Ooof. Just bridge, no special agreements.
2272
#1
Posted 2022-October-30, 11:19
Ooof. Just bridge, no special agreements.
#3
Posted 2022-October-30, 13:42
DavidKok, on 2022-October-30, 12:21, said:
No, but if you did have it available how would the auction go, are you going to play in 3D?
#4
Posted 2022-October-30, 13:57
#5
Posted 2022-October-30, 14:13
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.
#6
Posted 2022-October-30, 14:16
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.
#7
Posted 2022-October-30, 14:18
DavidKok, on 2022-October-30, 14:13, said:
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.
#9
Posted 2022-October-30, 15:17
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)?
#10
Posted 2022-October-30, 15:19
DavidKok, on 2022-October-30, 15:17, said:
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.
#11
Posted 2022-October-30, 15:26
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.
#12
Posted 2022-October-30, 15:41
#13
Posted 2022-October-30, 16:17
mikeh, on 2022-October-30, 14:16, said:
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.
#14
Posted 2022-October-30, 16:30
Cyberyeti, on 2022-October-30, 16:17, said:
Yes. Embarrassing example, lol
#15
Posted 2022-October-30, 16:51
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.
#16
Posted 2022-October-30, 17:05
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?
#17
Posted 2022-October-30, 18:23
I think N had an easy bid here, 3H, 3S or a simple 4D
#18
Posted 2022-October-30, 20:32
jillybean, on 2022-October-30, 18:23, said:
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.
#19
Posted 2022-October-30, 20:59
mikeh, on 2022-October-30, 20:32, said:
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?
#20
Posted 2022-October-30, 21:35
helene_t, on 2022-October-30, 16:51, said:
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.