[Trinidad]

Stephen Tu, on 2014-April-14, 09:16, said:

I don't see how you "win", vs. one playing the "slow 3nt shows doubt" while "3nt is to play" version. It's just reversing the two sequences. With Qxx just bid a slow 3nt and let partner only pass with help. With xxx spades and otherwise game values use the cue bid.

My main problem is your assertion that:
(1) Min takeout doubles with Ax/Kx in spades should pass instead because of the suboptimal placement of some values in spades. In my view, this leaves you missing 3nt/4H with say 14 opposite 11-14, when partner can't balance. It also loses some double partial swings when you can make 3 of something and they are making 2 spades. Now granted you will get some back when 3nt/3 level partials fail when 2 spades also fails, but in my estimation being able to double on something like Ax KQxx AJx xxxx is a net positive.
(2) 15-17 with something like Ax in spades should always overcall 1nt instead of doubling (at least I think this is what you implied). I personally will double with quite a lot of these, because I think I will go plus more often playing a 3 level partial in a suit than declaring 2nt when partner is too weak to move over 2nt.

I think there is a misunderstanding.

A) I compared using 3♠ to ask for a stop to using 3NT to "ask" for a stop (by saying that you would like to play 3NT, but do need some help in the stop department). I didn't compare "slow shows" to "fast shows".

1) I didn't assert so much that minimum takeout doubles with Ax/Kx in spades should pass. But there is a frequency argument. Hands with N HCPs will tend to pass more often when they have a spade stop and double more often when they have a small doubleton or singleton. So, I will certainly be able to double on the hand you gave (Ax KQxx AJx xxxx). But while I will double on x Kxxx Axx KJxxx, I won't on A Kxxx xxx KJxxx.
2) Similarly, it is not always vs never for overcalling 2NT with a stop. Again, it is a frequency argument. With Ax Axxx Axx Axxx, you and I both double. But that is as much of spade stop that you can possibly get. so your expectation should be less than that. With AQx KQJx Kxx Qxxx neither of us would double.

Rik

[MrAce]

Ok Rik, it is my bad that I thought (for some reason I don't know why but probably because of not reading carefully) you suggest those bids to be used for slams.

[Stephen Tu]

Trinidad, on 2014-April-14, 11:22, said:

I think there is a misunderstanding.

Because you didn't write your initial posts well?

Quote

A) I compared using 3♠ to ask for a stop to using 3NT to "ask" for a stop (by saying that you would like to play 3NT, but do need some help in the stop department). I didn't compare "slow shows" to "fast shows".

One big difference is you seem to advocate responder without at least a partial stopper should bid 4 of a minor or something like that. So if the hands are something like say Ax Kxxx AQxx Jxx opposite xxx Ax xxx AKQxx you may find yourself down in 5c whereas I can reach 3nt.

Quote

1) I didn't assert so much that minimum takeout doubles with Ax/Kx in spades should pass.

You said:"If your takeout doubles are sound, partner is only going to have a stop in spades when he has a big hand.
- If he has a minimum hand, and a good spade stop, he should pass (since his values are wasted) rather than double.
- If he has a 15-18 hand, and a good spade stop, he should bid 2NT rather than double"

So you are now contradicting your earlier post.

[straube]

I like Steve2005's suggestion for transfer Lebensohl. I've tried Googling but haven't found anything. Maybe something like...

2N-3C
..........P-to play
.........3D-to play
.........3H-to play
.........3S-minors, no stopper
.........3N-wants partial stop

3C-3D (not accepting)
..........P-to play
..........3H-4H/5D
..........3S-stopper ask
..........3N-stopper,COG

3D-3H (not accepting)
..........3S-stopper ask
..........3N-COG
..........etc

3H-4H/5C, forcing

3S-clubs, stopper ask

3N-to play

Anyone have a better tweak? Btw you can have the customary advantages of transfers like setting trump and then RKC

[Trinidad]

Stephen Tu, on 2014-April-14, 12:24, said:

Because you didn't write your initial posts well?

Did I say what caused the misunderstanding?

Stephen Tu, on 2014-April-14, 12:24, said:

One big difference is you seem to advocate responder without at least a partial stopper should bid 4 of a minor or something like that. So if the hands are something like say Ax Kxxx AQxx Jxx opposite xxx Ax xxx AKQxx you may find yourself down in 5c whereas I can reach 3nt.

Yes, which is why I wrote that you win on hands like this. And you lose if the doubler holds a slightly different hand, like A Qxxx AQJx Jxxx (not 9 tricks), or A Kxxx AQJx xxxx (9 tricks for you, but I will take 12/13, which outscores you even if I don't reach the slam).

Stephen Tu, on 2014-April-14, 12:24, said:

You said:"If your takeout doubles are sound, partner is only going to have a stop in spades when he has a big hand.
- If he has a minimum hand, and a good spade stop, he should pass (since his values are wasted) rather than double.
- If he has a 15-18 hand, and a good spade stop, he should bid 2NT rather than double"

So you are now contradicting your earlier post.

No, I have clarified my earlier post which, when I reread it, was even clearer than I thought. I have added some emphasis. (You are allowed to call the first sentence in the quoted part "sloppy" if you want to.)

Do you consider Ax to be "a good spade stop"? I consider it "a shaky single spade stop with which I can only make 3NT if I have 8 other tricks from top (or a stop from partner, which must be solid since they are going to lead through it)". So, yes, it is a "stop", but no, it is not a "good stop".

So, as I said earlier, you win on the hands where we have ♠A + 8 other tricks from top. I win on the hands where we have ♠A, not 8 other tricks from top, but the possibility to develop a few.

Rik

[Stephen Tu]

Trinidad, on 2014-April-15, 02:22, said:

Yes, which is why I wrote that you win on hands like this. And you lose if the doubler holds a slightly different hand, like A Qxxx AQJx Jxxx (not 9 tricks), or A Kxxx AQJx xxxx (9 tricks for you, but I will take 12/13, which outscores you even if I don't reach the slam).

Obv with stiff ace, and a partner asking for spade stop and presumably not holding wasted values opposite your holding, you are not obliged to bid 3nt. Ax is considerably more likely for 3nt to be right; it's an extra loser in a suit contract which makes 5m more difficult to make, and you get to hold up which can be effective if spades are 6223 around the table, which will be somewhat frequent given no raise by the opponents.

Quote

Do you consider Ax to be "a good spade stop"? I consider it "a shaky single spade stop with which I can only make 3NT if I have 8 other tricks from top (or a stop from partner, which must be solid since they are going to lead through it)". So, yes, it is a "stop", but no, it is not a "good stop".

You never defined what you mean by "good stop". "Good" is ambiguous. You could have said "double stop". I consider Ax to be a good stop, because of the holdup potential. Would I prefer Axx? Of course. Would I prefer double stop to play 3nt? Sure. But I can't afford to wait for double stop all the time to play 3nt in my estimation. I have to bid 3nt, hope the other 8 tricks are there, might need a hook, might need successful holdup, etc. I haven't noticed that I'm missing a ton of good 5m to play 3nt down, nor have I seen my opps frequently finding the better 5m.

Quote

So, as I said earlier, you win on the hands where we have ♠A + 8 other tricks from top. I win on the hands where we have ♠A, not 8 other tricks from top, but the possibility to develop a few.

If you have to develop tricks, often you will have 3 losers in 5m. Reasonably frequently when 3nt fails, 5m also fails. 3nt has lots of ways to win; opps might talk themselves into leading another suit for whatever reason, and even when they do lead the suit, sometimes the holdup will be effective. All in all I'm quite sure I prefer to be in 3nt with a stop and min game values than 5m. It won't always be right, but I think the cases where 3nt makes but 5m doesn't are larger than vice versa.

On the original hand, I don't see how doubler is supposed to know not to sit for 3nt with the actual xx AKxx JTx AQxx, whereas with xx Kxxx AJx AQxx 3nt is a significantly better contract than 5d.

[larlar]

Stephen Tu, on 2014-April-13, 21:41, said:

I'm pretty damn sure that if you surveyed the top players in our area, and asked whether 2x-dbl-p-3nt denied a stopper, playing leb/wk2, that they'd think you were nuts about this, and that 3nt is simply "to play". Certainly I can't ever remember a time when I opened 2x, it went dbl-p-3nt, and opps alerted and indicated that 3nt denied a stopper. Why don't you ask around a little, report your findings?

I think you are 100 % right, no one good plays a direct 3N as showing no stopper, or lebensohl after a weak 2 X as the same as after a 1N opener and an overcall.

Some people use 2N then 3N as doubt about NT. You're right that this is still unclear, but if the Xer pulls with a singleton and passes with 2 or 3 then you can definitely increase your accuracy while still not being perfect.

Personally I prefer to use 2N then 3N as showing 4M and a stopper, 2N then cuebid as showing 4M and no stopper, and a direct cuebid as showing a game forcing hand without a stopper and without 4M. This allows you to show all the hand types below 3N, but doesn't allow you to show a 3N bid where you might want partner to pull. Since you don't seem to believe in that hand type being useful anyways, you will probably like that structure.

[lowerline]

direct

• 3x natural constructive (8-11)
• 3♠ asking stopper, denying 4♥
• 3nt showing stopper, denying 4♥
• 4♥ 5crd, to play

via 2nt

• 3x natural weak (0-7)
• 3♠ asking stopper, showing 4♥
• 3nt showing stopper & 4♥
• 4♥ 5crd, but stronger than direct bid

[Zelandakh]

straube, on 2014-April-14, 20:16, said:

I like Steve2005's suggestion for transfer Lebensohl. I've tried Googling but haven't found anything. Maybe something like...

Transfers do not work so well because you have weak + invite hands rather than weak + GF or invite + GF. Think about it - Doubler has a hand that would accept an invite but needs to play at the 3 level if partner is weak. So they accept the transfer. Now Advancer can only pass or bid game so the invite is lost. This is a common theme when deciding between puppet (Lebensohl) schemes and transfers (Rubensohl).