[paulg]

You can choose what you want responder's rebid of his suit to mean, it is not essential that it is game-forcing as I use. However it is useful to have a call that shows, or implies, that you have a game-forcing hand with 5-card suit. My partnership feels that the value in showing a weak hand with a 5-card heart suit is limited, but this is influenced by the rest of our system (in particular, weak jump shifts over 1m opener).

If partner fails to make the Lebensohl transfer, then he is showing extra values and is essentially game forcing. Continuations follow general principles from this point. For example,

1♣ - 1♥
2♦ - 2♠ (weak hands)
3♥

Partner has shown something like a strong 1=3=4=5 hand. 4♣ would now show a weak hand without five hearts, essentially any weak hand without a viable spade stop opposite a singleton.

[helene_t]

VM1973, on 2011-July-07, 14:57, said:

Assuming you would open:

♠xx
♥xx
♦Axx
♣AQJxxx (rule of 20) and presumably rebid 2♣

then an extra King somewhere should make it worth a 3♣ bid.

No, partner can still invite over a 2♣ rebid so you are allowed to have extras. With a king, or even and ace more than a minimum, just rebid 2♣.

[the hog]

paulg, on 2011-July-08, 03:08, said:

You can choose what you want responder's rebid of his suit to mean, it is not essential that it is game-forcing as I use. However it is useful to have a call that shows, or implies, that you have a game-forcing hand with 5-card suit. My partnership feels that the value in showing a weak hand with a 5-card heart suit is limited, but this is influenced by the rest of our system (in particular, weak jump shifts over 1m opener).

If partner fails to make the Lebensohl transfer, then he is showing extra values and is essentially game forcing. Continuations follow general principles from this point. For example,

1♣ - 1♥
2♦ - 2♠ (weak hands)
3♥

Partner has shown something like a strong 1=3=4=5 hand. 4♣ would now show a weak hand without five hearts, essentially any weak hand without a viable spade stop opposite a singleton.

By the way Paul, I think this structure is excellent. Did you design it?

[paulg]

the hog, on 2011-July-08, 03:33, said:

By the way Paul, I think this structure is excellent. Did you design it?

No. We added it to the system in June 2005 but I do not recall the impetus for it. I expect one of us saw the basic idea somewhere, perhaps on these forums, Bridge World article, Challenge the Champs, a pair's convention card or on BBO vugraph. The idea of using the cheaper of fourth suit forcing and 2NT to show weak hands over a reverse is nothing new, so we really only fleshed out the idea to make it workable.