another alert question and an oops

[Trinidad]

There is, of course, a difference between "asks me to bid 3♣" (Lebensohl after a double of a weak two or after a reverse) and "forces me to bid 3♣" (Lebensohl after 1NT).

 

However, both explanations are clearly insufficient, IMO. Lebensohl is a convention that shows something. It doesn't ask. Assuming that the auction started 1NT-2♥-2NT, you should explain what it shows: "He either wants to show that he has a game force with a stopper in hearts, wants to compete at the three level in clubs or diamonds or wants to invite in spades.". (If you play it that way.) You might want to add that direct bids would have been GF or that they would deny a stopper.

 

Note that all this only explains about a bid that has been made (or bids that could have been made but weren't), not about bids that will be made in the future.

 

Rik

[Zelandakh]

Lebensohl is a convention that shows something.

All bids show something unless they are forced. It is only that many players do not understand their systems well enough to understand what they show. There is no excuse for expert level players not describing what hands are contained within any given call though.

[Trinidad]

Lebensohl is a convention that shows something.

All bids show something unless they are forced. It is only that many players do not understand their systems well enough to understand what they show. There is no excuse for expert level players not describing what hands are contained within any given call though.

"All bids show something unless they are forced." is a truism.

 

There is a difference between 1♣-1♦; 1♠ showing "11-18, 5+ clubs and 4(+) spades" (Walsh style) and a 2♥ response to a Multi 2♦ opening (which basically shows that responder couldn't or didn't want to come up with an other bid).

 

If you ask what Lebensohl shows, it is possible to describe the hand types that the 2NT bidder might hold at the table. If you ask what the 2♥ response to a Multi 2♦ shows, you will not get a list of hand types at the table. Instead, you will get a list of hand types that he could have bid in another way with the additional warning that the 2♥ response doesn't deny holding a hand that could have been bid in another way. So, for practical purposes, I would say that 2♦-2♥ is not a bid where you can simply say what it shows, in the way you can for many other bids.

 

Rik

[WellSpyder]

If you ask what the 2♥ response to a Multi 2♦ shows, you will not get a list of hand types at the table. Instead, you will get a list of hand types that he could have bid in another way with the additional warning that the 2♥ response doesn't deny holding a hand that could have been bid in another way.

Not if you ask me, you won't. You will just get the explanation that it shows a hand that wants to play in 2♥ if I have the weak option with ♥s.

[Trinidad]

Not if you ask me, you won't. You will just get the explanation that it shows a hand that wants to play in 2♥ if I have the weak option with ♥s.

I would give the same explanation, but that doesn't make it true.

 

To give you a quick idea what I mean: What would be the meaning of 2♦-3♥? Answer: it shows a hand that wants to play in 2♥ if I have the weak option with ♥s. (No one wants to play in 3♥ if he could play in 2♥. :P )

 

Do you really have two bids with the exact same meaning? Or might it be that the explanation that you gave is indeed not the whole truth?

 

This may seem like a lame joke, but it isn't. It shows that Zel's statement "Every bid shows something and expert players should be able to fully describe this" is false. This is particularly true since many expert players "mix some 2♠ and 3♥ in with their 2♥ response" and some 2♥ with their 3♥ response.

 

Rik

[WellSpyder]

What would be the meaning of 2♦-3♥? Answer: it shows a hand that wants to play in 2♥ if I have the weak option with ♥s. (No one wants to play in 3♥ if he could play in 2♥. :P )

You've lost me, I'm afraid. Do you never raise a natural weak 2♥ to 3♥?

[Trinidad]

You've lost me, I'm afraid. Do you never raise a natural weak 2♥ to 3♥?

Sure I do. But "not never raising" is not the same as "always raising". If I pass a weak two in hearts I may well have a hand that warrants a raise and if I raise to 3♥, I may well have a hand that, according to the book, should pass 2♥. The idea of preempts is to make it hard for the opponents, not to get to your best contract.

 

When we then move on from weak twos to the Multi, there is even more potential for confusing the opponents, now we can confuse them about the level, but also in our degree of fit for the majors.

 

What do you respond to a multi with:

♠x

♥KJxxxx

♦Ax

♣Kxxx

 

I would bid 2♥ some of the time. (Or do you really think that partner will pass?) So, the explanation should not be: "A hand that wants to play in 2♥ opposite a weak two in hearts." It should be something like: "A hand that might want to play in 2♥ opposite a weak two in hearts, but it could be a hand that might want to play in 4/6♥ opposite a weak two in hearts." And you can freely expand that with other hand types that do not want to play in 2♥, but don't want to lift the fog for the opponents.

 

In short, how can you tell what a bid shows when the purpose of the bid is to be as foggy as possible?

 

Rik

[pran]

I would give the same explanation, but that doesn't make it true.

 

To give you a quick idea what I mean: What would be the meaning of 2♦-3♥? Answer: it shows a hand that wants to play in 2♥ if I have the weak option with ♥s. (No one wants to play in 3♥ if he could play in 2♥. :P )

 

Do you really have two bids with the exact same meaning? Or might it be that the explanation that you gave is indeed not the whole truth?

 

This may seem like a lame joke, but it isn't. It shows that Zel's statement "Every bid shows something and expert players should be able to fully describe this" is false. This is particularly true since many expert players "mix some 2♠ and 3♥ in with their 2♥ response" and some 2♥ with their 3♥ response.

 

Rik

I use Multi 2♦ myself, and in my world 3♥ doesn't exist as response to a 2♦ opening bid.

 

2♦ - 2NT: "Tell me what you have"

2♦ - 2♠: "Invitation to game if you have a weak heart opening, for play if you have spades"

2♦ - 2♥: "For play if you have a weak heart opening"

 

(Invitation to game in spades is shown with the sequence: 2♦ - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3♠)

[WellSpyder]

What do you respond to a multi with:

♠x

♥KJxxxx

♦Ax

♣Kxxx

 

I would bid 2♥ some of the time. (Or do you really think that partner will pass?) So, the explanation should not be: "A hand that wants to play in 2♥ opposite a weak two in hearts."

"A hand that is prepared to play in 2♥ opposite a weak two in hearts", perhaps?

 

I use Multi 2♦ myself, and in my world 3♥ doesn't exist as response to a 2♦ opening bid.

It does in my world - essentially a hand that would raise a weak 2 in ♥ to 3, and a weak 2 in ♠ to 3 or more.

[blackshoe]

In The Bridge World's lexicon, a Lebensohl 2NT bid is usually a "marionette", requesting partner to bid 3♣, but allowing him to bid higher with an appropriate hand. If it absolutely requires a 3♣ bid, it's a "puppet". In contrast, 2♣ in the auction 1NT-2♣ is a "relay", asking partner to further describe his hand.

 

I would describe the first of those as "asking me to bid 3♣ so that he may further describe his hand, but I am permitted to bid something else with the right kind of hand," the second as "requires me to bid 3♣ so that he may further describe his hand", and the third as "asks me to describe my hand, with particular attention to my major suit holdings". I would not use The Bridge World's words, much as I might like to, because most people don't know what they mean.

 

In all three cases, there are typically partnership understandings of what kind of hands the 2NT or 2♣ bidder might hold. Those are disclosable, so should be included as part of the explanation.

[mjj29]

In The Bridge World's lexicon, a Lebensohl 2NT bid is usually a "marionette", requesting partner to bid 3♣, but allowing him to bid higher with an appropriate hand. If it absolutely requires a 3♣ bid, it's a "puppet". In contrast, 2♣ in the auction 1NT-2♣ is a "relay", asking partner to further describe his hand.

I would describe bids as relays when they're forced, just waiting for the other hand to pattern out; such as 2♣-2♦ where you never respond higher with a positive, or in a system I play, 1♦-1♠-2♣ (which shows ♦ or the majors or all 3), then the next hand always bids 2♦, opener responding 2NT with diamonds, his longer major with the majors or 3♣ with short clubs.

 

Stayman is only bid on a small set of hands, so it shows much more than a relay. I guess the relay is the other half of a puppet, but I wouldn't describe the previous bids as puppets, since they describe the hand quite a lot as well.

 

I guess the sequence 1N-(X)-XX, where XX forces 2C, which is passed with clubs or bid another suit to play, I'd describe XX as a puppet to 2C and 2C as a relay.

[blackshoe]

Have you read The Bridge World's definitions? Do you agree with them? Do you agree with my reading of them?

 

It sounds like you have your own definitions of these words, which is dandy, except that when you're talking to others, they may not be on the same page, which is going to make real communication difficult.

[bluejak]

I use Multi 2♦ myself, and in my world 3♥ doesn't exist as response to a 2♦ opening bid.

Really? I do prefer to play against people who do not believe in taking my room away!

[barmar]

There is, of course, a difference between "asks me to bid 3♣" (Lebensohl after a double of a weak two or after a reverse) and "forces me to bid 3♣" (Lebensohl after 1NT).

 

However, both explanations are clearly insufficient, IMO. Lebensohl is a convention that shows something. It doesn't ask. Assuming that the auction started 1NT-2♥-2NT, you should explain what it shows: "He either wants to show that he has a game force with a stopper in hearts, wants to compete at the three level in clubs or diamonds or wants to invite in spades.". (If you play it that way.) You might want to add that direct bids would have been GF or that they would deny a stopper.

Go back and read my post #97, I do say more than what's quoted above. I prefer to start with a brief description that covers the most likely cases. Hence my terse "usually in preparation for a weak signoff, but he could show other hands with his next bid." If they want to know what other types of hands could be shown, they're welcome to ask for more information. I don't think this explanation is misleading.

[Zelandakh]

I guess the sequence 1N-(X)-XX, where XX forces 2C, which is passed with clubs or bid another suit to play, I'd describe XX as a puppet to 2C and 2C as a relay.

I would describe XX as "a weak one-suited hand" (by your definitions) although many will also allow weak 3-suiters (redouble) or strong 1-suiters that do not want to sit for 1NTXX or sometimes other hands. I would describe 2♣ as "any normal 1NT opening, does not show clubs" assuming that opener is allowed to break the puppet with an animal NT, or "any hand at all, (s)he had to bid that" if not.

[pran]

Really? I do prefer to play against people who do not believe in taking my room away!

What is wrong with the answer: 2♠ - invitation if opener has a weak hand in hearts and for play if opener has a weak hand in spades?

(The hand given by Trinidad is IMHO typical for a 2♠ response to Multi 2♦.)

[Trinidad]

What is wrong with the answer: 2♠ - invitation if opener has a weak hand in hearts and for play if opener has a weak hand in spades?

(The hand given by Trinidad is IMHO typical for a 2♠ response to Multi 2♦.)

Why would you want to tell the whole table that you have hearts if you already know that your partner isn't interested in them? You are supposed to help your partner, not the opponents.

 

Rik

[pran]

What is wrong with the answer: 2♠ - invitation if opener has a weak hand in hearts and for play if opener has a weak hand in spades?

(The hand given by Trinidad is IMHO typical for a 2♠ response to Multi 2♦.)

Why would you want to tell the whole table that you have hearts if you already know that your partner isn't interested in them? You are supposed to help your partner, not the opponents.

 

Rik

It is illegal to tell partner without telling the whole table anything about my hand - we call that "Concealed Partnership Understanding".

 

How do I know that partner isn't interested in hearts?

 

More important: Why should I raise to 3♥ on the assumption that partner has hearts instead of using the 2♠ bid to combine such a raise with a bid of 2♠ for play in case he has spades?

 

And finally: Don't forget the possibility that partner can have a 20-21 NT-style hand.

[Trinidad]

It is illegal to tell partner without telling the whole table anything about my hand - we call that "Concealed Partnership Understanding".

Please read my post again. I am ssaying that you should tell nobody about your hearts, if it can't help your side. Not the opponents and not partner. That is not a CPU. That is good bridge. The fact that you think this is a CPU only shows how hard it would be to actually explain accurately what the 2♥ response shows. This is what I argued all along: a Lebensohl 2NT shows something that can be listed, a 2♥ response to a Multi 2♦ shows fog.

 

How do I know that partner isn't interested in hearts?

We were talking about the hand where you hold:

♠x

♥KJxxxx

♦Ax

♣Kxxx

 

and partner opens a Multi 2♦, right? What do you think the odds are that partner has a weak two in hearts? Do you really want to play for that?

Or do you have a way to get to a low level heart contract when:

- partner has a weak two in spades

- you bid 2♠

- partner is "interested" in hearts (meaning he has three card support)?

 

And finally: Don't forget the possibility that partner can have a 20-21 NT-style hand.

How does that matter?

The auction will start:

2♦-2♥

2NT

and I can describe my hand just like after

2♦-2♠

2NT

 

The only difference will be that I will end up declaring if we end up playing in hearts.

 

Rik

[pran]

Please read my post again. I am ssaying that you should tell nobody about your hearts, if it can't help your side. Not the opponents and not partner. That is not a CPU. That is good bridge. The fact that you think this is a CPU only shows how hard it would be to actually explain accurately what the 2♥ response shows. This is what I argued all along: a Lebensohl 2NT shows something that can be listed, a 2♥ response to a Multi 2♦ shows fog.

 

 

We were talking about the hand where you hold:

♠x

♥KJxxxx

♦Ax

♣Kxxx

 

and partner opens a Multi 2♦, right? What do you think the odds are that partner has a weak two in hearts? Do you really want to play for that?

Or do you have a way to get to a low level heart contract when:

- partner has a weak two in spades

- you bid 2♠

- partner is "interested" in hearts (meaning he has three card support)?

[...]

Rik

C'mon. Have you never encountered 12 hearts between you and your partner? I have.

And wouldn't it help our side when you with a 2♠ bid can become declarer (rather than your partner) in the expected 2♠ contract while immediately raising the entry-level in the auction for opponents to three in case they have the spades?

(With "interested in hearts" I wasn't thinking of his possible 3 cards support to me. In my world 2♠ invites to game in hearts "in case you have a weak two in hearts". This is similar to the 3♠ bid in the sequence: 2♦ - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3♠.)

[Cthulhu D]

I am confused about disclosure here.

 

If you don't have to disclose your agreements until they come up (presumably other than what appears on a convention card) does that mean I can sit down at the table (in a jurisdiction where this is legal) pre-alert that we play potentially canapé overcalls sometimes and refuse to disclose any further information until it comes up? Or is there some finer distinction about why I have to explain how my overcalls work before i bid over you, but not if I play penalty doubles until after I crack your WJO?

[blackshoe]

There's a difference between pre-alerting and alerting in the course of an auction. In the former case, you should fully disclose your methods, including follow-ups if they ask, so they can decide on an appropriate defense before any hands are played. Once you're in an auction, though, the meaning of future calls does not require disclosure until they are actually made.

[Cthulhu D]

So if I ask before the auction you must disclose your agreements about playing penalty ir takeout after NT interference but not during it?

 

That is weird, does that mean you should launch an interrogation about method when a pair sits down?

[aguahombre]

So if I ask before the auction you must disclose your agreements about playing penalty ir takeout after NT interference but not during it?

 

That is weird, does that mean you should launch an interrogation about method when a pair sits down?

If you want to go fishing about whether your frivolous interference will likely go for a number, I guess you should. If I detect that is your concern, the director will have to force me to answer.

[Cthulhu D]

Lol, that's the spirit of full disclosure right there. I see the before/during distinction fine though, pretty weird but okay I guess, cheers for the response