2272

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&s=sathajdt975432cj2&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=2sdp?]133|200[/hv]

 

Ooof. Just bridge, no special agreements.

[DavidKok]

Lebensohl?

[jillybean]

Lebensohl?

No, but if you did have it available how would the auction go, are you going to play in 3D?

[mw64ahw]

The hand plays 4♦ natural opposite a min. No special agreements. Partner can raise with extras, look for slam when strong.

[DavidKok]

I'm never stopping in 3♦. Opposite a normal takeout double I am expecting approximately 11 tricks in diamonds, and I am more worried about 12 than about 10. With Lebensohl I have 3♦ GF, and if partner signs off in 3NT (a bit of a strange move when we have ♠AT and they doubled, but who knows) I will bid on with 4♦ (forcing slam try). But I hope to learn more along the way from partner's response - i.e. a real suit, 3♠ 'nothing to say' or 4♦ diamond-y.

Without Lebensohl I'm not sure how to bid, it's been too long since I played that (actually I've also moved on from Lebensohl to Transferohl, but let's make it simpler, not more complicated). I guess I'll have to bid 4♦ to show a slam try, and hope partner doesn't take me too seriously.

 

As an aside, our spade shortness along with the absence of a raise is worrying. That tends to place RHO with at most two spades, and partner with at least three. Most hands with three spades don't make a takeout double. The ideal scenarios are when partner has a hand with spades that is too strong for a direct overcall (so, let's say, 17+ HCP and long hearts) or a very strong balanced hand (20+), and we are doing great if partner has a 16-19 (semi)balanced without a spade stopper, but if partner is staring at 14-15 'I could not pass but also could not bid 2NT' we might be in trouble.

 

One final note: our diamonds are long but very soft, and I fear we won't be able to establish them in notrump. Presumably we only have a single spade stopper between us, and we can't even hold it up twice. Even with a double spade stopper we can only lose the lead once to set up the diamonds (and if partner has a spade stop for us opener bid on a weak suit, which tends to include a side suit entry or two). I therefore prefer 5♦ to 3NT at IMPs, and probably at MPs as well. Being able to do a bit of slam exploration along the way is a nice bonus.

[mikeh]

The lack of a raise on my right suggests that partner has at least two spades. This means that either he has a good hand or he lacks the classic shape. If he is off shape, his ‘short’ non spade suit will be in diamonds

 

xx KQxx Axx KQxx is a clear double of 2S and we have no game. And that’s hardly a ‘carefully chosen’ example. Basically, any time we don’t have two spade stoppers, we’re unlikely to belong in game unless partner has extras, and with extras he won’t pass 3D.

 

That should tell you that forcing to game is a poor decision.

 

I think the game is extremely difficult to play without some agreement here….I play a fairly basic lebensohl. I think 3D, if lebensohl is available, is plenty. Non-forcing but constructive. Give me Ax xx Axxxxxx Jx and I’d be worried about 3D being too conservative, but if he’s passing 3D on our actual hand we rate to have a diamond loser, and we can’t hold up in spades sufficiently if partner has xx.

 

If I didn’t play lebensohl…..well, I haven’t been in that position for several decades….but I think I’d bid 4D, hoping it were invitational

 

Btw, when playing lebensohl, in my view 4D should be forcing. You don’t need it as invitational since 3D fills that gap in the methods.

[mikeh]

I'm never stopping in 3♦. Opposite a normal takeout double I am expecting approximately 11 tricks in diamonds, and I am more worried about 12 than about 10. With Lebensohl I have 3♦ GF, and if partner signs off in 3NT (a bit of a strange move when we have ♠AT and they doubled, but who knows) I will bid on with 4♦ (forcing slam try). But I hope to learn more along the way from partner's response - i.e. a real suit, 3♠ 'nothing to say' or 4♦ diamond-y.

Without Lebensohl I'm not sure how to bid, it's been too long since I played that (actually I've also moved on from Lebensohl to Transferohl, but let's make it simpler, not more complicated). I guess I'll have to bid 4♦ to show a slam try, and hope doesn't partner take me too seriously.

Wow

 

Maybe a sim might help. I’d be very surprised if we have much play for game on the majority of minimum or near minimum takeout doubles. Especially if you appreciate that RHO is extremely unlikely to be passing if he/she holds 4 spades, even with a flat hand.

 

And, as you note, the lack of a raise is troubling. But f that’s because partner has extras, what’s wrong with 3D, in a lebensohl method?

 

Edit: I’d overlooked the reference to 3D being gf in a lebensohl context. I’ve never heard of it as such and have zero idea why anyone would play it that way.

[nullve]

With Lebensohl I have 3♦ GF

Are you sure?

[DavidKok]

There's so many Lebensohl variations around. I think it is better to play 3m NF constructive, but 3M GF (in particular hearts over spades - the only case with ambiguity). In my area everybody plays 3m forcing though, which for all intents and purposes is game forcing. The local pairs who care play transfers here - why marginally improve on the local method if you can just replace it with something much better?

 

Just to show you I'm not making this all up, here is Larry Cohen on Lebensohl.

 

I agree we might go down in game, but bidding NF constructive (if available) seems like torturing partner to me. Nobody knows what we can make - I don't, the opponents don't but poor partner also doesn't know that clubs KQ is very low value but heart KQ is some nice quick tricks. I think on balance it is right to insist on game. Swap out the clubs KQ in your not carefully chosen example for the ace and I like my chances in 5♦ - cash the diamond ace, cash some hearts pitching a club, concede a diamond and a spade for 11 tricks, failing if the trumps split 3-0 or the heart is ruffed. Making a game forcing bid on this hand is a gamble, but passing it back to partner is hardly better. And who is to say partner's diamond support is as empty as Axx?

Come to think of it - opposite that example hand, can we not win the presumed spade lead, cash hearts AJ, cross to the diamond ace and play two more hearts pitching black cards, making when the diamonds split 2-1 with the last diamond with at least three hearts (probable on the auction)?

[smerriman]

Just to show you I'm not making this all up, here is Larry Cohen on Lebensohl.

That's a page about responding to a 1NT opener. There a 3 level suit response is clearly game forcing. But unrelated to responding to a takeout double..

 

Edit - found Larry talking about lebensohl over weak 2s here, where he has the standard non-GF definition of a 3 level response.

[DavidKok]

You play different versions of Lebensohl on those auctions? We play the same one.

Thank you for the link over weak 2's. I played the one you all consider standard for a while, but locally I got many weird looks (and then I moved to Transfer Lebensohl). I can promise you that forcing is most common in my area, even though I'm confident it is inferior.

[smerriman]

I think it's unfortunate they're both called lebensohl as I wouldn't even consider them related conventions. In one partner is locked to a very narrow 15-17 range, so you know when to game force and sign off. In the other, partner could be anything from a 10 count to unlimited. If 3 level bids are game forcing when partner could have the minimum, it seems unplayable.

[Cyberyeti]

The lack of a raise on my right suggests that partner has at least two spades. This means that either he has a good hand or he lacks the classic shape. If he is off shape, his ‘short’ non spade suit will be in diamonds

 

xx KQxx Axx KQxx is a clear double of 2S and we have no game. And that’s hardly a ‘carefully chosen’ example. Basically, any time we don’t have two spade stoppers, we’re unlikely to belong in game unless partner has extras, and with extras he won’t pass 3D.

 

That should tell you that forcing to game is a poor decision.

 

I think the game is extremely difficult to play without some agreement here….I play a fairly basic lebensohl. I think 3D, if lebensohl is available, is plenty. Non-forcing but constructive. Give me Ax xx Axxxxxx Jx and I’d be worried about 3D being too conservative, but if he’s passing 3D on our actual hand we rate to have a diamond loser, and we can’t hold up in spades sufficiently if partner has xx.

 

If I didn’t play lebensohl…..well, I haven’t been in that position for several decades….but I think I’d bid 4D, hoping it were invitational

 

Btw, when playing lebensohl, in my view 4D should be forcing. You don’t need it as invitational since 3D fills that gap in the methods.

 

Have I missed something ? isn't 5♦ excellent opposite your sample hand ? needs a 2-1 trump break and not stiff heart +2 trumps.

[mikeh]

Have I missed something ? isn't 5♦ excellent opposite your sample hand ? needs a 2-1 trump break and not stiff heart +2 trumps.

Yes. Embarrassing example, lol

[helene_t]

Without Lebensohl I think I just bid 4♦ and leave it to partner to figure out if it is forcing or not :)

 

Maybe 3♠ is better as it keeps the door open for 3NT, but I am afraid it goes wrong when partner doesn't have a spade stopper and bids 4♥, or even 5♥ if they have extras. 4♦ at least shows that I have a one-suited hand.

[DavidKok]

After that clash of 'Ohls, let me try to get back on track. I think 3♦ NF constructive is an OK bid, but I fear we have to push a little more. 4♦ might get partner too excited, so maybe 5♦ is right. I'm prepared to give up on 3NT. The downside of 5♦ is that partner is completely stuck with a strong hand type and diamond shortness - picture a 4=3=1=5 18-count and now what?

3♦ is probably the field bid, even if I consider it an underbid. It also has the benefit of flexibility - partner won't jump to a hopeless slam, and has plenty of room to show their hand with a non-minimum (which need not even be a strong, 17+, type hand).

I would really like to bid 4♦, but I think there is a huge risk that partner will put me in 6. I guess I will call this 'a poor hand for our methods' and bid 3♦. What is the difference between 3♠ followed by the cheapest diamond bid, and jumping to 4/5♦ directly?

[jillybean]

I wonder how many players have discussed Leb in any detail with their partners. There seems to be a number of variations and confusion, not to mention forgets and then some who just don't want to play it. It seems to be an infrequent but important and useful convention.

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=satha9dt975432cj2&w=skqj953ht542dct93&n=s72hk863dakqca865&e=s864hqj7dj86ckq74&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=2sdp3dppp]399|300[/hv]

 

I think N had an easy bid here, 3H, 3S or a simple 4D

[mikeh]

I wonder how many players have discussed Leb in any detail with their partners. There seems to be a number of variations and confusion, not to mention forgets and then some who just don't want to play it. It seems to be an infrequent but important and useful convention.

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=satha9dt975432cj2&w=skqj953ht542dct93&n=s72hk863dakqca865&e=s864hqj7dj86ckq74&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=2sdp3dppp]399|300[/hv]

 

I think N had an easy bid here, 3H, 3S or a simple 4D

If one doubles 2S then, over 3D, bids 3H, one is showing a hand that is too strong to have bid 3H over 2S.

 

Something like x AKQxxx Axx Kxx would be a minimum. It absolutely cannot be Kxxx. Advancer has denied 4 hearts by bidding 3D. Ok, perhaps with something like xxxx AQJxxx in the reds one might choose not to bid hearts, but I doubt that would be unanimous.

 

With the given hand, especially if one plays lebensohl, doubler has an easy 3S bid.

 

Btw, I suspect that the vast majority of lebensohl bidders would have very little disagreement about what 3D shows. David’s notion (that I appreciate he doesn’t play himself) that 3D is gf is, imo, extraordinarily odd. It may be one of those local quirks that develop in bridge communities where there are a few ‘strong’ players who haven’t had a lot of exposure to mainstream ideas….local players tend to adopt methods used by the local ‘guns’. In the small city where I live, when I came here in the 1980s there was only one ‘expert’ partnership, who almost always won every local event they entered. All of the second tier players copied them.

[jillybean]

If one doubles 2S then, over 3D, bids 3H, one is showing a hand that is too strong to have bid 3H over 2S.

 

Something like x AKQxxx Axx Kxx would be a minimum. It absolutely cannot be Kxxx. Advancer has denied 4 hearts by bidding 3D. Ok, perhaps with something like xxxx AQJxxx in the reds one might choose not to bid hearts, but I doubt that would be unanimous.

 

Thanks. 3H was perhaps a bad choice, I'm just thinking forward going because I definitely want to be forward going with this hand. With a different hand is 3H completely out of the question, it's 100% forcing and could be an advanced cue in diamonds?

[LBengtsson]

Without Lebensohl I think I just bid 4♦ and leave it to partner to figure out if it is forcing or not :)

 

Maybe 3♠ is better as it keeps the door open for 3NT, but I am afraid it goes wrong when partner doesn't have a spade stopper and bids 4♥, or even 5♥ if they have extras. 4♦ at least shows that I have a one-suited hand.

 

I agree. Jillybean's post says without agreements. I think many players will take 4♦ as forcing. I think the real problem here (now having seen the hand) is what North does next.

[akwoo]

I think without Lebensohl, North's pass is correct, and South should've jumped to 4D.

 

But this hand basically illustrates how impossible playing without Lebensohl (or something else of that nature) is.

[mikeh]

Thanks. 3H was perhaps a bad choice, I'm just thinking forward going because I definitely want to be forward going with this hand. With a different hand is 3H completely out of the question, it's 100% forcing and could be an advanced cue in diamonds?

No. It’s natural. Bridge is too tough already: using 3H as either hearts or a cue for diamonds is unplayable. Wtf is advancer supposed to do? He should raise 3H to 4H with as little as xx. Now what?

 

Doubler wants to set diamonds? Easy enough

 

3S is forcing and is either about to pass (or raise) 3N or is going to support diamonds, including (on some hands) pulling 3N.

 

4D also agrees diamonds. What strength it shows is for agreement. For example, in both of my serious partnerships, we cannot play 4m after a double and a constructive 3m bid….with one exception….here (2S) x (p) 3D (p) 3S (p) 4D

 

3S was potentially hoping for a nine trick game. When advancer denied a stopper, doubler (who already knows that advancer is limited) isn’t forced to bid again.

[helene_t]

David’s notion (that I appreciate he doesn’t play himself) that 3D is gf is, imo, extraordinarily odd. It may be one of those local quirks that develop in bridge communities where there are a few ‘strong’ players

One would think so but David's club is Crash Leiden which is one of the strongest clubs in the Netherlands.

[ali quarg]

I agree. Jillybean's post says without agreements. I think many players will take 4♦ as forcing. I think the real problem here (now having seen the hand) is what North does next.

The following site summarises Lebhensohl http://kwbridge.com/leb.htm so for me not in play for this hand and different from Larry Cohen take on the subject.

3♦ is constructive

4♦ for me is invitational; I bid what I think makes opposite a minimum X.

[AL78]

I agree. Jillybean's post says without agreements. I think many players will take 4♦ as forcing. I think the real problem here (now having seen the hand) is what North does next.

 

Would 4NT by North here be to play?