[Cyberyeti]

sfi, on 2012-February-27, 14:35, said:

Consider some hands for partner's bidding. How do they bid:

x
AKx
Kx
AKQxxxx

Ax
KQx
AKJx
AQxx

xxx
AQJx
KQJ
AKQ

xxx
Kx
AKQJ
AKQJ

xxxx
KQx
AKJ
AKQ

I'm not sure which ones your partnership bids a direct 3NT on (that would show the first one in most of my partnerships), and which one you double and bid 3NT next, but in all cases 3NT is a safer contract than 4S. Feel free to come up with your own hands, but there are several reasons that mean 3NT is likely to be a better spot to play, including:

- you have six points to go along with partner's 22+, so tricks are not likely to be a problem
- 3 small hearts suggest possible ruffs in 4S
- KQJxx in spades suggests either 4-5 spade tricks or two dummy entries to lead hearts through.

And the UI suggests that partner doesn't have any of these hands. Instead it suggests that partner has an 18 count with potentially no heart stopper.

This is disingenuous, I can make up lots of hands too like:

A
AKx
KQxxx
AKxx

10x
AQ
AKxx
AKxxx

10x
A10x
AKQJ
AKxx

and lots of others I'd prefer to be in 4♠ (which is not great on hand 3 but 3N is no play unless you catch a stiff A♠, 4♠ relies on E not having a heart suit he wants to lead and an ace, ♥KQJ and the ace the other side is fine as is ♥KJ and A♠ as he won't lead a heart).

Your first hand won't happen, if partner was going to do anything other than pass 3♣ you were getting another bid, so how likely do you think that is ? Just bid 3♣ and react to what he does, reverse the minors is possible though.

[campboy]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-27, 15:09, said:

This is disingenuous, I can make up lots of hands too like:

It doesn't help much that you can. If there are lots of hands where 3NT is better than 4♠ that suggests pass is an LA. If there are also lots of hands where 4♠ is better than 3NT then that suggests 4♠ is also an LA -- but so what if it is?

[sfi]

campboy, on 2012-February-27, 16:19, said:

It doesn't help much that you can. If there are lots of hands where 3NT is better than 4♠ that suggests pass is an LA. If there are also lots of hands where 4♠ is better than 3NT then that suggests 4♠ is also an LA -- but so what if it is?

My point exactly.

[BunnyGo]

sfi, on 2012-February-27, 16:23, said:

My point exactly.

That's not how "LA" is determined. With this hand and this sequence, there isn't anyone I've ever sat down at the table with who would pass 3NT. It's simply not done. Whether we'd rather be in 3NT is another question, but they wouldn't pass--sometimes the best double dummy spot isn't an LA.

[Cyberyeti]

campboy, on 2012-February-27, 16:19, said:

It doesn't help much that you can. If there are lots of hands where 3NT is better than 4♠ that suggests pass is an LA. If there are also lots of hands where 4♠ is better than 3NT then that suggests 4♠ is also an LA -- but so what if it is?

My point was that hand picked examples don't help, you might have picked the only 4 hands out of 10000 where 3N is better, you haven't in this case, but that was the point I was making.

What we need to establish is what the difference between X followed by pulling 2N to 3N and bidding a direct 3N is for this pair. Unfortunately given the actual hand, I don't expect to hear anything sensible.

Also nothing has been said about the form of scoring which introduces some other issues.

While I was typing this up, BunnyGo said pretty much my view on this. Without definite agreements, I'd expect a 2N opener opposite, and I'd always play 4♠ not 3N opposite a 2N opener.

[sfi]

BunnyGo, on 2012-February-27, 16:44, said:

That's not how "LA" is determined. With this hand and this sequence, there isn't anyone I've ever sat down at the table with who would pass 3NT. It's simply not done. Whether we'd rather be in 3NT is another question, but they wouldn't pass--sometimes the best double dummy spot isn't an LA.

I was explaining my logic for why I think passing 3NT is clear, so that's at least one vote for it. I've polled 2 other people so far (giving them the hand and a random partner with which they do not have in-depth agreements) and both answers were '*shrug* Pass'. On that small sample, 3NT is clearly a LA. I'll ask some more tonight.

[Cyberyeti]

sfi, on 2012-February-27, 17:38, said:

I was explaining my logic for why I think passing 3NT is clear, so that's at least one vote for it. I've polled 2 other people so far (giving them the hand and a random partner with which they do not have in-depth agreements) and both answers were '*shrug* Pass'. On that small sample, 3NT is clearly a LA. I'll ask some more tonight.

Are you sure you managed to find somebody bad enough to poll to be a peer of the actual player I suppose there is that problem, polling people who have a clue is not much use here.

[sfi]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-27, 17:58, said:

Are you sure you managed to find somebody bad enough to poll to be a peer of the actual player I suppose there is that problem, polling people who have a clue is not much use here.

Fair call - the 'why didn't I bid 2S' query has been unanimous so far.

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-27, 17:58, said:

Are you sure you managed to find somebody bad enough to poll to be a peer of the actual player I suppose there is that problem, polling people who have a clue is not much use here.

The player in question is not the one who forgot Lebensohl. Why do you think he doesn't have a clue?

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2012-February-27, 12:42, said:

Depends on the quality of player: for a poor player, 2NT shows he does not have a suit! Ok, putting it more correctly, he could be 3433 of any strength.

I wouldn't expect many of this class of player to know Lebensohl in the first place. So the category of "Players who know Lebensohl, but if they're not playing it would bid 2NT with any strength 3433" is probably pretty small. Good luck finding enough of them for a meaningful poll.

[bluejak]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-27, 17:58, said:

Are you sure you managed to find somebody bad enough to poll to be a peer of the actual player I suppose there is that problem, polling people who have a clue is not much use here.

barmar, on 2012-February-27, 19:30, said:

I wouldn't expect many of this class of player to know Lebensohl in the first place. So the category of "Players who know Lebensohl, but if they're not playing it would bid 2NT with any strength 3433" is probably pretty small. Good luck finding enough of them for a meaningful poll.

As I have just explained in a different thread, these sort of comments make me realise that some of our readers do not understand the advantages of polling.

[barmar]

I thought I was implying the opposite. Since they play Lebensohl, you don't have to look for clueless players. The Law says "players with the same methods", so you just have to find players who are familiar with Lebensohl.

[Cyberyeti]

barmar, on 2012-February-27, 19:26, said:

The player in question is not the one who forgot Lebensohl. Why do you think he doesn't have a clue?

Because she decided KQJxx and out was an invite not a signoff opposite a potential 12 count. The rest of the world bids 2♠, she bid 2N.

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-28, 02:52, said:

Because she decided KQJxx and out was an invite not a signoff opposite a potential 12 count. The rest of the world bids 2♠, she bid 2N.

The OP showed her spade suit and distribution, but never mentioned total strength. I didn't interpret it as implying that there were no high cards in the other suits, but I can now see how that could have been intended.

[mycroft]

This is interesting, because what people are saying here is the way I always thought Lebensohl should be played. But people around here (including the person who I ask about these things), think that 2NT, then 3♠ is the bailout, and 2♠ directly is a good, but not game-forcing hand.

I don't know if that changes anything...

[wyman]

mycroft, on 2012-February-28, 13:05, said:

This is interesting, because what people are saying here is the way I always thought Lebensohl should be played. But people around here (including the person who I ask about these things), think that 2NT, then 3♠ is the bailout, and 2♠ directly is a good, but not game-forcing hand.

I don't know if that changes anything...

Head asplode!

So wait, after 1N (2H), I can't get out in 2S?

This is mind-boggling.

[blackshoe]

IIRC, Ron Andersen, in The Lebensohl Convention Complete, said that 2♠ here is forcing. I think he also said that an immediate 3♠ is invitational, but I could be wrong. I also think that 2♠ NF is Ingberman, but I'm still getting the two mixed up, so I could be wrong there too.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-28, 17:29, said:

IIRC, Ron Andersen, in The Lebensohl Convention Complete, said that 2♠ here is forcing. I think he also said that an immediate 3♠ is invitational, but I could be wrong. I also think that 2♠ NF is Ingberman, but I'm still getting the two mixed up, so I could be wrong there too.

I was always taught that anything at the 2 level was NF and the 3 level bids distinguished between inv and F if the suit was available at the 2 level. However this might explain why 2N was bid if the bidder was thinking the same as you.

[blackshoe]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-28, 17:43, said:

I was always taught that anything at the 2 level was NF and the 3 level bids distinguished between inv and F if the suit was available at the 2 level. However this might explain why 2N was bid if the bidder was thinking the same as you.

1NT-(2♦)-?

2M is NF, 3M is F, 2NT then 3M is inv.

It would make sense if, over reverses, the same principle applied. My understanding is that for some reason I don't know, it doesn't.

[campboy]

barmar, on 2012-February-28, 12:27, said:

The OP showed her spade suit and distribution, but never mentioned total strength. I didn't interpret it as implying that there were no high cards in the other suits, but I can now see how that could have been intended.

You must have missed post 14 when OP clarified that there were no high cards outside. Before that people were assuming that the hand must have had something extra because of the bidding.