Advance by reverse after signoff

[BudH]

Axxx

xx

9xx

Qxxx

 

1D 1S

2H 2NT

3C 3D

4D ?

 

2NT = Lebensohl over reverse

3C = forced (unless significant extra shape or values)

3D = to play

 

So what is 4D and what is your call now? Could it possibly be a keycard ask if you play Minorwood?

 

Bud H

[CSGibson]

It cannot be minor wood, it is extra shape & strength (last trainish, my guess), probably within a card of 1-4-6-2.

[straube]

I agree with Chris. There is a very small chance that opener is being tricky with a

3-1-6-3 shape. Reversing with this hand would be "safe" in the sense that opener could always correct hearts to spades since a raise of hearts would confirm a fifth spade. It might also explain opener's willingness to rebid 3C and why 3N wasn't offered. Of course this all assumes that your partnership agreement is to rebid (forcing) 2S with 5 spades.

[Free]

Imo it's not minorwood. I'd just cuebid my ♠A, apparently partner has a nice hand with extra ♦s and some ♣s (otherwise he wouldn't bid 3♣ first imo.

[Fluffy]

cuebid? minorwood? are you all insane? he is showing extras to play 5♦

[MFA]

Since 3♣ was nonforcing, 4♦ is only invitational in my world. I accept with an ace, three trumps and a maybe useful doubleton heart.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

4D is inv., asking you if you have something add. to spare,

and responder has a min, even in the context of his bidding,

so pass.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[ArtK78]

Clearly invitational in context. My hand is not that bad for a signoff, but it is a close call whether to bid one more or not. If the club Q were the heart Q it would be a clear acceptance.

[kgr]

I have a rule that 4m is slam interest if it is possible (e.g not if 4m bidder did already limited his hand before).

So slam interest for me (minorwood if I play that).

Something like:

♠xx

♥AKxx

♦AKQxxx

♣A

...or should that bid 3♥/4♣ iso 4♦?

[P_Marlowe]

I have a rule that 4m is slam interest if it is possible (e.g not if 4m bidder did already limited his hand before).

So slam interest for me (minorwood if I play that).

Something like:

♠xx

♥AKxx

♦AKQxxx

♣A

...or should that bid 3♥/4♣ iso 4♦?

The hand you gave, is clearly a hand, that would break the transfer, i.e. will

not bid 3C, since opener does not really want to play 3C.

 

If opener bids 3C, this can happen, since the 2NT bid does not imply, that

responder will bid again, he may well have 6 clubs and 4 spades, deciding, that

it is a brilliant idea to make his long suit trumps.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[hanp]

Couldn't have said it any better than Fluffy.

[kgr]

I have a rule that 4m is slam interest if it is possible (e.g not if 4m bidder did already limited his hand before).

So slam interest for me (minorwood if I play that).

Something like:

♠xx

♥AKxx

♦AKQxxx

♣A

...or should that bid 3♥/4♣ iso 4♦?

The hand you gave, is clearly a hand, that would break the transfer, i.e. will

not bid 3C, since opener does not really want to play 3C.

 

If opener bids 3C, this can happen, since the 2NT bid does not imply, that

responder will bid again, he may well have 6 clubs and 4 spades, deciding, that

it is a brilliant idea to make his long suit trumps.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Aha, I missed then non-forcing 3♣. Then I agree that 4♦ should be an invite.

[aguahombre]

♠xx

♥AKxx

♦AKQxxx

♣A

That hand is off topic, since it wouldn't bid 3C. But it is worthy of discussion with your pard. I believe most couldn't bid 3D either, and would have to choose 3NT or 4D after the Leben 2NT.

 

If I am wrong about whether it is normal for both 3C and 3D to be passable after Leben, someone will be so kind as to explain how they would handle XX AKJX AKQXXX X.

[P_Marlowe]

♠xx

♥AKxx

♦AKQxxx

♣A

That hand is off topic, since it wouldn't bid 3C. But it is worthy of discussion with your pard. I believe most couldn't bid 3D either, and would have to choose 3NT or 4D after the Leben 2NT.

 

If I am wrong about whether it is normal for both 3C and 3D to be passable after Leben, someone will be so kind as to explain how they would handle XX AKJX AKQXXX X.

Breaking the relais req. is GF.

 

And with your given hand I would bid 3D, remove the Jack of hearts,

I would go with 3C, praying, that p corrects to diamonds.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[hanp]

For me neither 3C nor 3D shows extras.

[jdonn]

For me neither 3C nor 3D shows extras.

I hate this, I think you should just pick one and live with it. I used to think 3♣ should deny a game force no matter which minor you opened but awm made an impassioned argument that it should be opener rebidding his minor that denies a game force and he might be right.

[awm]

The simple argument is something like this. Let's assume for the moment that the auction started 1♦-1♠-2♥-2NT (lebensohl) and that 3♥/3♠ by opener now would be natural (whether they should be forcing is perhaps another story). If neither 3♣/3♦ is forcing, then opener has no call on a wide range of game-forcing 4♥/6♦ hands. This is not too unusual a hand type, especially since most of us will try to avoid opening 2♣ on this pattern.

 

Essentially opener is now stuck rebidding 3NT on any game forcing 4♥/6♦ as well as with a game forcing 1453. It's easy to see that we could play a silly 3NT this way when responder has weakness opposite opener's singleton, even on hands where 5♦ or 6♦ is excellent.

 

The above argues that (at least!) one of 3♣/3♦ should be forcing. This gives opener a convenient call to say "hey, I have game values" after which we can negotiate which game is superior. Now I'll try to explain why 3♣ should be the forcing one.

 

Clearly playing 3♣ as forcing has advantages on the forcing hands. For example, it gives responder space to show a diamond fit below 3NT (which 3♦ does not). So the question is what happens when opener does not have a forcing hand. Obviously 3♦ is a more likely final contract than 3♣ (yes I know responder could be 4♠-6♣ or whatever, but surely the suit where opener definitely has length is more likely strain than the one where responder might have length). So the question is how much benefit we get from the forced 3♣ sequence. A problem is that it will be difficult for responder to determine when 3♣ is best. For example, if responder has a 4315 pattern, it could be best to play 3♣ (say opener has 1453) but this could also be a 5-1 fit. If responder has a 4117, then certainly clubs will almost always be the right strain, but if opener actually had a 1453 then we could have game or slam in clubs and play it in a partial. The upshot is that since opener's 3♣ bid could be based on three clubs or on zero clubs, there's going to be a lot of guesswork. My impression is that we will "miss" the 5-3 club fits (responder cannot risk passing) and that we win on the 6-1/6-2 club fits while missing possible games on the 6-3 club fits and playing some silly 6-0 club fits when a 6-1/6-2 diamond fit would be better. So essentially we are gaining on a very small proportion of hands: those hands where responder has 6+♣ and opener has 1-2 clubs. This seems like a pretty small gain, relative to the gain of letting responder show his diamond fit below 3NT when opener has the GF.

[straube]

Makes sense to me. 1D-1S, 2H is the only reverse that lacks an artificial (4th suit) forcing bid by opener.

 

How do you play 1H-1N, 2S-2N, 3m?

[awm]

Makes sense to me. 1D-1S, 2H is the only reverse that lacks an artificial (4th suit) forcing bid by opener.

 

How do you play 1H-1N, 2S-2N, 3m?

The sequence 1♥-1N-2♠-2N is interesting, because I think of all the reverse sequences it has one of the strongest cases for playing 2N natural rather than some sort of lebensohl.

 

Anyway, Gazzilli pretty much eliminates this sequence as a concern.

[jdonn]

Makes sense to me.  1D-1S, 2H is the only reverse that lacks an artificial (4th suit) forcing bid by opener.

 

How do you play 1H-1N, 2S-2N, 3m?

The sequence 1♥-1N-2♠-2N is interesting, because I think of all the reverse sequences it has one of the strongest cases for playing 2N natural rather than some sort of lebensohl.

 

Anyway, Gazzilli pretty much eliminates this sequence as a concern.

Or playing transfers instead of lebensohl on that auction.

[aguahombre]

Only one thing for sure. If Mr Peters and I agree on something, we must both be wrong.

[Fluffy]

Only one thing for sure. If Mr Peters and I agree on something, we must both be wrong.

Don't be so hard on yourselves it might also be that there is no correct answer ;)