BBO Discussion Forums: Gib and Lebensohl - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Gib and Lebensohl

#21 User is offline   Stephen Tu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,815
  • Joined: 2003-May-14

Posted 2017-September-07, 19:09

Yes, clearly we are the logical ones not you.

Leb has nothing to do with the lack of a penalty double. You can play penalty doubles + leb, or negative doubles+Leb. What 2nt means doesn't control what double means. Why can't you grasp the disconnect between your complaint and Leb?

Your complaint is one of penalty double vs neg double, not leb vs no leb.

As for penalty vs neg those are simply tradeoffs as described earlier. The modern trend favors neg as it does over suit openings. Why? Mainly frequency. If your opps aren't nuts you get more hands that want to compete for partial but don't know which strain than you do trump stack hands that want to axe them.
0

#22 User is offline   Bermy 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 215
  • Joined: 2017-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Interests:Bidding Theory

Posted 2017-September-07, 20:00

View Postjohnu, on 2017-September-07, 17:02, said:

Not named for anybody? Why does it matter if almost every top expert plays a version of it (including the transfer version)?

I'm surprised you aren't familiar with lebensohl since Bidding Theory shows up as an interest below your name in posts. You might ask yourself why you seem to be the odd man out on this convention. At the simplest, lebensohl is about as easy to learn as any convention and the potential gains are substantial. The fact that you can use it after both interference over 1NT, and weak 2 bids makes it doubly efficient.


errr......doubly inefficient.
0

#23 User is offline   Bermy 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 215
  • Joined: 2017-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Interests:Bidding Theory

Posted 2017-September-07, 20:15

View PostStephen Tu, on 2017-September-07, 19:09, said:

Yes, clearly we are the logical ones not you.

Leb has nothing to do with the lack of a penalty double. You can play penalty doubles + leb, or negative doubles+Leb. What 2nt means doesn't control what double means. Why can't you grasp the disconnect between your complaint and Leb?

Your complaint is one of penalty double vs neg double, not leb vs no leb.

As for penalty vs neg those are simply tradeoffs as described earlier. The modern trend favors neg as it does over suit openings. Why? Mainly frequency. If your opps aren't nuts you get more hands that want to compete for partial but don't know which strain than you do trump stack hands that want to axe them.


Phew, as I predicted this one is going to go on forever, so Im not going to get sucked into it indefinitely. My point is that is a tool, a poor one at that and explains why 2/1 can get such bad results when other options are better. Also Gib is totally misbidding 1NT openings, as I have already pointed out, with this convention, not to mention weak twos. You seem to agree with me on that. As for "modern trends" who is setting them, you? Do you even realize what a role you are playing? Sometimes trends head into an area where the "experts" want them to go in perhaps to fit their own agenda. It is new and good trends, not modern trends that are needed, If you want to bid well.
0

#24 User is offline   Stephen Tu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,815
  • Joined: 2003-May-14

Posted 2017-September-07, 21:09

You keep on conflating separate issues, and blaming issues on "2/1" that have nothing to do with "2/1". Or using "2/1" as a synonym for "GIB's system" when your beef is with particular conventions or treatments in GIB's system that really aren't "2/1" related at all, that would still be issues even if GIB switched away from 2/1. And here you keep complaining about Leb when your real complaint is about the negative double treatment, not Leb, on the hands you are complaining about. Try to be more specific, otherwise you are posting nonsense or we have trouble figuring out exactly what you are complaining about.

View PostBermy, on 2017-September-07, 20:15, said:

Phew, as I predicted this one is going to go on forever, so Im not going to get sucked into it indefinitely. My point is that is a tool, a poor one at that and explains why 2/1 can get such bad results when other options are better.

There is zero content in this thread that you have posted that has anything to do with 2/1, let alone any example of any option that gets better results. A penalty double over 1nt-(overcall) can get better results sometimes, that is known and I agree. But negative double also can get better results sometimes, I think more often. It's a debatable point and some good players play one way, others the other.

But nowhere here have you made any point about lebensohl itself, which is a separate issue from the meaning of double.

Quote

Also Gib is totally misbidding 1NT openings, as I have already pointed out, with this convention, not to mention weak twos.

"This convention", what do you mean? If it is Lebensohl, again, you have pointed out nothing. You have complained about the lack of an unrelated penalty double. Nor have you specified what is wrong with Lebensohl over weak twos.

Gib has a problem bidding with *Cappelletti* over 1nt as the overcalling side. That should be fixed. Lebensohl by the opening side is OK, although there have been instances in the past, probably some not fixed yet, where I have complained about it's priority order for say bidding a minor also holding 4 of the other major, vs. cue bidding/delayed cue bidding, etc.

Lebensohl over weak twos, there is a problem that the direct bids are now something like 10-12 which is too strong, should be more like 8-11, with the delayed calls being weaker. But my complaint is the implementation, not that the gadget is in use.


Quote

As for "modern trends" who is setting them, you? Do you even realize what a role you are playing? Sometimes trends head into an area where the "experts" want them to go in perhaps to fit their own agenda. It is new and good trends, not modern trends that are needed, If you want to bid well.


No I don't set them. Players in general set them. I only observe, I've been playing bridge a long time, and observe the prevailing changes. Over time I've seen more and more people switch to negative doubles after partner's 1nt opening, and switched from penalty to takeout myself. Bidding methods tend to improve with time. Experts these days would absolutely clobber experts of the 1940s/50s with only those old bidding methods at their disposal. People moved towards more negative doubles/takeout doubles because they WORK, you get good scores more often. In the old days a ton of doubles were penalty. Now nearly everything low is takeout, if you have a penalty you just pass and hope partner has a takeout double you can pass. Experts wouldn't change their methods to fit modern trend if their experiences showed it didn't work on average,



1

#25 User is offline   Bermy 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 215
  • Joined: 2017-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Interests:Bidding Theory

Posted 2017-September-07, 21:29

View PostStephen Tu, on 2017-September-07, 19:09, said:

Yes, clearly we are the logical ones not you.

Leb has nothing to do with the lack of a penalty double. You can play penalty doubles + leb, or negative doubles+Leb. What 2nt means doesn't control what double means. Why can't you grasp the disconnect between your complaint and Leb?

Your complaint is one of penalty double vs neg double, not leb vs no leb.

As for penalty vs neg those are simply tradeoffs as described earlier. The modern trend favors neg as it does over suit openings. Why? Mainly frequency. If your opps aren't nuts you get more hands that want to compete for partial but don't know which strain than you do trump stack hands that want to axe them.


You should go see how many hands should be doubled when Gib gives us leb, or how many hands have to be passed because double is not an option. Perhaps that even says something about your E/W Gib bidding, that we are not allowed to double. We have had countless feeds about that. One when I remember West psyched a false Capp bid, hopeless realy.
0

#26 User is offline   Bermy 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 215
  • Joined: 2017-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Interests:Bidding Theory

Posted 2017-September-07, 21:48

View PostStephen Tu, on 2017-September-07, 21:09, said:

You keep on conflating separate issues, and blaming issues on "2/1" that have nothing to do with "2/1". Or using "2/1" as a synonym for "GIB's system" when your beef is with particular conventions or treatments in GIB's system that really aren't "2/1" related at all, that would still be issues even if GIB switched away from 2/1. And here you keep complaining about Leb when your real complaint is about the negative double treatment, not Leb, on the hands you are complaining about. Try to be more specific, otherwise you are posting nonsense or we have trouble figuring out exactly what you are complaining about.


There is zero content in this thread that you have posted that has anything to do with 2/1, let alone any example of any option that gets better results. A penalty double over 1nt-(overcall) can get better results sometimes, that is known and I agree. But negative double also can get better results sometimes, I think more often. It's a debatable point and some good players play one way, others the other.

But nowhere here have you made any point about lebensohl itself, which is a separate issue from the meaning of double.


"This convention", what do you mean? If it is Lebensohl, again, you have pointed out nothing. You have complained about the lack of an unrelated penalty double. Nor have you specified what is wrong with Lebensohl over weak twos.

Gib has a problem bidding with *Cappelletti* over 1nt as the overcalling side. That should be fixed. Lebensohl by the opening side is OK, although there have been instances in the past, probably some not fixed yet, where I have complained about it's priority order for say bidding a minor also holding 4 of the other major, vs. cue bidding/delayed cue bidding, etc.

Lebensohl over weak twos, there is a problem that the direct bids are now something like 10-12 which is too strong, should be more like 8-11, with the delayed calls being weaker. But my complaint is the implementation, not that the gadget is in use.




No I don't set them. Players in general set them. I only observe, I've been playing bridge a long time, and observe the prevailing changes. Over time I've seen more and more people switch to negative doubles after partner's 1nt opening, and switched from penalty to takeout myself. Bidding methods tend to improve with time. Experts these days would absolutely clobber experts of the 1940s/50s with only those old bidding methods at their disposal. People moved towards more negative doubles/takeout doubles because they WORK, you get good scores more often. In the old days a ton of doubles were penalty. Now nearly everything low is takeout, if you have a penalty you just pass and hope partner has a takeout double you can pass. Experts wouldn't change their methods to fit modern trend if their experiences showed it didn't work on average,


You are most definitely setting standards. I wont have any arguments about that. Thousands of new and experienced players are playing with your robots every day.
The future of modern bridge is in your hands, do the ACBL even realize that?

My campaign is for higher and better standards, ones where we can have experts planning the sequences, and more choice of course.
0

#27 User is offline   Stephen Tu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,815
  • Joined: 2003-May-14

Posted 2017-September-07, 22:16

View PostBermy, on 2017-September-07, 21:29, said:

You should go see how many hands should be doubled when Gib gives us leb, or how many hands have to be passed because double is not an option.

What the hell do you mean "when GIB gives us leb". For like the fifth time, leb is not synonymous with "negative double". You have continually complained about not being able to double for penalty on this thread. None of these complaints have anything to do with GIB using leb! If you look on an ACBL convention card, lebensohl and negative double after 1nt are SEPARATE CHECKBOXES!! You can choose either, both, or none. Your complaint about double not an option is not a complaint about lebensohl!

Quote

Perhaps that even says something about your E/W Gib bidding, that we are not allowed to double. We have had countless feeds about that. One when I remember West psyched a false Capp bid, hopeless realy.

I am totally with you about fixing capp, the hand it bids it on are often ridiculous and the followups are borked too. But:
- fixing capp is a separate issue from playing Lebensohl or not.
- stop calling "negative double" "Lebensohl"! They are not the same thing and not linked together!


View PostBermy, on 2017-September-07, 21:48, said:

You are most definitely setting standards. I wont have any arguments about that. Thousands of new and experienced players are playing with your robots every day.
The future of modern bridge is in your hands, do the ACBL even realize that?

My campaign is for higher and better standards, ones where we can have experts planning the sequences, and more choice of course.

They are not "my robots". They are BBO's robots. I am not affiliated with BBO in any way, I'm a customer like you. I just have decades more experience with computer programming (none for BBO) than you do, and thus a better idea of what is feasible to ask for or not. And apparently I have a better knowledge of bidding theory than you do also. I make lots of complaints on this forum about the multiple bugs that still exist in the robots. But I defend the BBO programmers from criticisms that I think are over the top unreasonable or unrealistic, or suggestions that I think are just plain wrong and I disagree with.

BBO do have multiple experts affiliated available to consult for bidding sequences. Fred the founder/owner is a world champion. Jdonn who you argue with here in this section is a multiple national champion and junior world champ. Knowledge of bidding is not the limitation, they know how people of all levels bid and can make reasonable choices. The main problem is that it is incredibly hard to transfer that bidding knowledge into computers, which are very dumb creatures at heart. If taught they will faithfully execute the rules blindly over and over, never making a mistake, but it's an enormous problem to give it all the rules. Computers at this state are basically incapable of formulating new rules for never encountered before auctions based on similar situations, unlike humans who can work out reasonable things to do based on analogous sequences. They have to be taught each situation one by one, and the number of bidding sequences, especially competitive, is ginormous. And when you start putting in multiple options for gadgets or not, that just makes for a ton more rules to be introduced and even more chances for mistakes to be made. Humans are also much better at figuring out when the rule they have taught doesn't actually make sense (typo in a book for example), while computer will just follow mistake in the rules it was given blindly.

You have:
- unrealistic expectations about the ease of which choices could be added while being able to bid followups, followups in competition, competition over the gadget, no matter which combination of choices is chosen by the user.
- unreasonable criticism use of gadgets/treatments that are popular with a majority of players, including the use of:
2/1 gf
and
Lebensohl (which is especially grating because you keep on complaining about the double which is separate from Lebensohl, and haven't complained about any actual Lebensohl sequences while claiming your complaint is about Lebensohl!)

If you want to complain about negative double instead of penalty double, fine, but call it that, not Lebensohl, and realize that a lot of good players these days prefer the negative double.
0

#28 User is offline   Bermy 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 215
  • Joined: 2017-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Interests:Bidding Theory

Posted 2017-September-07, 22:36

View PostStephen Tu, on 2017-September-07, 22:16, said:

What the hell do you mean "when GIB gives us leb". For like the fifth time, leb is not synonymous with "negative double". You have continually complained about not being able to double for penalty on this thread. None of these complaints have anything to do with GIB using leb! If you look on an ACBL convention card, lebensohl and negative double after 1nt are SEPARATE CHECKBOXES!! You can choose either, both, or none. Your complaint about double not an option is not a complaint about lebensohl!


I am totally with you about fixing capp, the hand it bids it on are often ridiculous and the followups are borked too. But:
- fixing capp is a separate issue from playing Lebensohl or not.
- stop calling "negative double" "Lebensohl"! They are not the same thing and not linked together!



They are not "my robots". They are BBO's robots. I am not affiliated with BBO in any way, I'm a customer like you. I just have decades more experience with computer programming (none for BBO) than you do, and thus a better idea of what is feasible to ask for or not. And apparently I have a better knowledge of bidding theory than you do also. I make lots of complaints on this forum about the multiple bugs that still exist in the robots. But I defend the BBO programmers from criticisms that I think are over the top unreasonable or unrealistic, or suggestions that I think are just plain wrong and I disagree with.

BBO do have multiple experts affiliated available to consult for bidding sequences. Fred the founder/owner is a world champion. Jdonn who you argue with here in this section is a multiple national champion and junior world champ. Knowledge of bidding is not the limitation, they know how people of all levels bid and can make reasonable choices. The main problem is that it is incredibly hard to transfer that bidding knowledge into computers, which are very dumb creatures at heart. If taught they will faithfully execute the rules blindly over and over, never making a mistake, but it's an enormous problem to give it all the rules. Computers at this state are basically incapable of formulating new rules for never encountered before auctions based on similar situations, unlike humans who can work out reasonable things to do based on analogous sequences. They have to be taught each situation one by one, and the number of bidding sequences, especially competitive, is ginormous. And when you start putting in multiple options for gadgets or not, that just makes for a ton more rules to be introduced and even more chances for mistakes to be made. Humans are also much better at figuring out when the rule they have taught doesn't actually make sense (typo in a book for example), while computer will just follow mistake blindly.

You have:
- unrealistic expectations about the ease of which choices could be added while being able to bid followups, followups in competition, competition over the gadget, no matter which combination of choices is chosen by the user.
- unreasonable criticism use of gadgets/treatments that are popular with a majority of players, including the use of:
2/1 gf
and
Lebensohl (which is especially grating because you keep on complaining about the double which is separate from Lebensohl, and haven't complained about any actual Lebensohl sequences while claiming your complaint is about Lebensohl!)

If you want to complain about negative double instead of penalty double, fine, but call it that, not Lebensohl, and realize that a lot of good players these days prefer the negative double.


well what can I say, carry on defending the excuses. My argument on leb is closed, unless someone convinces me which as I have already proved to be impossible.

I am really saying that if Gib wants ACBL support, lets us put an end to novelty bridge here and play real contract bridge. Money (a lot of it) is changing hands here. We as paying members of the public should give our argument for real ACBL bridge standards. Can we all pull together to promote the game of "Contract Bridge"
0

#29 User is offline   Bermy 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 215
  • Joined: 2017-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Interests:Bidding Theory

Posted 2017-September-07, 22:50

No perhaps Im not finished with leb arguement just yet. I just look up the wiki verdict on double in leb and found this.

A Double by responder is not part of Lebensohl. However it forms part of the entire set of bids available to responder and its meaning is the subject of a partnership agreement. Usually its meaning is, in turn, dependent upon the meaning of the overcall and the meaning of the overcall can vary widely because there are a number of conventional systems available to an overcaller after a 1NT opening.

Generally, a Double is for penalty. When the overcall is in a suit held by the overcaller, the double shows a decent non-game forcing hand with a four-card or very good three-card holding in the suit specified. It is for penalty (not game forcing) but opener may choose to bid 3NT based on information now or later available. When the overcall is in a suit, which by partnership agreement specifies another suit or suits, the Double is for takeout indicating that responder holds a minimum of something like AKxxx, AQJxx or KQJxx in the doubled suit.

So it really means,

1) "Generally" does not represent the majority of players or modern trends.

2) The double by responder is most definitely part of the convention, or this is a paradox. Read parra 2 again a second way to understand the paradox.

confusing?
0

#30 User is offline   Stephen Tu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,815
  • Joined: 2003-May-14

Posted 2017-September-07, 23:48

View PostBermy, on 2017-September-07, 22:50, said:

No perhaps Im not finished with leb arguement just yet. I just look up the wiki verdict on double in leb and found this.

A Double by responder is not part of Lebensohl. However it forms part of the entire set of bids available to responder and its meaning is the subject of a partnership agreement.

This is what I have been screaming at you. Perhaps this finally sinks in? Double is subject to partnership agreement separate from the decision to play Lebensohl or not.


Quote

Generally, a Double is for penalty.


Quote

1) "Generally" does not represent the majority of players or modern trends.

2) The double by responder is most definitely part of the convention, or this is a paradox.


No. Negative double not part of the convention, it is not a paradox. The article is expressing an opinion of the general meaning of double separate from the convention. If anything the article proves the opposite of your theory, assuming that Lebensohl is generally played in combination with playing a penalty double. So playing Leb is not the reason you don't have a penalty double. The reason is that GIB programmers chose to have GIB play negative doubles.

I will also point out:
- Wikipedia is not a definitive resource, nor is it always kept current. Articles are written at some point of time by some random person who contributes the article, subject to edits by other random people. It has a tendency towards accuracy what with wisdom of the crowds and so forth, but it's not ultra-definitive. It's dependent on someone coming in and updating it, and other people not disagreeing strongly with the edits. That line in the article is just the author's opinion, not based on some like definitive poll of a group of bridge players.
- it's better to look at multiple sources and also observe what your opps are actually playing out in the real world.
-bridge world standard, a system based on polling reader preferences, a magazine that caters to more advanced players, uses negative doubles for a long time, 2001 at least.

If I had to guess what a player plays, penalty or negative, without asking, I'd make an educated guess based on class and age of player. Duplicate or rubber. Young or old. open/flight a or b/c/d. Novice game or open game. Penalty is more common for rubber/older/beginners, who are often taught older treatments first (e.g. starting on SA, rather than 2/1, and no transfer bids), since a lot of older beginning books use those older treatments and a lot of the teachers are older players. Negative is more popular for younger/better crowd. I don't have statistics on BBO as a whole. You'd have to run a survey to know exactly where the balance lies. It's possible I am wrong and most BBO players prefer penalty doubles here. It likely varies by country of origin also.

In practice with a new partner I just always ask. I tend to play in stronger fields most of the time so perhaps I am biased into thinking neg doubles are more popular than they actually are over the entire BBO population. But pro teachers like Larry Cohen are favoring teaching even beginners with 2/1 to begin with and negative doubles.
0

#31 User is offline   Bermy 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 215
  • Joined: 2017-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Interests:Bidding Theory

Posted 2017-September-08, 00:31

View PostStephen Tu, on 2017-September-07, 23:48, said:

This is what I have been screaming at you. Perhaps this finally sinks in? Double is subject to partnership agreement separate from the decision to play Lebensohl or not.






No. Negative double not part of the convention, it is not a paradox. The article is expressing an opinion of the general meaning of double separate from the convention. If anything the article proves the opposite of your theory, assuming that Lebensohl is generally played in combination with playing a penalty double. So playing Leb is not the reason you don't have a penalty double. The reason is that GIB programmers chose to have GIB play negative doubles.

I will also point out:
- Wikipedia is not a definitive resource, nor is it always kept current. Articles are written at some point of time by some random person who contributes the article, subject to edits by other random people. It has a tendency towards accuracy what with wisdom of the crowds and so forth, but it's not ultra-definitive. It's dependent on someone coming in and updating it, and other people not disagreeing strongly with the edits. That line in the article is just the author's opinion, not based on some like definitive poll of a group of bridge players.
- it's better to look at multiple sources and also observe what your opps are actually playing out in the real world.
-bridge world standard, a system based on polling reader preferences, a magazine that caters to more advanced players, uses negative doubles for a long time, 2001 at least.

If I had to guess what a player plays, penalty or negative, without asking, I'd make an educated guess based on class and age of player. Duplicate or rubber. Young or old. open/flight a or b/c/d. Novice game or open game. Penalty is more common for rubber/older/beginners, who are often taught older treatments first (e.g. starting on SA, rather than 2/1, and no transfer bids), since a lot of older beginning books use those older treatments and a lot of the teachers are older players. Negative is more popular for younger/better crowd. I don't have statistics on BBO as a whole. You'd have to run a survey to know exactly where the balance lies. It's possible I am wrong and most BBO players prefer penalty doubles here. It likely varies by country of origin also.

In practice with a new partner I just always ask. I tend to play in stronger fields most of the time so perhaps I am biased into thinking neg doubles are more popular than they actually are over the entire BBO population. But pro teachers like Larry Cohen are favoring teaching even beginners with 2/1 to begin with and negative doubles.

Perhaps Generally is actually referring to the meaning of the double.

Please dont get cheap on me and question Wiki references. If you have a better reference, show it.
0

#32 User is online   sfi 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,122
  • Joined: 2009-May-18
  • Location:Oz

Posted 2017-September-08, 00:38

View PostBermy, on 2017-September-08, 00:31, said:

Please dont get cheap on me and question Wiki references. If you have a better reference, show it.


You could try the BridgeGuys page, referenced at the bottom of the wikipedia article. They, in turn, suggest Ron Andersen's book. However, even their page is out of date when it suggests the double needs to be penalty. Like everyone else on here has said, the meaning of the double is independent of the Lebensohl convention.

BTW, wikipedia is a pretty bad reference for most things bridge - there is not an active section of the bridge community updating the information on the game.
0

#33 User is offline   Bermy 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 215
  • Joined: 2017-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Interests:Bidding Theory

Posted 2017-September-08, 00:44

And so on and on we go. Nothing produces more bridge argument than leb. Husbands dont play with wives over it, and great long friendships can be broken. Believe me, and we are still arguing. I brought up the subject for a reason today. I was in the mood for a good argument. Look how much productive time we have wasted over this, I teach beginners just to double penalty when they think they can beat the contract profitibily. What better moment, than when you know your partner has 15+ HCP and two cards or more in trumps, do they want to run to another suit (3 level Capp ha) we will then decide what to do or where to play Other bids are available and of course you can switch leb to "on" if you like. But please, at least to play leb properly and competitivly
"The reward is simply not worth the effort" just lets get the double right.
0

#34 User is offline   Stephen Tu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,815
  • Joined: 2003-May-14

Posted 2017-September-08, 00:45

http://www.bridgewor...esystem.html#VC
"C. Competition After Our One-Notrump Opening(a) A double of a natural two- or three-level overcall is negative, of a higher bid is penalty"




http://www.northernc...TBattlefied.htm

" Doubles in Competition – After an opening 1NT bid is overcalled a double has several possible meanings:

- The default meaning of the double of an overcall (no matter what the overcall shows) is penalty. By default we mean that in the absence of any discussion or expectation about the meaning of the double with your partner.

- Many choose to use the double of a 2 bid as Stayman, but do not use any other form of Mirror Doubles / Stolen Bids.

- Until the past few years, many players played penalty at the two level and negative doubles at the three level.

- There is trend toward playing that all doubles are negative, takeout for the un shown suits. A corollary of this agreement is that the negative double tends to shows shortness in the opponent's suit(s), so with length and a desire to defend a doubled contract, you must pass. Your partner will hopefully reopen with a double when short in the opponent's suit. "

Note this reference was written in 2009, the trend has continued stronger over past 8 years.
0

#35 User is offline   Stephen Tu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,815
  • Joined: 2003-May-14

Posted 2017-September-08, 00:50

Most of the time was wasted because you wrongly insist the argument was about leb when it's clearly about penalty doubles vs. negative doubles.

Where the hell do you play that the most arguments are over leb? I don't see good players arguing over leb. The weak players aren't using it. Arguments are over other things, like signaling, forcing vs. non-forcing bids, takeout vs. penalty doubles in ambiguous situations, and generally bad bids/plays.
0

#36 User is offline   Bermy 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 215
  • Joined: 2017-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Interests:Bidding Theory

Posted 2017-September-08, 01:10

View Postsfi, on 2017-September-08, 00:38, said:

You could try the BridgeGuys page, referenced at the bottom of the wikipedia article. They, in turn, suggest Ron Andersen's book. However, even their page is out of date when it suggests the double needs to be penalty. Like everyone else on here has said, the meaning of the double is independent of the Lebensohl convention.

BTW, wikipedia is a pretty bad reference for most things bridge - there is not an active section of the bridge community updating the information on the game.


How pointless is that? so what good does your available double do? All references point to the same wiki conclusion and you still argue?
0

#37 User is offline   Stephen Tu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,815
  • Joined: 2003-May-14

Posted 2017-September-08, 01:25

The wiki clearly states the double is not part of the convention in very direct plain english yet it is YOU who are still nonsensically arguing that it is.

It's clearly independent of leb. Whether the double is currently more commonly penalty or neg is debatable and varies between various sections of the overall bridge population.

But the only person claiming it is part of lebensohl is you, in contradiction of the wiki.
0

#38 User is online   sfi 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,122
  • Joined: 2009-May-18
  • Location:Oz

Posted 2017-September-08, 01:54

View PostBermy, on 2017-September-08, 01:10, said:

How pointless is that? so what good does your available double do? All references point to the same wiki conclusion and you still argue?


All anyone is trying do is point out you do not understand the Lebensohl convention correctly. Some of the people on here have a fair bit of real-life experience, so they know what they are talking about. It might be worth arguing less and spending more time trying to understand the points other people are making.

As for the double not being penalty - you do realise bidding theory changes over time, don't you? The common use of 1NT - (2x) - X is one of those areas where the most common meaning among experts has changed significantly in the 30 years since Ron Andersen wrote his book on Lebensohl. You may not like it, but playing it as takeout rather than penalties is considerably more common in top-level bridge.
0

#39 User is offline   Bermy 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 215
  • Joined: 2017-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Interests:Bidding Theory

Posted 2017-September-08, 05:16

OK lets go over this one more time for all of you so slow that maybe you can justify this garbage.

So pd opens 1NT NV (never mind best hand) and opps overcall 2H Capp Vul.

You are sitting with 4x hearts good minors and good hcp.

your options are.

Pass?

2S Natural with spades

2NT a relay

3C shows clubs

3D shows diamond

3H no stopper with spades

3NT to play

Every bid is part the convention except..........

What is double there for? Another take out? for what? What for? Oh it does not exist because it is not part of the convention because everybody plays weak doubles are take outs these dsys ......even here in this bidding sequence?

What nonsense everybody knows Ron Anderson did not write leb he wrote his book on leb, and even he agrees with me.

How can anybody justify that as good bidding logic?

Show me a hand where double is a good take out and I will show you a 1NT hand where opener is totally blind to the situation.

and we are only half way yet, I haven't even got to leb after a pre-empt yet the leb everybody forgets( system is either on or off), whatever they have to do with each other.
0

#40 User is offline   Bermy 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 215
  • Joined: 2017-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Interests:Bidding Theory

Posted 2017-September-08, 06:22

View PostStephen Tu, on 2017-September-08, 00:45, said:

http://www.bridgewor...esystem.html#VC
"C. Competition After Our One-Notrump Opening(a) A double of a natural two- or three-level overcall is negative, of a higher bid is penalty"




http://www.northernc...TBattlefied.htm

" Doubles in Competition – After an opening 1NT bid is overcalled a double has several possible meanings:

- The default meaning of the double of an overcall (no matter what the overcall shows) is penalty. By default we mean that in the absence of any discussion or expectation about the meaning of the double with your partner.

- Many choose to use the double of a 2 bid as Stayman, but do not use any other form of Mirror Doubles / Stolen Bids.

- Until the past few years, many players played penalty at the two level and negative doubles at the three level.

- There is trend toward playing that all doubles are negative, takeout for the un shown suits. A corollary of this agreement is that the negative double tends to shows shortness in the opponent's suit(s), so with length and a desire to defend a doubled contract, you must pass. Your partner will hopefully reopen with a double when short in the opponent's suit. "

Note this reference was written in 2009, the trend has continued stronger over past 8 years.


Default meaning makes sense, everything else is just meaningless since I cannot make a partnership agreement with Gib, double of 2 clubs for staymen is nice "trends" probably are propagated by BBO and Gib anyway.
0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users