[antonylee]

MPs, random sectional field (some very strong pairs, some very weak pairs).

---

What now? Or would you have bid 3♦ (GF) over 2♥?

[mcphee]

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.

[Trinidad]

mcphee, on 2014-November-02, 02:03, said:

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

[beatrix45]

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.

[Trinidad]

beatrix45, on 2014-November-02, 02:21, said:

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

[whereagles]

3NT what else?

[gnasher]

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.

[FrancesHinden]

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.

[nige1]

antonylee, on 2014-November-01, 23:01, said:

MPs, random sectional field (some very strong pairs, some very weak pairs).
What now? Or would you have bid 3♦ (GF) over 2♥?

---

This is a hard problem. My guesses are

• Over 2♥: 3♦ = 10, 2N (Lebensohl) = 9
• Over 3♦ (showing extra values): 3♠ (asking for help) = 10, 5♦ = 9, 3N = 8, 4♥ = 7. (Here I think 3N should show a ♠ stop).

[MrAce]

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.

[akwoo]

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♦.

[the hog]

3H sounds like a reasonable bid to me. Shows something in H and leaves some room to explore 3NT.

[antonylee]

Lots of interesting comments here.

Quote

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).

[whereagles]

the hog, on 2014-November-02, 20:04, said:

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?

[MrAce]

whereagles, on 2014-November-03, 02:51, said:

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.

[Trump Echo]

With my regular partner, I'd pass. The 3 Diamonds bid is not forcing and I have a hand close to minimum.

[whereagles]

MrAce, on 2014-November-03, 03:41, said:

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)

[beatrix45]

Trinidad, on 2014-November-02, 02:29, said:

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?

[antonylee]

beatrix45, on 2014-November-04, 00:01, said:

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?

[Vampyr]

beatrix45, on 2014-November-04, 00:01, said:

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.

Quote

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♣.