UI?

[Hi_Lali]

Bidding goes

 

2H - X - P- 2NT*

P - 3NT - P - 4S

P - P - P

 

*2NT was supposed to be a Lebensohl bid forcing 3C but X'ler forgot so not alerted. Before lead, advancer says there was a failure to alert 2NT. 4S makes 4. 3NT goes -1.

 

 

Should advancer be allowed to correct to 4S having UI that partner does not remember they are playing Lebensohl when she doesn't alert the 2NT and then bids 3NT? Advancer's hand is KQJxx in S and 5323 hand. Is pass a logical alternative to bidding? And does the failure to alert suggest bidding on to 4S? What should the final ruling be on this hand?

[wyman]

Pass is not a LA on this hand. Bidding 3N says "I can't take the chance that you want to drop in 3C; I have a GF and wanted to give you the chance to move in spades."

 

Table result stands. Is the NOS really suggesting that this hand with 5 (!) spades is supposed to sit for 3N?

[sfi]

Sure, pass is a LA on this hand. 3NT here does not guarantee a spade fit, and may occasionally even have a singleton. It is affected by what a direct 3NT would be, but I can easily see 9 tricks being the limit of the hand in either contract, or 4S going down on a bad break or heart ruffs with 9+ tricks available in 3NT. The three small hearts are a big negative for 4S IMO.

 

To answer your questions:

 

- Pass is a LA.

- The failure to alert suggests bidding 4S rather than passing (4S is more likely to be right opposite marginal values for game rather than the extras that 3NT suggests the side has).

 

I would be inclined to adjust the score to 3NT-1.

[BunnyGo]

Pass in not a LA. Bidding 3NT is a show of strength and nothing else (alert or not). Bypassing the 3♣ relay says that the doubler had a GF in his own hand. Not bidding a suit while bypassing 3♣ says that it's a balanced GF. 4♠ is the easy (and only) option with an invitational hand with 5 spades...this hand should be thinking that slam is a possibility, and should finish describing their hand to partner--by bidding 4♠ they show a hand with 5 spades and more points than a hand bidding 2♠ instead of Lebensohl.

[paulg]

Presumably the Lebensohl bidder has more than six points and was planning to bid three spades to show an invitational hand with spades. Three notrumps from partner shows a game force opposite a weak hand, so the way to show that you have an invitational hand with spades is to bid four spades at this point.

 

 

If this sequence had occurred over a weak two spades opening and you held KQJxx in hearts, then I would agree with sfi that passing three notrumps was clearly a logical alternative. But weak hands with spades can bid bid two spades on this auction

[blackshoe]

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

 

Two questions: What is the class of the player who made the 4♠ call, and how does her partnership play this Lebensohl gadget? Don't know? Then how can you say whether pass is a logical alternative? That said, I agree with Wyman that most likely passing is not an LA. After all, doubler should have 4 spades and an unbalanced hand. It's rarely right to play in 3NT when you have a nine card spade fit.

[gordontd]

Two questions: What is the class of the player who made the 4♠ call, and how does her partnership play this Lebensohl gadget? Don't know? Then how can you say whether pass is a logical alternative? That said, I agree with Wyman that most likely passing is not an LA. After all, doubler should have 4 spades and an unbalanced hand. It's rarely right to play in 3NT when you have a nine card spade fit.

Why four spades? Double & NT just shows a strong hand.

 

The interesting thing is the heart stopper. From South's point of view, North has shown one; from North's, South has shown one. UI tells South that North may not have one.

[Codo]

Of course we should ask the OS, what 3 NT direct after the weak two had been and what X then 3 NT had shown in a lebensohl situation. To me the later shows about 8 tricks in a semibalanced hand and with say a 6 card spade suit and short hearts I had allowed 4 ♠, but not with the given balanced hand.

 

Here, I do not understand, why a 5323 hand should play better in 4 ♠ then in 3 NT. It is highly possible that a heart ruff is comming quite early and we have NO evidence of a fit. And if partner expects 9 tricks opposite a weak hand in a minor, we will surely make 3 NT.

 

Pass is a LA.

[Codo]

After all, doubler should have 4 spades and an unbalanced hand. It's rarely right to play in 3NT when you have a nine card spade fit.

 

With a strong 4144 or similar you bid 3 NT over a 2 NT Lebensohl bid from partner? Never ever. Partner did not show 4 spades and he did not show an unbalanced hand.

He showed a heart stopper and a hand strong enough to make game opposite a very weak hand, that is all we know from his bidding.

[paulg]

Here, I do not understand, why a 5323 hand should play better in 4 ♠ then in 3 NT. It is highly possible that a heart ruff is comming quite early and we have NO evidence of a fit. And if partner expects 9 tricks opposite a weak hand in a minor, we will surely make 3 NT.

 

Pass is a LA.

When I first typed a response I said the same thing. But then I realised that a spade bidder must have invitational values and that 4♠ is not choice of game, it must be a slam try. It is the only way to show an invitational hand with five spades. With more spades it is highly likely that I'd have responded four spades initially. With other strong hands that were using Lebensohl I'd be bidding 4♥ now.

[blackshoe]

Double showed, at the time it was made, a probable 4 spades. I missed that when doubler rebids 3NT, he doesn't necessarily have spades. Sue me. :P

 

Does 2NT, not playing Lebensohl, show a very weak hand? I certainly don't think so.

[Cyberyeti]

With a strong 4144 or similar you bid 3 NT over a 2 NT Lebensohl bid from partner? Never ever. Partner did not show 4 spades and he did not show an unbalanced hand.

He showed a heart stopper and a hand strong enough to make game opposite a very weak hand, that is all we know from his bidding.

Actually no.

 

All he ostensibly shows by not bidding 3N not 3♣ is a hand too good to have partner pass 3♣ that is no trumpish and outside the range for 2N and 3N direct overcalls. A massive 1444 has a problem (I probably overcall 2N/3N directly if in range), but I would consider that X then 3N is big and balanced most of the time with the small risk (uncommon shape) of 1444.

 

Does responder have anything other than ♠KQJxx ? I presume so as he didn't bid 2♠, there's more of an issue if responder has an 11 count and doesn't look for a slam.

[bluejak]

Double showed, at the time it was made, a probable 4 spades. I missed that when doubler rebids 3NT, he doesn't necessarily have spades. Sue me. :P

 

Does 2NT, not playing Lebensohl, show a very weak hand? I certainly don't think so.

Depends on the quality of player: for a poor player, 2NT shows he does not have a suit! Ok, putting it more correctly, he could be 3433 of any strength.

[Hi_Lali]

In this case the advancer's hand was KQJxx xxx xss xx. Why she didn't remember that she could bid 2S as weak? not sure..... she expected partner to bid 3C and was then going to bid 3S as drop dead. The doubler's hand had about 16-17 hcp's, a stiff AH and ATx in S so hearing what she thought was an invitational NT bid put her partner in 3NT. Now advancer realizes that her partner probably forgot the Leb pulls to 4S.

[wyman]

In this case the advancer's hand was KQJxx xxx xx xxx. Why she didn't remember that she could not bid 2S as weak? not sure..... she expected partner to bid 3C and was then going to bid 3S as drop dead. The doubler's hand had about 16-17 hcp's, a stiff AH and ATx in S so hearing what she thought was an invitational NT bid put her partner in 3NT. Now advancer realizes that her partner probably forgot the Leb pulls to 4S.

 

3S is invitational with 5 spades after the 2N-->3C relay.

 

Bidding 3N here shows a very good hand. Someone above suggests that doubler need not have spades, but if this is true, and if doubler has hearts for the natural 3N call, why double in the first place? What was doubler planning to do after 4S? Couldn't (s)he just bid 3N directly? Anyway, in my universe, there's no way pass is a LA on this sequence.

 

But it's clear from the auction that advancer is in a different universe, so I wouldn't quibble with a director rolling the score back.

[CSGibson]

it depends on how you play the sequence, of course. 3N immediately is stronger than 2N immediately, right? I think this sequence shows spade tolerance, and that advancer is right to want to play in spades - even if partner only has 3 small spades, her hand is less useful in a NT contract where defenders are likely able to withhold the ♠A than it is in a spade contract.

[Hi_Lali]

If partner HAD alerted the 2NT bid and then went on to bid 3NT.... I would have no problem with the advancer now bidding 4S. But the failure to alert becomes UI and it must be determined IF there were any logical alternatives per law 16B. If you are trying to bid Leb and your partner now refuses the transfer and instead bids 3NT, your partner should have a very strong hand, H stoppers, doubleton or even stiff S and maybe a running minor saying you can make 3NT with my hand partner. Can you pass partner's 3NT? I would consider it as an option vs bidding 4S and finding my partner with xx in S. By bidding 3NT when I have asked my partner to bid 3C, my partner has just shown a totally different type of hand that just a regular t/o double. I don't think 4S can be bid now.

[Cyberyeti]

KQJxx and out is a really obvious 4♠ bid sadly.

 

Put it opposite anything other than A and others and it figures to play at least 2 tricks better in spades than NT as your hand is waste paper. Opposite A and others where partner does not have A♥ you might be better off in 3N but no guarantee.

[CSGibson]

If partner HAD alerted the 2NT bid and then went on to bid 3NT.... I would have no problem with the advancer now bidding 4S. But the failure to alert becomes UI and it must be determined IF there were any logical alternatives per law 16B. If you are trying to bid Leb and your partner now refuses the transfer and instead bids 3NT, your partner should have a very strong hand, H stoppers, doubleton or even stiff S and maybe a running minor saying you can make 3NT with my hand partner. Can you pass partner's 3NT? I would consider it as an option vs bidding 4S and finding my partner with xx in S. By bidding 3NT when I have asked my partner to bid 3C, my partner has just shown a totally different type of hand that just a regular t/o double. I don't think 4S can be bid now.

 

You and I disagree, then. X than 3N expects partner to correct to 4♠ when he has 5, that's the reason for going through that sequence. I would find no LA to 4♠ in my partnership - sorry I didn't state that explicitly before, but I have no 2nd choice to 4♠.

[sfi]

Consider some hands for partner's bidding. How do they bid:

 

x

AKx

Kx

AKQxxxx

 

Ax

KQx

AKJx

AQxx

 

xxx

AQJx

KQJ

AKQ

 

xxx

Kx

AKQJ

AKQJ

 

xxxx

KQx

AKJ

AKQ

 

I'm not sure which ones your partnership bids a direct 3NT on (that would show the first one in most of my partnerships), and which one you double and bid 3NT next, but in all cases 3NT is a safer contract than 4S. Feel free to come up with your own hands, but there are several reasons that mean 3NT is likely to be a better spot to play, including:

 

- you have six points to go along with partner's 22+, so tricks are not likely to be a problem

- 3 small hearts suggest possible ruffs in 4S

- KQJxx in spades suggests either 4-5 spade tricks or two dummy entries to lead hearts through.

 

And the UI suggests that partner doesn't have any of these hands. Instead it suggests that partner has an 18 count with potentially no heart stopper.

[Cyberyeti]

Consider some hands for partner's bidding. How do they bid:

 

x

AKx

Kx

AKQxxxx

 

Ax

KQx

AKJx

AQxx

 

xxx

AQJx

KQJ

AKQ

 

xxx

Kx

AKQJ

AKQJ

 

xxxx

KQx

AKJ

AKQ

 

I'm not sure which ones your partnership bids a direct 3NT on (that would show the first one in most of my partnerships), and which one you double and bid 3NT next, but in all cases 3NT is a safer contract than 4S. Feel free to come up with your own hands, but there are several reasons that mean 3NT is likely to be a better spot to play, including:

 

- you have six points to go along with partner's 22+, so tricks are not likely to be a problem

- 3 small hearts suggest possible ruffs in 4S

- KQJxx in spades suggests either 4-5 spade tricks or two dummy entries to lead hearts through.

 

And the UI suggests that partner doesn't have any of these hands. Instead it suggests that partner has an 18 count with potentially no heart stopper.

This is disingenuous, I can make up lots of hands too like:

 

A

AKx

KQxxx

AKxx

 

10x

AQ

AKxx

AKxxx

 

10x

A10x

AKQJ

AKxx

 

and lots of others I'd prefer to be in 4♠ (which is not great on hand 3 but 3N is no play unless you catch a stiff A♠, 4♠ relies on E not having a heart suit he wants to lead and an ace, ♥KQJ and the ace the other side is fine as is ♥KJ and A♠ as he won't lead a heart).

 

Your first hand won't happen, if partner was going to do anything other than pass 3♣ you were getting another bid, so how likely do you think that is ? Just bid 3♣ and react to what he does, reverse the minors is possible though.

[campboy]

This is disingenuous, I can make up lots of hands too like:

It doesn't help much that you can. If there are lots of hands where 3NT is better than 4♠ that suggests pass is an LA. If there are also lots of hands where 4♠ is better than 3NT then that suggests 4♠ is also an LA -- but so what if it is?

[sfi]

It doesn't help much that you can. If there are lots of hands where 3NT is better than 4♠ that suggests pass is an LA. If there are also lots of hands where 4♠ is better than 3NT then that suggests 4♠ is also an LA -- but so what if it is?

 

My point exactly.

[BunnyGo]

My point exactly.

 

That's not how "LA" is determined. With this hand and this sequence, there isn't anyone I've ever sat down at the table with who would pass 3NT. It's simply not done. Whether we'd rather be in 3NT is another question, but they wouldn't pass--sometimes the best double dummy spot isn't an LA.

[Cyberyeti]

It doesn't help much that you can. If there are lots of hands where 3NT is better than 4♠ that suggests pass is an LA. If there are also lots of hands where 4♠ is better than 3NT then that suggests 4♠ is also an LA -- but so what if it is?

My point was that hand picked examples don't help, you might have picked the only 4 hands out of 10000 where 3N is better, you haven't in this case, but that was the point I was making.

 

What we need to establish is what the difference between X followed by pulling 2N to 3N and bidding a direct 3N is for this pair. Unfortunately given the actual hand, I don't expect to hear anything sensible.

 

Also nothing has been said about the form of scoring which introduces some other issues.

 

While I was typing this up, BunnyGo said pretty much my view on this. Without definite agreements, I'd expect a 2N opener opposite, and I'd always play 4♠ not 3N opposite a 2N opener.