[Echognome]

I'll "just" bid 3♣ as I have an easy 3NT if partner bids 3♠.

I think that means I went home.

[karaprens]

I cross my fingers and bid 3nt

[FrancesHinden]

Have you discussed your lebensohl sequences?

My methods are that 2NT followed by 3NT shows doubt i.e. a single spade stop and an alternative place to play (usually a 5/6-card minor).

The problem on this hand is that I'm arguably not strong enough for that; if partner pulls 3NT I strongly doubt that we are making 5m unless he has extras.

But I'm going to do that anyway, assuming that's the method: the upside is that if partner is, say, 2533 with extra values he'll bid 3H over 2NT and we can play in 4H which might well be better than 3NT.

[Apollo81]

I am short enough in spades that I think partner has at least two, which means he didn't stretch to double.

I would bid 2NT then 3NT showing doubt as Frances suggested.

[jdonn]

I have never in my life bid 2NT then 3NT on this auction, but even if I had doubt I would not want to show it! Why not just use that as a different range and slam invitational for example, like 16-18?

[mikeh]

I don't have France's methods, so I bid 3♣. The 'good news' is that I think I still may break even with her hope that over her 2N, partner will bid 3♥. In fact, I think it more likely that he will bid 3♥ over 3♣ than that he will do so over 2N: at least over my 3♣ he doesn't need many extras to bid, since I have promised some values, unlike 2N.

3N requires either a spade stop from partner (in which case he has a BIG hand since he didn't bid 2N, and we may survive 3♣.. the only problem is whether we get to or miss a good or bad slam), or extras (again, we will survive 3♣) or specific cards.. it has to be a good minimum for us to take 9 tricks before they take 5... I suspect we either make or fail by at least 2 tricks.

BTW, partner rates to have some spade length.. no raise and we hold only 2, but then maybe LHO has 7222 and didn't like 3♠.

Qx AJxx AQxx Axx is a good hand for partner and yet this makes for a poor game.

xx AKxx KJxx Axx... another good hand and we have less than a good play, especially given the 2♠ bid... and so on. Notice I have given partner a lot of controls as well as extra hcp. Given that these hands may reach 3N after 3♣, it is easy to see that an immediate 3N is way too dangerous.

[pclayton]

3N.

This could be unmakeable or it could be cold. With RHO not raising, there seems to be a good chance pard is 3=4=3=3 with a 14 or better. Axx AKxx Kxx xxx gives me a good play, as does xxx AKxx Kxx Axx (although the opponents may be making 11 tricks on the opening lead ).

[FrancesHinden]

pclayton, on Jul 30 2008, 07:41 PM, said:

(although the opponents may be making 11 tricks on the opening lead ).

yeah, the number of vulnerable undertricks we might be generating does give some cause for concern

[mike777]

3c

"After a weak 2
After a weak 2 opening and a take out double Lebensohl is used to enable a better indication of the strength of the responder to the doubler.

For Example after (2♠) X (p) ?:

With 0-7 points 2NT is bid forcing a relay of 3♣. This is either passed or corrected to another suit.
With 8-11 points suits are bid at the 3 level.
With values for game it is just bid.
If there is space to bid a suit at the 2 level; e.g. after (2♥) X (p) ? and the suit held is spades:

With 0-7 points bid 2S
With 8-11 points 2NT is bid forcing a relay of 3♣. Then 3♠ is bid showing the invite.
3♠ is now game forcing.
With a very strong hand the doubler can by-pass 3♣.


[edit] After a Major is raised to the two level"

http://en.wikipedia....#After_a_weak_2

[mikeh]

I wouldn't use wikipedia as an authoritative guide to bidding

[matmat]

mikeh, on Jul 30 2008, 06:48 PM, said:

I wouldn't use wikipedia as an authoritative guide to bidding

wikipedia knows all.

[peachy]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 30 2008, 07:18 AM, said:

Have you discussed your lebensohl sequences?

My methods are that 2NT followed by 3NT shows doubt i.e. a single spade stop and an alternative place to play (usually a 5/6-card minor).

The problem on this hand is that I'm arguably not strong enough for that; if partner pulls 3NT I strongly doubt that we are making 5m unless he has extras.

But I'm going to do that anyway, assuming that's the method: the upside is that if partner is, say, 2533 with extra values he'll bid 3H over 2NT and we can play in 4H which might well be better than 3NT.

I don't think my partnerships have discussed what 2NT followed by 3NT would mean (which just shows that I apparently do not have serious partnerships...). To me it seems like that sequence doesn't exist. But I would resist agreeing to use it the way Frances describes, giving opponents free information that "I am doubtful whether 3NT is right because I have only a single spade stopper".

[P_Marlowe]

3C, if we have game, partner will make
another move.

It depends to a large degree on the min.
you require for a t/o in direct seat, but
for most a min. opener would be enough,
and I would not force to game oppossite a
min. opener.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[gnasher]

I usually use 2NT followed by 3NT as part of a scheme to distinguish the presence of stops and four-card majors. Something like:
- Immediate 3S = asking for a stop
- Immediate 3NT = to play (with a stop)
- 2NT then 3S = asking for a stop, but with four hearts
- 2NT then 3NT = to play (with a stop), but with four hearts

I'm surprised that people say they haven't discussed or used these sequences. Even in a casual partnership, I'd expect the discussion to be not just "Lebensohl", but "Lebensohl - fast shows a stop" or (as in the above example) "Lebensohl - slow shows a major".

[FrancesHinden]

I understand your concerns about the 'doubt-showing' nature of 2NT then 3NT. It does have the big advantage of getting to 5m when it's right (or in fact last time it came up we got to a good 6C). Ideally I'd have the ace in their suit rather than the king, so that when partner has a singleton 5/6m is a good spot.

Maybe I'm persuaded not to use the toy on this hand, because we also have doubt that 5m will make if partner bids, but it raises the question that it's worth discussing these sequences

p.s. I use 2NT - cue bid to show a 3NT bid with 4 cards in at least one unbid major, 2NT - 4m to show a game force with 6 cards in the minor bid and 4 cards in the unbid major, and a direct 4m as forcing. I bet Wikipedia doesn't mention those either.

[mike777]

This is from Better Bidding with Bergen II. 1986.



direct 3 of minor shows around 7-11 pts.




direct 3nt over x shows uncertainity about stopper and whether 3nt is the best spot. (Axx)
slower auction, 2nt and then 3nt promises more stoppers and therefore less doubt.(KQT).

[Edmunte1]

I think this hand has some pluses and minuses:
- 5th club (as a trick) and maximum values for the 3♣ bid
- No Aces and only Kx in ♠ is the downside of the hand, maybe we won't have enough tempo to take our potential tricks.

I think that when you make your choice between 3♣ and 3NT you should take care of the next factors:
-How frequently you'll miss the game by bidding 3♣ and partner passing with a balanced 13-14 hcp hand;
- What would your opponents usually do, how agressive is the person who is staying in your seat.
Phil examples are nice, but they imply hands with controls that take 3 fast tricks in hearts, and they have small probabilities, due to luck of aces often yo won't have the tempo to collect your 9 tricks