Gib and Lebensohl

[Bermy]

Have it your way, and so the argument continues on and on. I didnt say I cant or wont play it, surely from what you have read, I do understand this convention and do play with it. What im saying is reward vs effort. Its simply not worth it if you cant get those doubles right. Take out simply doesnt work (in this case), so why do we have to play with them? Gib is a learning tool, kids play with it, and so when they are ready they go forward and find partners who play the same way. That is how trends are set, and Gib plays its role. I am not prepared to teach a novice for hours and hours of the merits of leb, when I can spend that time more constructivly. Lets teach them how to double the opps poor contract before we waste all this effort arguing the merits or demerits of leb.

 

One has to learn to defend too. One needs to see the differences between 1 down or opps making contract, and how double effects everything. Like if U NV vs Vul forget the game contract, see if you can get -2 or more, but if you vul the game contract will probably be better. NT vs suit and all that sort of thing. One has to learn this, and learn to defend for that 2 down. Here on Gib double(pen) is not an option. What am I complaining about?

[Stephen Tu]

So are you saying you'd think it's fine if gib continued to play leb, but switched the double to penalties?

 

The huge problem is all this thread you only complain about not being able to double, and blaming this on leb, when this complaint has zero to do about leb itself. Why couldn't you just title the thread gib should play penalty doubles after 1nt interference instead of sidetracking the debate by inaccurately bringing leb into the discussion, which doesn't t prevent penalty doubles whatsoever?

 

Make a new thread, penalty vs neg del after 1nt interference, and leave any mention of leb out of it. By continuing to link unrelated issues, you just make yourself sound ridiculous.

 

Criticizing leb by talking about the double, which is not part of leb, is nonsense. Criticize it by talking about the actual 2nt sequences if you can. No penalty double has nothing to do with it.

[Bermy]

This subject of penalty doubles vs take outs is a huge one, and one that North Gib simply does not get right. At the low levels Gib does not understand the trap pass and how to reopen with a double. Gib does not understand (and neither do I when playing with Gib) when a double is penalty or take out, usually getting it almost 100% wrong. Then uses take outs at the 4 level, (after a neg bid) so that I can have nowhere to go to, and pass is not an option.

 

Each double has to be judged on its own merit (almost impossible) as there is no real differentiation, and most are treated as take outs. Sometimes to the point where it is simply ridiculous. It has got to the point where almost every time I want to double a contract, I live in fear Gib with take me out. I cannot play with a partner I cannot trust, can you?

 

I raised the issue of leb, because its should be clear that a double in this situation, 1NT after opps overcall (not 2Clubs of course) should most definitively be penalty, if one is to use this convention, and if one is not going to use it too. It should be penalty double because its "part of the convention" You of course proved that I am right and it is part of the convention, however it is such a bad convention and so badly written, that even you produced doubts.

[Stephen Tu]

No, I proved it is NOT part of the convention. You claim it is, even though the wiki you cede authoritative status to clearly contradicts that view. The wiki clearly says double is not part of leb. It goes on to say that generally double is played as penalty, which was probably true at the time the article was originally written. That is a general bridge comment in the opinion of the author, not a retraction of the earlier statement that double is not part of leb. He's talking about a sequence that is related to the general area, handling interference over 1nt, but clearly not part of leb itself. Furthermore, there is simple existence proof of a ton of top pairs with filed convention cards for the world championships listing both leb and negative doubles over 1nt that show pen double is not integral to the convention. Including your South African reps, by the way.

 

 

http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/wbfinfo/systemsinfo/conventioncards.asp

 

 

Gib undoubtedly has a ton of trouble with takeout vs penalty on a lot of auctions that need to be fixed. No one disputes that.

 

But it is really annoying when you claim to be discussing leb when you are really discussing doubles. It's like if I were to criticize your beloved Bergen raises, by only bringing up jacoby 2nt raise sequences. Objection, your honor, relevance. If you want to discuss doubles, title your thread doubles. Don't call doubles Lebensohl.

[Bermy]

No, I proved it is NOT part of the convention. You claim it is, even though the wiki you cede authoritative status to clearly contradicts that view. The wiki clearly says double is not part of leb. It goes on to say that generally double is played as penalty, which was probably true at the time the article was originally written. That is a general bridge comment in the opinion of the author, not a retraction of the earlier statement that double is not part of leb. He's talking about a sequence that is related to the general area, handling interference over 1nt, but clearly not part of leb itself. Furthermore, there is simple existence proof of a ton of top pairs with filed convention cards for the world championships listing both leb and negative doubles over 1nt that show pen double is not integral to the convention. Including your South African reps, by the way.

 

 

http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/wbfinfo/systemsinfo/conventioncards.asp

 

 

Gib undoubtedly has a ton of trouble with takeout vs penalty on a lot of auctions that need to be fixed. No one disputes that.

 

But it is really annoying when you claim to be discussing leb when you are really discussing doubles. It's like if I were to criticize your beloved Bergen raises, by only bringing up jacoby 2nt raise sequences. Objection, your honor, relevance. If you want to discuss doubles, title your thread doubles. Don't call doubles Lebensohl.

 

"

"Generally, a Double is for penalty"

 

Really?? Perhaps you should go read the convention again. and again and again and again. Read it, you are so stubborn. And very very slow indeed. Read the word "generally" it does not apply to the majority of people it applies to the meaning of the double...It means for example that of opps overcall say 2 club, the double is take out...slow? Secondly all notes say "default double is penalty. Thirdly, TAKE OUTS SIMPLY DONT WORK HERE. Geee you are slow and stubborn.......carry on arguing, and on and on and on its because of players like you that we have to endure such drivel.

[Bermy]

You sound like that partner I refuse to play with, You guys should get together. ha, he wishes he could have me back as a partner.

 

You see, the time to discuss conventions is on the way to the club, and the time to argue is on the way home. When at the club playing, get on with playing, not arguing.

 

And if you miss a simple penalty double, because of this......

 

Find a new partner. This convention is such a waste of productive time.

[Stephen Tu]

"

"Generally, a Double is for penalty"

 

Really?? Perhaps you should go read the convention again. and again and again and again.

 

You are the one who quoted the critical sentence in bold above:

"A Double by responder is not part of Lebensohl. " why don't you read your own quote again and again?

 

The sentence in the article about double is NOT about the convention. It is about a related area of bridge.

 

Read it, you are so stubborn.

How about you read your own quote, you are the one with reading comprehension difficulties. In no way does the article say double is part of Lebensohl. It does say that usually it is played as penalties, but it does not logically follow from that statement that double is part of lebensohl. Especially when a few sentences earlier it explicitly says directly it isn't, and is subject to partnership agreement. Explain this sentence in the article if it is part of the convention.

 

Thirdly, TAKE OUTS SIMPLY DONT WORK HERE.

 

I'll choose to take my advice from the many world champ level pairs who think you are wrong about this. And my own experiences since I switched. Why again am I supposed to follow your advice over multiple world and U.S. national champs?

[Bermy]

You are the one who quoted the critical sentence in bold above:

"A Double by responder is not part of Lebensohl. " why don't you read your own quote again and again?

 

The sentence in the article about double is NOT about the convention. It is about a related area of bridge.

 

 

How about you read your own quote, you are the one with reading comprehension difficulties. In no way does the article say double is part of Lebensohl. It does say that usually it is played as penalties, but it does not logically follow from that statement that double is part of lebensohl. Especially when a few sentences earlier it explicitly says directly it isn't, and is subject to partnership agreement. Explain this sentence in the article if it is part of the convention.

 

 

 

I'll choose to take my advice from the many world champ level pairs who think you are wrong about this. And my own experiences since I switched. Why again am I supposed to follow your advice over multiple world and U.S. national champs?

 

lol and on and on and on.......

[hrothgar]

You sound like that partner I refuse to play with, You guys should get together. ha, he wishes he could have me back as a partner.

 

Out of curiosity, was said partner 32516?

 

Cause I can really picture the two of you playing together...

[Bermy]

Out of curiosity, was said partner 32516?

 

Cause I can really picture the two of you playing together...

 

Oh no, the only partner I ever play with these days is (and not for the reasons you may attempt to give)

Gib, oh and how nice are non bidding tourneys, At least everybody plays the same howlers.

 

Is that planned bidding and planned hands or natural Gib? I don't mind novelty bridge is novelty bridge and its fun, I think it may be worth $0.25 too {prediction).

 

How about a tourney where we are defending with partner?

 

But really, the bidding there is shocking too.

[sfi]

Out of curiosity, was said partner 32516?

 

Cause I can really picture the two of you playing together...

 

You're closer to the mark than you might have thought: Here's a post from 2011 that links the two.

 

Given that South Africa has only 2,894 registered bridge players and both are clear experts, I'm sure they know each other well from the tournament scene.

[Bermy]

You're closer to the mark than you might have thought: Here's a post from 2011 that links the two.

 

Given that South Africa has only 2,894 registered bridge players and both are clear experts, I'm sure they know each other well from the tournament scene.

Funny enough, the last time I played tournament bridge in South Africa was in about 1976, So no comment as to my personal history, Perhaps if some South Africans would listen to what I have to say, they would not finish last in the Bowl.

[Bermy]

"That would be because you show an understanding of what Bergen raises are" SFI

This feed has been placed in Robot Discussion, other feeds are available for beginner, advanced and expert discussion, and for Natural and Non Natural Bidding systems.

Wiki reference and all others say double should be penalty and Gib does not respect that.

I feel we should stick to the subject, and not get carried away with the details of the convention.

[Stephen Tu]

"All others"???

 

I linked to 3 sources above that clearly show people playing it as negative. Bridge world std, based on poll of readership which tends towards advanced/expert. The 1nt battlefield site. The ecats site that has downloadable convention cards of all the recent world championship participating pairs, if you look through I'm sure most play negative.

 

You like Bergen... Maybe you can take a look at Bergen's partner when he was still competing, Larry Cohen

https://www.larryco.com/bridge-articles/notrump-opening-bids-part-2-of-3

Guess what he recommends negative doubles also.

 

Article by Steve Robinson surveying top American experts:

http://www.districtsix.org/Articles/Article%202010-10.aspx

Something like 20:5 in favor of non-penalty

 

It makes sense you haven't played live tournament bridge since the 70s. Bridge bidding hasn't remain frozen in time in the interim. Don't think you know everything and can convince anyone when you give no logical arguments whatsoever other than declare things to be a certain way on your authority. You are getting no support here because very little of what you state makes any sense to anyone other than yourself.

[Bermy]

"All others"???

 

I linked to 3 sources above that clearly show people playing it as negative. Bridge world std, based on poll of readership which tends towards advanced/expert. The 1nt battlefield site. The ecats site that has downloadable convention cards of all the recent world championship participating pairs, if you look through I'm sure most play negative.

 

You like Bergen... Maybe you can take a look at Bergen's partner when he was still competing, Larry Cohen

https://www.larryco.com/bridge-articles/notrump-opening-bids-part-2-of-3

Guess what he recommends negative doubles also.

 

Article by Steve Robinson surveying top American experts:

http://www.districtsix.org/Articles/Article%202010-10.aspx

Something like 20:5 in favor of non-penalty

 

It makes sense you haven't played live tournament bridge since the 70s. Bridge bidding hasn't remain frozen in time in the interim. Don't think you know everything and can convince anyone when you give no logical arguments whatsoever other than declare things to be a certain way on your authority. You are getting no support here because very little of what you state makes any sense to anyone other than yourself.

 

You make assumptions that are clearly not true. Your assumptions about me prove that, since you have little idea who I really am and what my history is. Nobody said I have always lived in South Africa (or even that I am "here" right now) Perhaps I have stayed in more international hotels and played in more cities than you have had breakfasts.

Because I have always played with different partners I have had to understand all the conventions, well all the old ones anyway. I do not think you have much comprehension as to how bidding language flows and how it freezes and changes over time, so please dont try to explain to me. Rather use some intellect and intelligence for a change and note that this is a feed for Robot Discussion and not one for beginner discussion.

[Stephen Tu]

Ok whatever, I'm done, it's not worth arguing with someone with an iq of a turnip.

[Bermy]

Ok whatever, I'm done, it's not worth arguing with someone with an iq of a turnip.

LOL If you turnip the leek then the leek will turnip red in the peppers. Lettuce avo more celery for apples peas :)

[2200]

Today GIB held

Q10x

A10xx

Axx

AKx

 

and opened 1NT， after

1NT-(2S cappelletti) -3NT(slow shows fast denies by me)-pass

 

GIB decided 4H might be a good idea. It wasn't.