antonylee Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 MPs, random sectional field (some very strong pairs, some very weak pairs).[hv=pc=n&s=sq2hk53d9765cq987&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=pp1dp1np2h(nat 16+)p2n(lebensohl)p3d(extras)p]133|200[/hv]What now? Or would you have bid 3♦ (GF) over 2♥? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcphee Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 So far partner has shown a minimum reverse but we sure owe him another bid. Maybe they are 6/4 with AQxx in H, even AJ should give us a play for 5. I would now raise to 4D, one of those black Q's may be useful. I don't think the hand is worth a GF raise to 3D over 2H. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 So far partner has shown a minimum reverse but we sure owe him another bid.Partner has shown a maximum reverse by not bidding 3♣ (instead of 3♦). The auction is game forcing, but it is not clear what game this should be. It could be 3NT, 4♥, 5♦. Meanwhile, we have to come up with a descriptive bid, leaving all our options open. One would think that 3♥ shows a 6-9 point hand with 4 hearts. However, with that hand we can simply bid 4♥. If partner understands that, we can now bid 3♥, suggesting game in the 4-3 fit. Edit: Entire nonsense since we already denied 4 hearts. But that should make this an easy bidding problem: 3♥ shows 6-9 with three hearts, exactly what I have. Rik 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatrix45 Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 I think that better bidding would have been for you to have bid 3♦ over 2♥. The idea that it would have been a game force is foolish unless (for reasons unknown) you play 2♥ as a game force. You have limited your hand with 1NT, so a simple preference to 3♦ shows nothing extra which is pretty much what you got. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 I think that better bidding would have been for you to have bid 3♦ over 2♥. The idea that it would have been a game force is foolish unless (for reasons unknown) you play 2♥ as a game force. You have limited your hand with 1NT, so a simple preference to 3♦ shows nothing extra which is pretty much what you got.Beatrix, did you read the explanation of the auction? 2NT was Lebensohl. This is bid with all minimum responses. All other bids than 2NT (e.g. 3♦) would have been forcing to game by agreement. There is nothing foolish about this convention. Though it sometimes gets in the way when you would want to bid a natural, NF 2NT, it is a very useful agreement to have. The reverser is supposed to bid 3♣ if he has a normal minimal reverse (~16-18 points). If he doesn't bid 3♣ (like here), he is showing extra's (as is explained in the bidding). So, opener is now showing a 19+ hand. Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 3NT what else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 Partner's 3♦ suggests playing in a suit contract. I have four-card support and the king of his side-suit, and I don't have a real stopper in either of the black suits. 4♦ seems obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 While 3♦ shows extras, I don't see why it should be game forcing. Not that I am going to pass on this hand.3♥ feels descriptive. Maybe partner has xx AQJx AKQxxx K I don't want to commit to 3NT, but I do have queens in both black suits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 [hv=pc=n&s=sq2hk53d9765cq987&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=pp1dp1np2h(nat 16+)p2n(lebensohl)p3d(extras)p]133|200|MPs, random sectional field (some very strong pairs, some very weak pairs).What now? Or would you have bid 3♦ (GF) over 2♥? [/hv] This is a hard problem. My guesses areOver 2♥: 3♦ = 10, 2N (Lebensohl) = 9Over 3♦ (showing extra values): 3♠ (asking for help) = 10, 5♦ = 9, 3N = 8, 4♥ = 7. (Here I think 3N should show a ♠ stop). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted November 3, 2014 Report Share Posted November 3, 2014 I believe a good pship should have a "choice of games" bid between red suits here. It does not make very much sense to use 4♣ as a cuebid after lebensohl 2 NT particularly. To find the correct game rather than cue for a "maybe" slam is much more important imho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akwoo Posted November 3, 2014 Report Share Posted November 3, 2014 I would have bid 3♦ right over 2♥. But for me "forcing to game" actually means forcing to 3N. Incidentally, while I'm happy to play 1♦-1♠-2♥ as a fairly light reverse, I'm much more reluctant to reverse with a bad 16 when the auction goes 1♦-1N-2♥. In the auction you had, I would bid 3♠. Surely it is stopper asking, especially at MPs. At IMPs, I'd be more willing to bid 4♦. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted November 3, 2014 Report Share Posted November 3, 2014 3H sounds like a reasonable bid to me. Shows something in H and leaves some room to explore 3NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antonylee Posted November 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2014 Lots of interesting comments here. Over 3♦ (showing extra values), 3♠ (asking for help) = 10, 5♦ = 9, 3N = 8, 4♥ = 7. (Here I think 3N should show a ♠ stop).Not sure how 3N can show doubt about ♣... what if you have Kxx xxx xxx Kxxx?Perhaps it would make sense to have 3♥ and 3♠ show resp. ♣ and ♠ stop, and doubt about the other? You can probably stuff some more hands into 3♥, perhaps some choice of games, so that a direct 4♣ can be used as some sort of ♦ raise? In reality you don't have any sophisticated agreements here and partner bids 4♦ over 3♥. What now? For the better or the worse, general partnership rules indicate that 4♥ would be to play and 4NT by either player would be a signoff too (so you don't have an ace-asking sequence available). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted November 3, 2014 Report Share Posted November 3, 2014 3H sounds like a reasonable bid to me. Shows something in H and leaves some room to explore 3NT. doesn't 2NT+3♥ show a bad heart raise playing lebenshol? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted November 3, 2014 Report Share Posted November 3, 2014 doesn't 2NT+3♥ show a bad heart raise playing lebenshol? We can not have a ♥ raise, good or bad. We denied 4 card M in by 1 NT. All we can show is a 3 card in pd's major. I do not like 3♥ at all, if not hate it. Pd opened diamonds, and then reversed and then showed 6-7 diamonds and bypassed 3♣. And i happen to hold 4 of them but still not showing my support or doing something else to imply it on my 3rd turn! Yes, pd may hold the hand Frances showed, but he can hold a lot of other hands where he would be so damn happy had he known you hold 4 cards vs his AKxxxx suit. I just don't like all this ultra millimetric assumptions about what pd may have with this weak hand, instead of showing a support anytime this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trump Echo Posted November 3, 2014 Report Share Posted November 3, 2014 With my regular partner, I'd pass. The 3 Diamonds bid is not forcing and I have a hand close to minimum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted November 3, 2014 Report Share Posted November 3, 2014 We can not have a ♥ raise, good or bad. We denied 4 card M in by 1 NT. All we can show is a 3 card in pd's major. raise as in, 3-card raise (if we had responded 1♠, it would be an honest 4-card raise) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatrix45 Posted November 4, 2014 Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 Beatrix, did you read the explanation of the auction? 2NT was Lebensohl. This is bid with all minimum responses. All other bids than 2NT (e.g. 3♦) would have been forcing to game by agreement. There is nothing foolish about this convention. Though it sometimes gets in the way when you would want to bid a natural, NF 2NT, it is a very useful agreement to have. The reverser is supposed to bid 3♣ if he has a normal minimal reverse (~16-18 points). If he doesn't bid 3♣ (like here), he is showing extra's (as is explained in the bidding). So, opener is now showing a 19+ hand. Rik How odd. I used to play with the guys who devised Lebensohl, which, by the way, had nothing to do with Ken Lebensohl who was just another player at the club. If 2nt is artificial and shows all minimum hands, a strange thing to call Lebensohl imo, then you have exactly what you advertised the first time. Since my 2nt was forcing on partner as an artificial relay bid, I have to pass 3♦ since I do have support but nothing extra. Partner is probably just scrambling for a landing spot opposite a declared minimum. Why would anyone play such a strange treatment? Even worse, why call it lebensohl? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antonylee Posted November 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 How odd. I used to play with the guys who devised Lebensohl, which, by the way, had nothing to do with Ken Lebensohl who was just another player at the club. If 2nt is artificial and shows all minimum hands, a strange thing to call Lebensohl imo, then you have exactly what you advertised the first time. Since my 2nt was forcing on partner as an artificial relay bid, I have to pass 3♦ since I do have support but nothing extra. Partner is probably just scrambling for a landing spot opposite a declared minimum. Why would anyone play such a strange treatment? Even worse, why call it lebensohl?Pray tell, what is opener supposed to do with Ax AKxx AKJxxx x? Let partner, who holds xx xxx xx AJxxxx, go down in 3C when 5D is making? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted November 4, 2014 Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 If 2nt is artificial and shows all minimum hands Many use the 4th suit to indicate the weak hand f it is chapter tun 2NT. Why would anyone play such a strange treatment? Even worse, why call it lebensohl? The treatment is popular among tournament players. It seems to me that the name alludes to the use of 2NT as a puppet to 3♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted November 4, 2014 Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 There's a case for 3♠ now to be a stopper ask (instead of stopper show), on grounds of "who cares about minors". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antonylee Posted November 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 There's a case for 3♠ now to be a stopper ask (instead of stopper show), on grounds of "who cares about minors".When the auction suggests leading one of them, I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted November 5, 2014 Report Share Posted November 5, 2014 How odd. I used to play with the guys who devised Lebensohl, which, by the way, had nothing to do with Ken Lebensohl who was just another player at the club.[sNIP] (Slightly off-topic) Please, Beatrix45, enlighten us if you can remember The gist of the original version of Lebensohl?The names of the people who devised it?Why it came to be called Lebensohl? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted November 5, 2014 Report Share Posted November 5, 2014 Lebensohl First described by George Boehm, incorrectly attributed by him to Ken Lebensold. Lebensohl has been modified to extend to other situations. 7th edition Encyclopedia of Bridge.------------------------ Back to this problem. Great problem with answers all over the place. Clearly when it comes to reverse bidding there is no standard accepted bidding at this point after all these decades. I don't play this style but given the OP I will try 3h, option2 is 4d, option3=3s.Prefer a style where I can rebid a weakish 3d over 2h and live with those problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antonylee Posted November 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2014 I don't play this style but given the OP I will try 3h, option2 is 4d, option3=3s.Prefer a style where I can rebid a weakish 3d over 2h and live with those problems. I guess 2N-then-3D is GF then? With the idea being that if opener happens to have extras, supporting him at the 4-level is not an issue? (if your methods allow you to stop in 4N you should be safe with extras opposite extras.) Or am I missing the basic idea?This actually looks interesting (at least I'm intrigued by my own interpretation of your comment...), can you elaborate more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.