[Coelacanth]

I agree with the 1NT-2♠ "transfer to clubs" problem. With one partner I play this sequence as a slam try in a minor, and with another it's a weak runout. I always explain the explicit meaning, because in each case partner has shown a specific hand-type.

I don't want to belabor the Lebensohl example. The only point I was originally trying to make is that some bids say NOTHING about the hand that bids them. When my partner bids a Lebensohl 2NT, he could have literally any hand (constrained by the fact that I have opened 1NT and my LHO has overcalled something). I literally cannot tell my RHO what he has because I have no idea, and it seems to me that saying "he might have X, or Y, or Z, or none of these" is functionally equivalent to saying that he could have anything.

Consider the (perhaps) cleaner example of the temporizing 2♦ after a strong 2♣ opener. This bid (as I play with most partners) denies the ability to make a positive, natural response in a suit, but otherwise is made on literally every possible other hand. So if I open 2♣, partner responds 2♦, and my RHO asks me "what does he have?", what should I tell him?

"He's denied a positive suit response" (and I will define that for him if asked) "and beyond that I have no idea".

This is similar to the Lebensohl "chose not to make a penalty double of your partner's suit, and beyond that it could be anything".

Bottom line is that the opponents are entitled to your agreements, and sometimes your agreement is nothing more or less than "I'm telling partner to bid 3♣" or "I'm just keeping the auction open so partner can describe his hand". If your bid, in and of itself, has told your partner nothing about your hand, why should you expect your partner to tell your opponents what you have?

[aguahombre]

Coelacanth, on Aug 20 2010, 11:42 AM, said:

Consider the (perhaps) cleaner example of the temporizing 2♦ after a strong 2♣ opener. This bid (as I play with most partners) denies the ability to make a positive, natural response in a suit, but otherwise is made on literally every possible other hand. So if I open 2♣, partner responds 2♦, and my RHO asks me "what does he have?", what should I tell him?

"Artificial, waiting. Does not show or deny strength".

[Echognome]

For the Lebensohl situation, my solution has been to say, "2NT is a request for me to bid 3♣, and shows various hand types. I am not required to bid 3♣ if I have a very strong hand. The hand types partner can have are a sign-off in a suit, invitational hands, or certain game forcing hands. Would you like me to elaborate further on the specific hand types?"

That seems to have worked well for me in the past. I don't know what others think.

[mgoetze]

Coelacanth, on Aug 20 2010, 06:42 PM, said:

I don't want to belabor the Lebensohl example. The only point I was originally trying to make is that some bids say NOTHING about the hand that bids them. When my partner bids a Lebensohl 2NT, he could have literally any hand

So, what you're saying is, that you cannot conceive of any hand with which he would definitely not bid 2NT in this situation?

Because if you can, then he cannot have that hand, and therefore he cannot have "literally any hand".

And if you can't, well I'm sorry to say this, but some basic bridge experience would be a good thing to have before making such bold assertions in a public forum.

[aguahombre]

Echognome, on Aug 20 2010, 03:38 PM, said:

For the Lebensohl situation, my solution has been to say, "2NT is a request for me to bid 3♣, and shows various hand types. I am not required to bid 3♣ if I have a very strong hand.
That seems to have worked well for me in the past. I don't know what others think.

This seems to be exactly what I, and others are against: the UI to partner, even though he should know your system ---that if you bid something other than 3C you have a strong hand. Of course that is bridge logic, but any explanation which says what your rebid will mean is wrong, IMHO.

[Echognome]

aguahombre, on Aug 20 2010, 04:10 PM, said:

Echognome, on Aug 20 2010, 03:38 PM, said:

For the Lebensohl situation, my solution has been to say, "2NT is a request for me to bid 3♣, and shows various hand types.  I am not required to bid 3♣ if I have a very strong hand. 
That seems to have worked well for me in the past.  I don't know what others think.

This seems to be exactly what I, and others are against: the UI to partner, even though he should know your system ---that if you bid something other than 3C you have a strong hand. Of course that is bridge logic, but any explanation which says what your rebid will mean is wrong, IMHO.

Fair comment. I think it's helpful to add that it's a request not a demand and leave it at that.

[bluejak]

mycroft, on Aug 20 2010, 05:32 PM, said:

I have a real problem with 1NT-2S "transfer to clubs", too - when what they're playing is "signoff or slam try in *either minor*".  "Transfer to clubs" is clearly wrong here, but would you be happy with an explanation "asks me to bid 3C" for that agreement?

No, because it does not really say what you have shown. But it is better than "transfer to clubs" which implies clubs. The EBU have made this clear in Orange book, so saying transfer is MI if it does not show clubs in England/Wales.

[Coelacanth]

mgoetze, on Aug 20 2010, 05:51 PM, said:

Coelacanth, on Aug 20 2010, 06:42 PM, said:

I don't want to belabor the Lebensohl example. The only point I was originally trying to make is that some bids say NOTHING about the hand that bids them. When my partner bids a Lebensohl 2NT, he could have literally any hand

So, what you're saying is, that you cannot conceive of any hand with which he would definitely not bid 2NT in this situation?

Because if you can, then he cannot have that hand, and therefore he cannot have "literally any hand".

And if you can't, well I'm sorry to say this, but some basic bridge experience would be a good thing to have before making such bold assertions in a public forum.

I really enjoy it when people quote only part of statements. It makes the context so much clearer.

If I open 1NT, LHO overcalls, and my partner bids 2NT, yes of course there are some hands he doesn't have. He doesn't have a solid 6-card holding in the overcalled suit (he would have doubled) and he doesn't have a balanced 20 count (he would have made some move toward slam). He also doesn't have an independent suit of his own with game values.

Beyond that, yes, he can have literally any hand. The only point this is intended to illustrate is that of the many possible hands he could have, his 2NT bid has not 'shown' any specific one of them. Again, that's the only point here: it's impossible for me to tell my RHO what my partner has because I don't know what he has. I know a few select hand-types (see above) that he probably does not have, and I'm happy to tell RHO what those are.

I don't see how pedantically breaking down the definition of "literally" or disparaging my over 30 years of "basic bridge experience" serves to advance this discussion.

[mycroft]

Coelecanth: 1NT-2D-2NT - besides what you're telling me, he also doesn't have:
- a bad hand with a long major
- a hand with game-forcing values, but no major, but no diamond stopper
- a hand with game-forcing values, and at least one 4-card major, and no diamond stopper.

In fact, he has:
- a hand that wants to play 3C
- a hand with game-forcing+ values, with at most 4-card major(s), and a diamond stopper, or
- an invitational hand with a major.

How is that "literally any hand"? And why can't you say it when explained?

But even if your restrictions were all that were there, why are you willing to deceive the opponents with "could be any hand" (Not even "many" hands)? And why are you telling your partner what you will do, rather than telling your opponents what he is showing?

I am reminded of the "1S=13 cards" defence to strong club thread from a few years ago (starting here). Again, it started with the description of the call being "any hand", and ended, 9 days, much denouncing, and several requery posts later, with (approximately) "most hands without a strong single-suit; less than 16 high, and not a wild two-suiter or a strong defensive hand".

Similarly to that, if you describe 2NT lebensohl as "any hand" or "wants me to bid 3C", you're hiding a lot of information about your agreement; information that may (or may not) be useful to the opponents - but it's not up to you to decide. Just because it's hard or long to describe doesn't mean you don't - either you practise full disclosure, or you don't get to play the convention.

"I'll know which hand it is at his next bid" (which I've heard a lot) - well, what if the next bid is too late? What if, given the knowledge of list of hands, I want to raise to 4 (and take away 3NT and Stayman) or 5 (and make difficult the major invites, and 5C, as well)? What if I do it anyway, and your partner's next call is a pass or double? Do I get to know which hand it is then (of course not)? Do I get the list of possible hands then (doesn't sound like it)?

I agree, we're belabouring the lebensohl example a lot, but that's because it's a very good example of "difficult hand to practise full disclosure on, so many people just don't, and many of them don't see any problem with that".

Another one is one I play: 1C (strong) - 1D (negative); 1H "asks me to bid 1S". It's true - and 95% of the time we do (we've done something else twice in 5 years). Do you think that's acceptable explanation? Do you think you can make your call based on that? And if you can't, would you be happy with "could be any hand" or "lots of hand types - he will clarify with his next bid" as an explanation? (I am deliberately not explaining what it does mean here)

[Coelacanth]

OK, we don't need to keep going back and forth on this. I think my second example of the 2♦ waiting bid after a strong 2♣ opener is much more illustrative of my original point. Which, to remind everyone, is that some bids say nothing about the bidder's holding (except inasmuch as some holdings are excluded by virtue of the fact that the bidder could have shown them with a different call).

Your points about the Lebensohl sequence are reasonable, except that

Quote

In fact, he has:
- a hand that wants to play 3C
- a hand with game-forcing+ values, with at most 4-card major(s), and a diamond stopper, or
- an invitational hand with a major.

does not include all hands that partner might have. I don't see the informative value of saying "he might have A, or B, or C, or none of those".

Look, I'm all for full disclosure. If the following conversation ensues:

Me: Alert
RHO: What's 2NT?
Me: We play Lebensohl here. Partner is asking me to bid 3♣.
RHO: What sort of hand is he likely to hold?
Me: He doesn't have a penalty double, a 3NT hand lacking a stopper in your suit, or a constructive bid in a suit of his own. Most often, this is a weak runout to his suit at the 3-level, but he could have any hand with a tactical reason for wanting me to bid 3♣.

Have I failed to provide full disclosure? If RHO wants to ask about other sequences and hands, I'm happy to describe our agreements in full detail.

In practice, the conversation doesn't often get past "Alert".

Again, this is not about this specific example sequence, which I'm fully acknowledging was probably not the best example. The question was raised: does an alert show what the bidder has or what his partner is expected to do? All I'm saying is that there are some bids, like the 2♣-2♦ sequence, that do not describe what the bidder has (apart from eliminating some hands that would have made a different bid). Can we all agree on that?

[mycroft]

Your original point is possibly true - there are some calls that show nothing about the person's hand. I play Precision with Asking bids - I know all about that. But when the negative inferences from making the "meaningless bid" start excluding more than half partner's hands, or they are inferences that the opponents, if they don't play this system, are unlikely to understand, then when asked, *you have to disclose*. There is also a difference between pure asking bids (be they alpha/beta/gamma, Stayman, Blackwood, or "pattern out" asks) and mark-time bids (like 2C-2D) and "two-call bids" like lebensohl 2NT, 1D-2C BART, Keri 2C, ...

Specifically, on Lebensohl - okay, fine. *What other hand can he have?* You haven't given me an example (except "tactical reasons to have me bid 3C" - so, what's he going to do with a "tactical" hand? How are you going to know he's being "tactical" instead of following the system?) It's simple; just enumerate - that's what I did (standard lebensohl - if you play something different, then fine, do the work):

"I'm to bid 3C, after which, he will:
- pass with a bad hand with clubs;
- bid 3D, Stayman with a diamond stopper;
- bid 3M, invitational in that major;
- bid 3NT, 4NT, 5NT, or 6NT, to play or invite with a diamond stopper;
- make a slam try (what? remember, he did not start with a GF 3-suit?)"

and now remove the "I'll bid" and "he'll bid" parts, and you get...?

You're right, it usually doesn't get past "Alert". Good. When it does, however, your first answer is content-free. Your second answer may be correct, and useful, but maybe not (what would a direct cuebid mean? which of 2M and 3M is "constructive", and what does the other one show?)

[G_R__E_G]

I'm a club director and I direct ~ once a week. I'm sure if you were to ask them, 99% of the players that have played at my club would tell you that I'm a wonderful director and that they love to play in my games.

If at any time any of you do me the pleasure of coming to Midland to play in one of my games, please keep in mind that I like to keep the rounds at about 7 minutes per board. Please don't take up 5 1/2 minutes explaining all of the possible hands and follow-ups to a Lebensohl alert just because one of our LOL's politely turns to you after you say alert and says "Yes".

PS We're only a 75 minute drive north of Toronto, maybe you could pop by after the NABC next summer. Forum members that can keep their alert explanations to less than 20 seconds can stay at my place for free and I'll even give you a free play at the club.

[bluejak]

Drive? What happened to the train?

I would love to come, having never been to Canada, but currently I feel I can only manage the Fall Nationals each year.

I do wonder about this Lebensohl business: it seems very complex, and do people really play it so complicatedly? For example:

1NT (2♥) 2NT

I would say it shows either a weak signoff in a minor, or a game force with a heart stopper. That is less than 20 seconds.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on Aug 26 2010, 08:38 PM, said:

I do wonder about this Lebensohl business: it seems very complex, and do people really play it so complicatedly? For example:

1NT (2♥) 2NT

I would say it shows either a weak signoff in a minor, or a game force with a heart stopper. That is less than 20 seconds.

What does 2NT followed by 3♠ mean in your methods?

[Coelacanth]

mycroft, I think we are agreeing on the appropriate level of disclosure.

If the conversation goes

Me: Alert
RHO: what's the alert?
Me: We play Lebensohl. Partner is asking me to bid 3♣.
RHO: Why is he doing that?
Me: There are a wide range of hands he might hold, and I'll be able to tell you which one after his next call.
RHO: Such as?

of course I'll be happy to explain the likely hand-types for partner. It's just a question of balancing the need for excruciatingly full disclosure with the need to finish the round on time. In my experience (and YMMV, of course), most of the time RHO is not interested in any more information than what the Alert tells him (that 2NT is not natural). I therefore tailor my usual explanation to this level of interest.

If RHO wants to know more, of course he's entitled to know more, and of course I'll answer all of his questions. By giving a relatively terse initial answer ("he's asking me to bid 3♣"), I'm not being deliberately obstructive, I'm just trying to answer the question I think RHO wants the answer to.

If I've guessed wrong about his level of interest and answered too curtly, there's plenty of opportunity for follow-up questions. If I've guessed wrong and provided too much information, then I've just annoyed everyone at the table.

[mycroft]

I agree that we have the same ideas about what disclosure is appropriate, when we get to full disclosure. My problem is that if they actually care, your response takes 15 seconds longer than mine, and if they don't care, you're still providing two rounds of, effectively, content-free answers. And if they play a different version of lebensohl than you do (say Slow Denies, or direct 3>X invitational (going through 2NT is the game force); never mind if they learned Rubensohl as lebensohl (don't laugh, it happens!)), they're going to stop asking after your first response, "knowing" what's available, *and be wrong* (the standard issue with "the name of the convention is not adequate disclosure").

"to play in X, invitational in Y, or game forcing hands with a Z stopper and at most a 4-card major" doesn't take very long - why go through the other two rounds first? It's what "you think they need to know", and the full set "will confuse" - well, the laws and regulations are against you there, you're supposed to provide full disclosure, not guess at what they want (I know, I know, nobody else does, either. But this is the Laws forum).

I continue to take issue with "he wants me to bid 3C", for the two reasons I have explained before (it will give the impression to some people that he definitely has clubs, and you're not supposed to explain what you're going to do).

I do realize that frequently the actual content of the hands doesn't matter often with lebensohl 2NT, so "what's the problem?", so let's make it a lower call where there might be more reason to know.

(1NT)-2C.
"Alert!"
"What does that mean?"
"We play Modified Cappelletti. He wants me to bid 2D."
"So, he has diamonds?"
"Not necessarily, he could have several hands. I'll be able to tell you which one on his next call."
"Such as?"
"single-suited diamonds, or a major-minor two-suiter, or very occasionally, single-suited clubs"

So, do you think the first two rounds of questioning are useful? Do you not, in fact, think that the first-round answer is more likely to mislead than be helpful, if they don't ask the second round? And if they stop after the second round, mayn't partner's second-round pass be a bit of a shock to opener? Seriously, do you think this is going to *save* time?

Having said all of that, if I know my opponents and their card, I am likely to attempt to shortcut leb 2NT: "lebensohl; many hands. I can enumerate, if you wish?" Of course, that doesn't take much less time than the full explanation above. If I don't know them, or I know they don't play lebensohl, then the full-on set goes off.

G_R_E_G, our club plays 13 rounds of two, in 3:00 (2:45 if a certain director (not me) is running the game) and, frequently, 3 matches of 10 or 6 of 5 on team nights in 3:10. I don't tend to get into time-trouble there - it can be done. And I'm sorry I never made it up as far as you when I lived out east - but I used to go to the Orangeville tournament every year.

[G_R__E_G]

Too funny. I was born and raised in Orangeville and spent the first 30 years of my life there. Unfortunately I didn't start playing bridge until I was 34. As a strange coincidence, I was actually friends with Eric Murray's son back in high school and often went over to their house. However, I had no clue who Eric Murray was at the time.

[bluejak]

gnasher, on Aug 26 2010, 09:03 PM, said:

bluejak, on Aug 26 2010, 08:38 PM, said:

I do wonder about this Lebensohl business: it seems very complex, and do people really play it so complicatedly?  For example:

1NT (2♥) 2NT

I would say it shows either a weak signoff in a minor, or a game force with a heart stopper.  That is less than 20 seconds.

What does 2NT followed by 3♠ mean in your methods?

5 card spade suit, game force, heart stopper.



My impression of North America is that "Modified Cappelletti" means any defence to 1NT except normal Cappelletti.

[mycroft]

Dragging the thread firmly off-topic, I remember a conversation from the last regional I was at:

(1NT)-X
"Alert"
"yes?"
"single-suited, good suit."
"DONT?"
"No, Brozel, but this bid is similar. Promises a better suit than DONT usually does, though."

And David, since I know you care about NT defences,
"DONT" - the defence to strong NTs.
"Cappelletti" - Not DONT.
"Modified Cappelletti" - We actually know what the bids mean.
"Woolsey" - we like Pre-Alerting in Mid-chart events.
"Brozel" - "Gesundheit."
"As[p][t]ro" - "Brozel."