[ahydra]

IMPs, both vul

---

1NT = weak (12-14)
2S = spades and a minor
No fancy systems available. 2NT = natural and invitational, 3m = non-forcing, double = takeout, 3S = stopper ask.

Thanks,

ahydra

[HardVector]

This is why people play fancy systems, btw. You want to have a means of playing in 3c when you have garbage and ways of showing and hand that has clubs and wants to move forward. If 3c to you and your partner isn't forcing, just bid 3n and hope, you have 1/2 a stopper along with your partner's strong hand.

[Vampyr]

HardVector, on 2019-May-17, 17:58, said:

This is why people play fancy systems, btw. You want to have a means of playing in 3c when you have garbage and ways of showing and hand that has clubs and wants to move forward. If 3c to you and your partner isn't forcing, just bid 3n and hope, you have 1/2 a stopper along with your partner's strong hand.

Partner’s hand may be only as strong as ours, so it may not contain another 1/2 spade stopper and the ability to run 9 tricks.

[TylerE]

I'd hardly consider Lebonsohl esoteric or hard. Really, it's one of the more fundamental things that should be taught, in preference to such dubious (but often taught to novices) things as Bergen raises

[eagles123]

even if I played something fancy (And I agree with Tyler that some sort of Leb is fairly essential) think I would just bid 3N anyway. partner might have a spade stop, they might not lead a spade ... who knows maybe we get a small spade lead from AKxxx and then have 9 cashers

[FelicityR]

If the opponents have a fit in spades then it's likely (but not guaranteed) 3NT will go down, and the one thought that crosses my mind is that as South we as have so many good cards in the minors and the opponents have overcalled vulnerable that the overcaller's spade suit will be half-decent to good.

We have the majority of the points but no sensible bid available. Using Lebensohl could also leave us in a disastrous contract. Given that one opponent has passed already, my partner would be more emboldened to open 1NT vulnerable with a lower range of 12, and these days it could include a 5 card major, even in Acol.

I'm in the 'Pass' camp, admittedly a tad annoyed that I have been 'fixed' but maybe the hands are such a misfit - and we've been given a warning that bad breaks exist - that any contract by both sides is doomed to failure. Anyway, who's not to say that the opponents end up in a minor suit contract at the three level, vulnerable, with less HCPs than us? That might be a nice penalty, better than a vulnerable game.

[maartenxq]

In my view this is an impossible problem. Anything I do can be disastrous. 3 nt may be lay down or down 3, dbl provokes 3 !h by partner, bidding my minor might be in opponents suit. So I pass and hope for the best.

Maarten Baltussen

[rmnka447]

The bidding of this hand has resulted in a system fix for your side.

You do have a 12 count with questionable ♠ Qx. Had RHO passed you'd probably bid 3 NT with this hand.

Lebensohl or similar would be useful on this hand as you could bid 3 NT and partner would know you don't have a stopper. You'd relay and bid 3 NT with one.

Bur given that you play a simple system over competition, you need to use 2 NT as a value showing bid. Just too many hands come up where you have values and can't find a bid the way you play. Partner might have a guess to make in his rebid, but at least knows that your side has the bulk of the points. Partner ought to infer that since you didn't make a negative double that you probably don't have 4 ♥.

But given the choices, I'd probably bid 3 ♠ asking for a stopper.

[msjennifer]

ABSTAIN !(with the given restrictions).The bids suggested are not warranted and desire a lot for modifying them to bring them in line with with some known gadgets.Most dubious is a double regarded as a take out double. When one is playing a weak NT,the responders bids, when opponents intervene, should be as precise and as watertight as possible. If presented this problem and FORCED to bid something on the table there remains no option but to bid either 3C or take a stab and bid 3NT hoping opener has at least Jxx of spades and we can scamper through to collect 9 tricks. A bid of 3S leads us nowhere if opener has just Jxx (3s does not guarantee Qx or does it ?) It will result in a clumsy contract at 4 level.

[Tramticket]

This is not easy and I would definitely want to have methods for this routine auction.

I do not like staying out of vulnerable games at IMPs, but it looks like game our way is against the odds. We don't have a heart fit and we are too balanced for 5m to be a likely spot. So game seems to need partner to have enough stops. A holding of JXX might be enough if we can run another eight tricks, but there we will often need to lose the lead. I would feel a lot happier if the lead was coming up to our hand as QX is often a useful holding as declarer but rarely a useful holding to put down as dummy.

At the table I might bid 3NT (I see little value in a natural 2NT on this hand), but my head says that we should pass.

[dsLawsd]

Even playing lebensohl this hand is no picnic at IMPS. We do know that partner has hearts and a probable minor suit fit, or has 5 hearts or has a sure spade stopper. Even if partner has Jxx or T9xx we have a likely game.
Therefore the money bid seems to be 3NT. On an unlucky day we are down 3. But with our holding the ♠Q there is a very good chance that the spade suit will be blocked or that one will not be led.
Also, if East has 5-5 distribution we hold cards over them.
Its just bridge...

[miamijd]

At IMPs, I would just bid 3NT, Leb or no Leb. Leb is fine when the opponents are showing one suit only. It is not good when the opponents are showing two suits. Let the opponents guess which suit to lead. Maybe they will guess wrong. Maybe partner will have a spade stop. Maybe they will lead from AKxxx of spades. Who knows.

At IMPs, we want to make our games. 3NT looks like the best game and a decent shot to make, so let's bid that and see what happens.

Cheers,
Mike

[nige1]

ahydra writes 'IMPs, both vul. 1NT = weak (12-14) 2S = spades and a minor. No fancy systems available. 2NT = natural and invitational, 3m = non-forcing, double = takeout, 3S = stopper ask.'
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
IMO, 3-level replies should be F1. Given that they're not, I rank
1. 3N = NAT
2. Pass = Wimpy..
3. 3♣ = NAT
4. 2N = NAT.
5. Double = Whatever.
6. 3♠ = CUE.

---

[dB451]

Well, I would bid 3N, but not for the reasons identified. For me, it would be a part of Transfer Lebensohl (all three-level bids are invitational or better, and bidding at the three level one suit below intervener's suit shows a transfer to the suit above theirs), which is better then regular Leb. After all, that's why we use transfers over NT at all, isn't it, to get the lead to come to the strong hand, which is more likely to have tenaces? Also, I still prefer the double to be penalty at the club level; sure, if I'm playing in a higher-level tournament game or an A/X section of a strong unit game (yes, I'm looking at you, WBL), double as negative makes more sense, but at the club level, I think you get more mileage leaving the double as penalty. Anyway, using either Transfer or regular Leb, over 2S, 3N implies game-going points, but without a Spade stopper. If partner has one, he can leave it in, and if not, you go off in the weeds, deciding which minor to play at the four level (at least). Kinda looks like your hand, eh? Anyway, that's my $0.02.

[pescetom]

dB451, on 2019-May-18, 21:40, said:

Well, I would bid 3N, but not for the reasons identified. For me, it would be a part of Transfer Lebensohl (all three-level bids are invitational or better, and bidding at the three level one suit below intervener's suit shows a transfer to the suit above theirs), which is better then regular Leb. After all, that's why we use transfers over NT at all, isn't it, to get the lead to come to the strong hand, which is more likely to have tenaces? Also, I still prefer the double to be penalty at the club level; sure, if I'm playing in a higher-level tournament game or an A/X section of a strong unit game (yes, I'm looking at you, WBL), double as negative makes more sense, but at the club level, I think you get more mileage leaving the double as penalty. Anyway, using either Transfer or regular Leb, over 2S, 3N implies game-going points, but without a Spade stopper. If partner has one, he can leave it in, and if not, you go off in the weeds, deciding which minor to play at the four level (at least). Kinda looks like your hand, eh? Anyway, that's my $0.02.

Rubensohl has the same transfer structure and also allows a weak responder to show a non forcing major on the first round, which is a competitive advantage. Some people invert 2S and 3N: in any case one of the two denies a Spade stopper, with some degree of tolerance for takeout to either minor.

I can't see double as penalty paying off much even at club level, playing it as negative fills in the gaps nicely I find. Probably your club is wilder than mine.

[coliecam]

Western Q...o.k so it's out of style...but promising a half stopper opposite a half stopper has always been useful to me