UI?

[sfi]

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.

 

I was explaining my logic for why I think passing 3NT is clear, so that's at least one vote for it. I've polled 2 other people so far (giving them the hand and a random partner with which they do not have in-depth agreements) and both answers were '*shrug* Pass'. On that small sample, 3NT is clearly a LA. I'll ask some more tonight.

[Cyberyeti]

I was explaining my logic for why I think passing 3NT is clear, so that's at least one vote for it. I've polled 2 other people so far (giving them the hand and a random partner with which they do not have in-depth agreements) and both answers were '*shrug* Pass'. On that small sample, 3NT is clearly a LA. I'll ask some more tonight.

Are you sure you managed to find somebody bad enough to poll to be a peer of the actual player :) I suppose there is that problem, polling people who have a clue is not much use here.

[sfi]

Are you sure you managed to find somebody bad enough to poll to be a peer of the actual player :) I suppose there is that problem, polling people who have a clue is not much use here.

 

Fair call - the 'why didn't I bid 2S' query has been unanimous so far.

[barmar]

Are you sure you managed to find somebody bad enough to poll to be a peer of the actual player :) I suppose there is that problem, polling people who have a clue is not much use here.

The player in question is not the one who forgot Lebensohl. Why do you think he doesn't have a clue?

[barmar]

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.

I wouldn't expect many of this class of player to know Lebensohl in the first place. So the category of "Players who know Lebensohl, but if they're not playing it would bid 2NT with any strength 3433" is probably pretty small. Good luck finding enough of them for a meaningful poll.

[bluejak]

Are you sure you managed to find somebody bad enough to poll to be a peer of the actual player :) I suppose there is that problem, polling people who have a clue is not much use here.

 

 

I wouldn't expect many of this class of player to know Lebensohl in the first place. So the category of "Players who know Lebensohl, but if they're not playing it would bid 2NT with any strength 3433" is probably pretty small. Good luck finding enough of them for a meaningful poll.

 

As I have just explained in a different thread, these sort of comments make me realise that some of our readers do not understand the advantages of polling.

[barmar]

I thought I was implying the opposite. Since they play Lebensohl, you don't have to look for clueless players. The Law says "players with the same methods", so you just have to find players who are familiar with Lebensohl.

[Cyberyeti]

The player in question is not the one who forgot Lebensohl. Why do you think he doesn't have a clue?

Because she decided KQJxx and out was an invite not a signoff opposite a potential 12 count. The rest of the world bids 2♠, she bid 2N.

[barmar]

Because she decided KQJxx and out was an invite not a signoff opposite a potential 12 count. The rest of the world bids 2♠, she bid 2N.

The OP showed her spade suit and distribution, but never mentioned total strength. I didn't interpret it as implying that there were no high cards in the other suits, but I can now see how that could have been intended.

[mycroft]

This is interesting, because what people are saying here is the way I always thought Lebensohl should be played. But people around here (including the person who I ask about these things), think that 2NT, then 3♠ is the bailout, and 2♠ directly is a good, but not game-forcing hand.

 

I don't know if that changes anything...

[wyman]

This is interesting, because what people are saying here is the way I always thought Lebensohl should be played. But people around here (including the person who I ask about these things), think that 2NT, then 3♠ is the bailout, and 2♠ directly is a good, but not game-forcing hand.

 

I don't know if that changes anything...

 

Head asplode!

 

So wait, after 1N (2H), I can't get out in 2S?

 

This is mind-boggling.

[blackshoe]

IIRC, Ron Andersen, in The Lebensohl Convention Complete, said that 2♠ here is forcing. I think he also said that an immediate 3♠ is invitational, but I could be wrong. I also think that 2♠ NF is Ingberman, but I'm still getting the two mixed up, so I could be wrong there too.

[Cyberyeti]

IIRC, Ron Andersen, in The Lebensohl Convention Complete, said that 2♠ here is forcing. I think he also said that an immediate 3♠ is invitational, but I could be wrong. I also think that 2♠ NF is Ingberman, but I'm still getting the two mixed up, so I could be wrong there too.

I was always taught that anything at the 2 level was NF and the 3 level bids distinguished between inv and F if the suit was available at the 2 level. However this might explain why 2N was bid if the bidder was thinking the same as you.

[blackshoe]

I was always taught that anything at the 2 level was NF and the 3 level bids distinguished between inv and F if the suit was available at the 2 level. However this might explain why 2N was bid if the bidder was thinking the same as you.

 

1NT-(2♦)-?

 

2M is NF, 3M is F, 2NT then 3M is inv.

 

It would make sense if, over reverses, the same principle applied. My understanding is that for some reason I don't know, it doesn't.

[campboy]

The OP showed her spade suit and distribution, but never mentioned total strength. I didn't interpret it as implying that there were no high cards in the other suits, but I can now see how that could have been intended.

You must have missed post 14 when OP clarified that there were no high cards outside. Before that people were assuming that the hand must have had something extra because of the bidding.

[Cyberyeti]

1NT-(2♦)-?

 

2M is NF, 3M is F, 2NT then 3M is inv.

 

It would make sense if, over reverses, the same principle applied. My understanding is that for some reason I don't know, it doesn't.

Indeed, I phrased it the way I did because a number of people (me included) use PFA outside clubs and put the force thru 2N.

[aguahombre]

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

Actually it is not. It is an obvious 2S bid, rather than 2NT, so having that hand is not possible as the auction went (even, if advancer did in-fact have that hand). I cannot imagine putting someone in the position of having bid 2NT with KQJXX XXX XXX XX and trying to conduct a poll. Would 4S be an attempt to unscrew his own error, or an attempt to use UI?

 

If the player who bid 2NT with that hand was only clueless at that point, but had a clue what 3NT should show over Leben, then he should pass 3NT to avoid slam.

[Cyberyeti]

Actually it is not. It is an obvious 2S bid, rather than 2NT, so having that hand is not possible as the auction went (even, if advancer did in-fact have that hand). I cannot imagine putting someone in the position of having bid 2NT with KQJXX XXX XXX XX and trying to conduct a poll. Would 4S be an attempt to unscrew his own error, or an attempt to use UI?

 

If the player who bid 2NT with that hand was only clueless at that point, but had a clue what 3NT should show over Leben, then he should pass 3NT to avoid slam.

You seem to have ignored a lot of the discussion.

 

It appears there is a variant where 2♠ is forcing and 2N->3♠ is the signoff, which would be the only (not very) sensible explanation for what's happening.

 

In that case, partner will not be going slamming over 4♠, it's what you do with 6 small and out.

[aguahombre]

You seem to have ignored a lot of the discussion.

 

It appears there is a variant where 2♠ is forcing and 2N->3♠ is the signoff, which would be the only (not very) sensible explanation for what's happening.

 

I can only assume you were joking. Yes, I chose to ignore that "variant", because it could only be someone's convoluted thinking, not a real variant

[Cyberyeti]

I can only assume you were joking. Yes, I chose to ignore that "variant", because it could only be someone's convoluted thinking, not a real variant

I just wish somebody had asked the question "What were you thinking when you bid 2N", as that would have made this somwhat easier.

[blackshoe]

Somehow I got off the track, which was lebensohl after weak 2 doubled, and onto lebensohl over reverses. Just disregard my last couple of posts.

[sfi]

I gave five people the hand xxx KQJxx xx xxx and the auction (2S) - X - (P) - 2NT; (P) - 3NT.

 

3 passed without comment. 2 bid 4H but said it was close.

 

I trust this is a close enough approximation of the actual situation to suggest that pass is a logical alternative?

[blackshoe]

You seem to have ignored a lot of the discussion.

 

It appears there is a variant where 2♠ is forcing and 2N->3♠ is the signoff, which would be the only (not very) sensible explanation for what's happening.

 

In that case, partner will not be going slamming over 4♠, it's what you do with 6 small and out.

 

I can only assume you were joking. Yes, I chose to ignore that "variant", because it could only be someone's convoluted thinking, not a real variant

Ideally, we would have asked the players involved what their agreements are.

 

I just wish somebody had asked the question "What were you thinking when you bid 2N", as that would have made this somwhat easier.

Indeed,this question is key.

 

I gave five people the hand xxx KQJxx xx xxx and the auction (2S) - X - (P) - 2NT; (P) - 3NT.

 

3 passed without comment. 2 bid 4H but said it was close.

 

I trust this is a close enough approximation of the actual situation to suggest that pass is a logical alternative?

Is it? Would all five of these players have bid 2NT with this hand? Would any of them? If so, are they playing the methods of the offending partnership?

[bluejak]

This is interesting, because what people are saying here is the way I always thought Lebensohl should be played. But people around here (including the person who I ask about these things), think that 2NT, then 3♠ is the bailout, and 2♠ directly is a good, but not game-forcing hand.

 

I don't know if that changes anything...

It does. I thought I knew all the strange ideas people come up with, but in a non-pre-emptive type situation, bidding more with a weak hand so you go off, and less with a strong hand so as to make lots of overtricks is a new one for me. :)

 

Would you mind if I called it the "mycroft approach" for classification purposes? :lol:

[sfi]

Is it? Would all five of these players have bid 2NT with this hand? Would any of them? If so, are they playing the methods of the offending partnership?

 

Yes, they all would have bid 2NT, or at least didn't comment on that. You did notice that I swapped the majors to make the 2NT bid normal?

 

We don't have any indication that the methods are unusual, despite two followups from the original poster. We do know that the person holding the hand that bid 2NT wanted to show a weak hand. Hence the adjustment to my poll.

 

Are you asking if I can find 'peers' of the bidder, by which you mean 'people who want to sign off over a takeout double of 2H and remember a Lebensohl 2NT is a weaker way to get to the three level but forget that spades outrank hearts'? Not easily, and neither can you. So you do the next best thing. I have provided some results of asking others where they would pass on the actual auction (despite thinking the bidding was bizarre) and other results on a largely equivalent auction where a majority would pass 3NT. If you don't think that's valid evidence, I'm curious to see what you do think is valid.