[kenberg]

Matchpoints.

First I give you my hand:

---

Do we agree so far?


From now on the opponents are silent.

Partner bids 3♣ over my 2♥. Your thoughts?

If I don't bid 3NT right now, I imagine I will finish in 6♣ since there is likely to be a reasonable play for more than nine tricks in NT, and this is mps. Right?

Anyway, I did finish in a hopeless 6♣

Question: Given that we play Lebensohl in an uncontested auction, does it still apply after the first round take out double? I thought that it did, partner thought it did not. In fact, the combined hands on this deal provide an argument in his favor, because we belong in 3NT played from my side. Here are the hands:

---

One of the high cards is with E, so in theory, 3NT might fail with enough bad luck and bad guessing, but in practice it looks like a fine contract. If played N, a diamond lead is obviously a serious threat.

The primary question is for future play; Leb on or off when the opps come in with a double. Or an overcall, for that matter.


Any other comments about my judgment are of course welcome.

[FrancesHinden]

The problem on the actual hand was that you didn't know if leb was on or off; if you knew partner could be this weak, you'd be more confident of stopping in 3NT because you could have passed 3C so 3NT already shows extras.

After a t/o double I would continue to play leb on, the main arguments for playing it still apply; even though partner is on average slightly stronger for a 1S bid than after a pass, you can take account of that with your reverse.
After an overcall it is much more a straightforward matter of agreement; you have a cue bid available for good hands if you want, and there is some merit in a having a non-forcing 2NT bid available.

As it happens, we play system on once both opponents have passed, so we would keep our methods on here.

p.s. particularly at matchpoints, you want to be able to stop in 4NT so the choice is not simply between 3NT and 6C.

[ggwhiz]

I definitely think it should be off in a sequence like this and use a random redouble to create the game force. Perhaps a free bid like this should be a middlin invite?

Lots of hands like running clubs and ♦Kx must right side 3nt opposite a hand that can't game force over many normal reverses. May not be cold but I'll want to be there with lho under the gun on lead.

[CSGibson]

lebensohl should be on, but your hand isn't as good as you think it is on this sequence - righty has red cards behind you. I'd bid 3N, knowing that my hand is bordering on a maximum for the action.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

On or off, you need to just bid 3NT yourself with that 19 pointer.... or a timid 2NT .

[kenberg]

Yes, I had come to think that 1 should have just bid 3NT anyway, 6♣ needs too much, even giving partner some more stuff. I remain uncertain about whether Leb should be on or not, the responses seem to be mixed on that issue. If the answer is on, then it seems I need to get the 3NT bid in directly after the 1♠ to prevent the plausibly predictable wrong-siding. I'm a little uncomfortable with this choice.

[mike777]

of course 3c should be more than a minimum, if 3c is just random you still need to make a slam try.

have no idea why pard did not bid 2nt whatever it means.

[aguahombre]

mike777, on 2012-September-15, 00:02, said:

of course 3c should be more than a minimum, if 3c is just random you still need to make a slam try.

have no idea why pard did not bid 2nt whatever it means.

It was fortunate that pard did not bid 2NT thinking Leben was on. If it were not on, perhaps the reasons for not bidding 2NT would be the lack of a diamond stop and 3-card support for opener's 5+clubs.

Ken is exactly right in his retro observation that because of the double he should have anticipated (if playing Leben) and rebid 3NT over the 1S response. If the 3NT rebid normally shows a stiff spade, long solid clubs and prime stops in the reds, this hand is not far off. The quacks in the red suits don't amount to extras under the doubler, but they do make up for the fact that clubs are not solid.

I would like to think I wouldn't have knee-jerked the 2H reverse, because we do use Leben on this auction and 3NT by North really sucks ---I know I would not have shown a minimum reverse with 3C over NT.

[kenberg]

Looks as if the vote so far is 3 (Frances, Chris (corrected), Aqua) for leb on, one vote (ggwhiz) for off, and general consensus that 3NT from my side is the goal. Far more often than not 3NT should make after partner's 1♠, and with most of the values on my left I can easily forget about slam.

Perhaps of interest, if the opponents stay out of the auction the contract will surely be 3NT played North: 1♣-1♠-2♥-2NT(Leb)-3NT (Like Aqua, I am not bidding a passable 3♣). Might come in, anything is possible, but it's not a favorite. The ace of spades is with E, the Q with W, so a spade to the Jack produces nine tricks. I don't know if diamonds were 4-4.

[CSGibson]

Chris, not Carolyn

[kenberg]

CSGibson, on 2012-September-15, 12:18, said:

Chris, not Carolyn

Pardon!
Thanks

[Zelandakh]

Another option that you might not have considered is to play transfers in both auctions. There are many structures possible, eg

1♣ - 1♠; 2♥
===========
2♠ = natural, non-forcing
2NT = clubs
3♣ = to play 3♦, or GF with 6+ spades
3♦ = hearts
3♥ = 5 spades, GF
3♠ = asks for diamond stop, GF
3NT = to play

or

2♠ = natural, non-forcing
2NT = clubs
3♣ = to play 3♦, or GF without a diamond stop
3♦ = hearts
3♥ = 5 spades, GF
3♠ = 6+ spades with a diamond stop, GF
3NT = to play

etc. If you play 2♠ as forcing you end up with almost more sequences than you need - that is a real luxury over a reverse!

Given the simple choice between Lebensohl on or off after a takeout double, I would prefer on. Not only is it useful, it is also simpler to have only one system in play and thereby avoid situations such as the OP.

[helene_t]

ggwhiz, on 2012-September-14, 15:49, said:

I definitely think it should be off in a sequence like this and use a random redouble to create the game force.

But initially, responder does not know that opener has reverse strength so he needs some 10+ HCPs to redouble.

Are you saying that every hand that is strong enough for game opposite a reverse should start with a redouble?

I think this is a bad idea. First, the modern style is that failure to redouble doesn't deny values. Second, you need just 8 points to force to game opposite a reverse, and most will say that that isn't enough to redouble.

Anyway, I agree with Frances. The situation doesn't change much because of the double. We are less likely to have slam but we still need lebensohl to make choice-of-game easier.

[kenberg]

helene_t, on 2012-September-17, 02:44, said:

We are less likely to have slam but we still need lebensohl to make choice-of-game easier.

This is one reason I thought the hand was worth a posting. After 1♣-X-1♠-Pass, it is not difficult to imagine a hand where 5♣ makes and 3NT does not. Nonetheless, I now agree any thoughts along these lines are outweighed by the importance of getting this right sided and the unlikelihood of a slam. The issues changes a bit at imps where it's no big disaster to be playing 5♣ making while 3NT has ten tricks. At mps, which this was, I cannot imagine that I would choose to be in 5♣ on this hand. But I am not up for having one agreement at imps and another at mps, so I will be suggesting to pard that leb is on and that the next time I hold this hand I will be bidding 3NT on the second round. A good practical call, I think.

[PhilKing]

I would not respond 1♠, and would probably end in 3NT from the wrong side.

But diamonds aren't always 53 and sometimes they lead a spade.

[kenberg]

PhilKing, on 2012-September-17, 07:20, said:

I would not respond 1♠, and would probably end in 3NT from the wrong side.

But diamonds aren't always 53 and sometimes they lead a spade.

My style is such that I also might not respond 1♠. Right or wrong, I would be inclined to demonstrate my weakness by passing.

After which?

I did not reconstruct the opponents hands, but I suppose that my rho has four, possibly five, spades and would bid 1♠. The ace of spades was E, the Q of spades and all other high cards were W. Even if W has four spades I am not so sure he would bid 2♠ over my 2♥. So we consider 1♣-X-Pass-1♠; 2♥-2♠ or maybe Pass-??

If pard bids 2NT, then a pass on my right, I am not so sure I raise to 3. He did pass first round, and I have certainly shown a big hand already., Perhaps I go on to game thinking that I may as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb, but if I bid 3 I should not be surprised to find that a bit of luck is needed. And it is.

[kenrexford]

2♠ should probably be Ingberman in this auction.