What was wrong?

[4321]

SAYC, IMPs, NS (BBO, Hand 5, 24.09.10 turned on 180)

T82_AKQ5_AKJ983_- -------- AJ54_J62_Q4_AQ85

 

1♦ -- 1♠

2♥ -- 3♣!

3♠ -- 4NT

6♣ -- 6♠

pass

 

3♣ = 4th suit, not discussed,

6♣ = void with two key cards.

[Free]

The bidding up to 3♠ is fine, up to 6♣ it's acceptable, but bidding 6♠ is absolutely awful! Opener only showed a 3 card ♠ (patterning out), after 6♣ you know opener has a 3=4=6=0 so you can just signoff in 6♦ or 6NT.

[bucky]

I would bid 3♦ after 3♣. But I also don't understand why South wants to commit to spade contract with weak spades and known 4-3 fit.

 

How about:

1♦ -- 1♠

2♥ -- 3NT

4♦ -- 5NT

6♦

3NT shows 11-14, 5NT = pick-a-slam

 

If your method requires 3♣ bid instead, then:

1♦ -- 1♠

2♥ -- 3♣!

3♦ -- 4♦

4♥ -- 4♠

5♥ -- 6♣

6♦

[ONEferBRID]

I agree with Bucky's comments.

 

Since 3C! over the Reverse is "forward going " ( essentially a GF ) and denies 5 cards Sp, I would prefer to see a 3D rebid by Opener to show the 4h/6d holding.

 

And when Minor suits are involved in a GF auction I would prefer Minorwood

( 4D!) as RKC .

If you have to resort to 4NT as RKC , you might as well just directly bid slam since too often the replies are ABOVE 5m anyway.

[gwnn]

1D-1S

2H-4N

6D-p

[quiddity]

I think the 3♣ bid should tend to deny a fifth spade - with a fifth spade responder will usually rebid 2♠ which is forcing, though ambiguous in strength. So I think opener should not bid 3♠ with 3 small spades but instead should show the extra diamond length.

[Free]

Why does 3♣ (tend to) deny a 5 card ♠? Since when is 2♠ forcing? :) There are several ways to play this, so it's not clearcut. I always thought 2♠ was NF so 3♣ is general forcing to find the best strain (including ♠).

[JLOGIC]

655!

[P_Marlowe]

SAYC, IMPs, NS (BBO, Hand 5, 24.09.10 turned on 180)

T82_AKQ5_AKJ983_- -------- AJ54_J62_Q4_AQ85

 

1♦ -- 1♠

2♥ -- 3♣!

3♠ -- 4NT

6♣ -- 6♠

pass

 

3♣ = 4th suit, not discussed,

6♣ = void with two key cards.

Hi,

 

#1 3S in the given auction shows only 3 cards, i.e. the 6S response

was done knowing, that the partnership has only 7 spades in the

combined hands, basically opener denied 4 spades with his 2H bid.

#2 Responder should have bid 3NT instead of 4NT, 3NT in this seq.

showes at least inv. strength, say at least 10HCP, responder was

not interested in a club stoper, and also not interested in 3 card

support for his major.

#3 Assuming responder bids 3NT, opener can and should bid 4D, that

should show the shape, 6-4-3-0 and slam interest, responder will than

drive to 6D.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[ONEferBRID]

  Since when is 2♠ forcing?  :blink: 

 

I realize that 2S is a weak bid in Leb1 and Leb 2.... but that is NOT the case in Leb3 ( Lebensohl over OUR Reverses) :

 

1m - 1S

2H - 2S

 

This sequence comes under a "unique case" category.

 

Both in Ingerberman and Lebensohl3 ( Ron Anderson's 1987 book: The Lebensohl Convention Complete ) .. 2S is forcing... in fact it is game forcing.

( Sure, other interpretations abound .. so you really have to have a firm understanding with your partner ).

 

Note:

-- The forcing 2S rebid ( showing 5+ ) ONLY occurs after a 2H Reverse.

( ie. a similar situation with Hts does not exist ).

 

--Unfortuately, you can't "get out" in 2S.

2NT! ( Lebensohl) is the only "weakness alert". You could get out at the 3-level with a weak 6+ card suit by employing 2NT! first... ugh.... but this holding is probably better served with a WJS ( 1m - 2S! ).

 

--"2S" is also a "weakness alert" bid when it is NOT a rebidded suit but is the 4th suit in the "special 2D-Reverse" cases ( after a 1C open ):

1C - 1H

2D - 2S! (= Lebensohl; whereas 2NT and other suit bids are forcing )

likewise:

1C - 1S

2D - 2H! (= Lebensohl; whereas 2NT and other suit bids are forcing )

[P_Marlowe]

Why does 3♣ (tend to) deny a 5 card ♠? Since when is 2♠ forcing? :blink: There are several ways to play this, so it's not clearcut. I always thought 2♠ was NF so 3♣ is general forcing to find the best strain (including ♠).

Dont start the discussion, if 2S is forcing or not.

 

Playing 2S as NF is a Europan thing, and even in Europe it is not univearsal,

it may also be forcing playing French style reverses, but 2S is forcing in NA,

..., dont ask me why.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[hanp]

Both in Ingerberman and Lebensohl3 ( Ron Anderson's 1987 book: The Lebensohl Convention Complete ) .. 2S is forcing... in fact it is game forcing.

I seriously doubt Ron Anderson recommended 2S to be game forcing, that doesn't make any sense.

[ONEferBRID]

Both in Ingerberman and Lebensohl3 ( Ron Anderson's 1987 book: The Lebensohl Convention Complete ) .. 2S is forcing... in fact it is game forcing.

I seriously doubt Ron Anderson recommended 2S to be game forcing, that doesn't make any sense.

Ron Anderson gives 2 examples in his treatise:

 

First he states ( for the cases NOT involving a 2D reverse ):

" 1) .... 2NT! by responder is artificial and forces opener to rebid 3C..."

 

" 2) Any response other than 2NT! is natural, constructive and game-forcing."

 

The 2 examples:

a) 1D - 1S - 2H - ?

 

"A108762 A9 109 Q63

Bid 2S.  Game-forcing."

or

"J109643 87 J6 QJ2

Bid 2NT!. Lebensohl. Follow with 3S, signoff. (You can't get out in 2S.)"

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

and

b ) 1C - 1S - 2H - ?

 

"AQJ96 Q84 53 J62

Bid 2S.  Game-forcing. It's fine to rebid a good 5-card major suit after opener's reverse; Kx in opener's hand would certainly be adequate trump support."

 

or

" AJ532 K3 74 J832

Bid 3C. Game-forcing values with good club fit."

[Free]

Why does 3♣ (tend to) deny a 5 card ♠?  Since when is 2♠ forcing?  :blink:  There are several ways to play this, so it's not clearcut. I always thought 2♠ was NF so 3♣ is general forcing to find the best strain (including ♠).

Dont start the discussion, if 2S is forcing or not.

That's exactly why I said it's not clearcut, there are several ways to play it, and what I think is the way most play it. :blink:

 

I believe we already had some discussion about repeating your suit at 2-level after a reverse(maybe not when the rebid is ♥). Gwnn? ;)

[Phil]

Both in Ingerberman and Lebensohl3 ( Ron Anderson's 1987 book: The Lebensohl Convention Complete ) .. 2S is forcing... in fact it is game forcing.

I seriously doubt Ron Anderson recommended 2S to be game forcing, that doesn't make any sense.

Why are we treating a book written in the 1980's as gospel?

 

Treating 2♠ as GF is so LOL.

[gwnn]

come on people there was a thread with posts less than a week ago, do I really have to do all the searching around here?

[ONEferBRID]

Both in Ingerberman and Lebensohl3 ( Ron Anderson's 1987 book: The Lebensohl Convention Complete ) .. 2S is forcing... in fact it is game forcing.

I seriously doubt Ron Anderson recommended 2S to be game forcing, that doesn't make any sense.

Why are we treating a book written in the 1980's as gospel?

 

Treating 2♠ as GF is so LOL.

Well, here is one from 1998:

 

http://www.cs.sfu.ca/~bbart/personal/articles/lebensohl.html.

 

Brad Bart's Synopsis of Lebensohl

 

Lebensohl over Reverses

 

1♣-1♠-2♥-2♠

Natural and nonforcing...

 

 

Also, Karen Walker treats the above 2S rebid as nonforcing.

 

Ok... is everyone happy now?

[bucky]

Ron Anderson gives 2 examples in his treatise:

 

First he states ( for the cases NOT involving a 2D reverse ):

" 1) .... 2NT! by responder is artificial and forces opener to rebid 3C..."

 

" 2) Any response other than 2NT! is natural, constructive and game-forcing."

 

The 2 examples:

a) 1D - 1S - 2H - ?

 

"A108762 A9 109 Q63

Bid 2S.  Game-forcing."

or

"J109643 87 J6 QJ2

Bid 2NT!. Lebensohl. Follow with 3S, signoff. (You can't get out in 2S.)"

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

and

b ) 1C - 1S - 2H - ?

 

"AQJ96 Q84 53 J62

Bid 2S.  Game-forcing. It's fine to rebid a good 5-card major suit after opener's reverse; Kx in opener's hand would certainly be adequate trump support."

 

or

" AJ532 K3 74 J832

Bid 3C. Game-forcing values with good club fit."

I vaguely remember that someone on the forum also suggested same treatment: use 1D - 1S - 2H - 2S as GF with 5+ spades, 2NT followed by 3S as NF bid. I am sure it has advantage on some hands (so is the treatment for non-forcing 2S), but you won't be well placed with a weak hand, 5 spades, and tolerance to diamonds. 2S as one-round force is more flexible: if partner doesn't support spades, you can get out at 3♦. In a way this makes more sense, since when partner reverses, he is prepared for you to take preference to 3♦, but not necessarily 3♠ contract.

[2Macchiato]

SAYC, IMPs, NS (BBO, Hand 5, 24.09.10 turned on 180)

T82_AKQ5_AKJ983_- -------- AJ54_J62_Q4_AQ85

 

1♦ -- 1♠

2♥ -- 3♣!

3♠ -- 4NT

6♣ -- 6♠

pass

 

3♣ = 4th suit, not discussed,

6♣ = void with two key cards.

First 4 bids fine. 3S is OK but since partner has now committed to game (he didn't bid 2S/2N/3D or 3H) 3D is better. You can follow up with 4S later to totally pattern out your hand (surely consistent with a 3460 shape having (a) reversed (b.) bid the 4 card side suit and (c.) shown latent spade support for a potential 4c holding in partner's hand.

 

So, over 3D you might reason partner could:

 

1. Reluctantly support your hearts

2. Bid 3N (a reasonable assumption)

3. Raise the Diamonds (he might have more than a doubleton, or here an excellent Qx)

 

I like 4D now from partner - this gives you room to move forward - you surely only have 3 black cards and he holds at least 2 controls. You should reach a good 6D contract (but, given his J ♥ 6NT is the top spot... in all probability a simple 6D over your 4H cue is enough.

[peachy]

Why does 3♣ (tend to) deny a 5 card ♠?  Since when is 2♠ forcing?   :blink:   There are several ways to play this, so it's not clearcut. I always thought 2♠ was NF so 3♣ is general forcing to find the best strain (including ♠).

1D-1S-2H-2S is neutral, just showing 5-card spade suit. The "forcing" aspect comes from the fact that opener has promised a third when when he reverses, so opener cannot pass 2S. Even if 2S is agreed as weak hand, it still cannot be passed. 1D-1S-2H-3C is natural and GF, if playing Lebensohl or BWS, where 2NT is artificial. In Leb, 2NT is relay to 3C and responder will place the contract (even pass 3C if that was one of opener's suits). In BWS, 2NT is also artificial, indicating a hand that wants to stop in partscore opposite regular reverse. Raises are forcing while raise via the artificial relay are not forcing.

 

The bottom line is, make agreements.

 

In the end responder should be happy to play in the 6-2 fit, opener was only showing his shape and has clearly shown 3-4-6-0.

 

PS. Sorry this sounds on later reading like I am imposing a system on somebody. This is what I expect a good player to play, don't know how to edit so it wouldn't come off as "teaching".

[Fluffy]

Both in Ingerberman and Lebensohl3 ( Ron Anderson's 1987 book: The Lebensohl Convention Complete ) .. 2S is forcing... in fact it is game forcing.

I seriously doubt Ron Anderson recommended 2S to be game forcing, that doesn't make any sense.

Why are we treating a book written in the 1980's as gospel?

 

Treating 2♠ as GF is so LOL.

Bah, stop laughing at me will you? :P

[Fluffy]

What was wrong?

The forum you picked for your question :P

[peachy]

Treating 2♠ as GF is so LOL

Well, here is one from 1998:

 

http://www.cs.sfu.ca/~bbart/personal/articles/lebensohl.html.

 

Brad Bart's Synopsis of Lebensohl

 

Lebensohl over Reverses

 

1♣-1♠-2♥-2♠

Natural and nonforcing....

 

 

A ) Who is Brad Bart?

 

B ) What happened to the generally accepted principle (AFAIK) that opener who reverses, promises a third bid? Which means that 2S bidder is assigning none of the qualifiers "forcing", "non-forcing", "sign'off", to the 2S bid.

 

C ) Perhaps this is a terminology problem. See point B )

[bucky]

Well, I think "reverse promising a 3rd bid" is a result of treatment rather than dictated by logic. The opener should be prepared to play at 3-level in either of his suits, but that doesn't mean the same has to apply in responder's suit.

 

There are lots of merits to play 2♠ forcing at least one round (I play that), it is this treatment that makes "reverse promising a 3rd bid". But I also think 2♠ non-forcing (i.e. passable) is playable, by partnership agreement. Of course opener doesn't HAVE to pass with extra value/shape.

[ONEferBRID]

Thanks, Peachy... Re: 2S...I had not thought of it in that light before.

1D-1S-2H-2S is neutral, just showing 5-card spade suit. The "forcing" aspect comes from the fact that opener has promised a third (bid ) when when he reverses, so opener cannot pass 2S. Even if 2S is agreed as weak hand, it still cannot be passed. 1D-1S-2H-3C is natural and GF, if playing Lebensohl or BWS, where 2NT is artificial.