.

[Fluffy]

2NT is the contract I wanna play, why not try to play it?, worst possible thing is that partner bids 3♣ with his almost known 5 card suit. I don't think he is not passing with 3424.