[gnasher]

dburn, on Jan 4 2008, 11:28 AM, said:

The reason people play natural 2M responses to a weak no trump is that it increases the chances they will be able to stop the opponents from bidding constructively.

Yes, but are they right about this?

If responder makes a natural sign-off in 2M, both opponents know that he is limited, so either player can act in reasonable safety.

If responder signs off via a transfer, fourth hand gets an extra chance to bid: he can act directly over the transfer, or he can pass and then act when 2M is passed around to him. Second hand, however, can only act when the auction is still live.

Doubling with a 1444 11-count is considerably riskier after 1NT-p-2H-p-2S than after 1NT-p-2S-p-p. Furthermore, if you do act under the gun and the opponents then bid game, you are likely to have helped them to play it.

It seems to me that the extra options available to fourth hand after a transfer are roughly balanced by the constraints on second hand's actions.

As others have noted, in England, where a weak no trump has been the norm for decades, almost everyone plays transfers. This may not mean that much - you should see some of the other stuff that is standard here - but it at least suggests that transfers have merit.

[Walddk]

gnasher, on Jan 4 2008, 03:08 PM, said:

As others have noted, in England, where a weak no trump has been the norm for decades, almost everyone plays transfers. This may not mean that much - you should see some of the other stuff that is standard here - but it at least suggests that transfers have merit.

I don't think anyone disputes the view that transfers have merits, but so has the no transfer approach. While many looked towards England regarding bidding theory 50-60 years ago, I think it's fair to state that this is not the case any more ... unless you live in the UK of course.

But even there more players, at least at top level, have seen the light

Roland

[dake50]

. . .'and 2H is natural and non-forcing' with opponents clever enough to psych 2H?
NOW try to untangle the possible problems. Do we need H-stop/suit to bid 2NT? Or just scramble and hope?
I do like 2NT good 11+/bad 0-5, leaving 3-suit good 6-11 that promotes on fit.

[gnasher]

Walddk, on Jan 4 2008, 02:31 PM, said:

I don't think anyone disputes the view that transfers have merits, but so has the no transfer approach. While many looked towards England regarding bidding theory 50-60 years ago, I think it's fair to state that this is not the case any more ... unless you live in the UK of course.

But even there more players, at least at top level, have seen the light 

I'm not sure who you have in mind when you say this. Most of the top players in England now play a strong notrump, whereas a weak notrump is still common amongst the hoi polloi - in other words, the opposite of what Gerben describes as happening in Germany.

[Walddk]

gnasher, on Jan 4 2008, 05:05 PM, said:

Walddk, on Jan 4 2008, 02:31 PM, said:

I don't think anyone disputes the view that transfers have merits, but so has the no transfer approach. While many looked towards England regarding bidding theory 50-60 years ago, I think it's fair to state that this is not the case any more ... unless you live in the UK of course.

But even there more players, at least at top level, have seen the light 

I'm not sure who you have in mind when you say this. Most of the top players in England now play a strong notrump, whereas a weak notrump is still common amongst the hoi polloi - in other words, the opposite of what Gerben describes as happening in Germany.

Oh, I meant bidding theory as a whole. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with either approach (weak or strong NT), but it the Acol concept I am referring to. That's a system of the past which still more players at top level seem to have realised.

I am not so sure when it comes to club level.

Roland

[han]

Nevertheless I'm going to agree with someone from England here, I'd play lebensohl with 3X directly as constructive, not forcing.

[dburn]

Walddk, on Jan 4 2008, 05:50 AM, said:

dburn, on Jan 4 2008, 12:28 PM, said:

♠J32  ♥Q1065  ♦K84  ♣Q65

after the given sequence? Bid 3NT? Pass out 2♥ doubled? Bid 2♠?

Of course, the same considerations would apply if the bidding were to start (2♥) Double (Pass) to a hand such as I have given. You would like to be able to bid a natural 2NT, but your methods preclude it. However, the need to differentiate between hands with some values and hands without them is far more pronounced in that sequence than in a sequence beginning with a weak no trump, because far less is known about the opponents' combined strength (third hand could have almost anything). So it makes some sense to give up a natural 2NT in sequences beginning with a weak two bid. It makes considerably less sense to give up a natural 2NT in sequences where the opponents start with a weak no trump and a weak takeout.

That's the price you pay for playing Lebensohl. You don't get any convention without giving up on the natural meaning of the call. Although I agree with David that one defender has announced that he has something (12-14 hcp) when opening 1NT and that a weak two hand has less, it is not entirely true that third hand is very weak when he takes out into his 5 card major.

He could be weak, but he could also have up to 9-10 hcp. Same applies after a sequence like 2♥ pass pass. Third hand could be very strong (up to 15-16 hcp with a misfit for hearts).

David has, intentionally I assume, given us the only shape, 3433, that creates a problem when 2NT is not natural. Right, it is a problem which you must live with if Lebensohl is what you think is best in these situations. I think it is in the long run.

Roland

The only shape? Suppose you have:

♠632 ♥AQ ♦Q976 ♣J843

What are you supposed to do, playing lebensohl? Bid 2NT and guess to pass 3♣? Bid 2NT and guess to bid again over 3♣? Bid 3NT? Bid 2♠?

Playing 2NT for minors, at least you will not end up in some 4-3 (or even 4-2) fit. But you will either miss some good games or play in some hopeless ones.

It is worth remarking here that a double of 2♥ need not be (and will often not be) based on the "classical" shape with short hearts. If as fourth hand you have a balanced 16 hcp or so, you had better double 2♥ with almost any shape (including 3=4=3=3), or your partnership will miss game a fair amount of the time.

This question was addressed primarily to people who play (and who play against) the weak no trump a lot of the time. The vast majority of the answers appear to be from people who adopt the same philosophy over a weak no trump as over a strong no trump - we are only competing a part score and we want to make sure we find our best fit. That is not how to play against weak no trumps. It really isn't.

[awm]

I don't think the 3-4-3-3 16-count is really relevant. In fact with this hand, after you double 2♥ it seems like not playing lebensohl, you won't know what to do over a lot of partner's calls. For example, partner bids 2♠/3♣/3♦. You could easily have game values, or partner could easily be broke. The only bid that really helps you is 2NT "natural" but given that you have four hearts and opponents (supposedly) have seven or more, what are the odds partner has the hand for 2NT natural?

In fact, playing lebensohl will virtually always help you when the original doubler has a "big hand" because it distinguishes partner hands with values from partner hands without. If partner makes a free (constructive, not forcing) 3m bid you can force game and if partner bids lebensohl you know to get out.

The problem with lebensohl is the hands that "want to bid" 2NT natural. On these hands you normally bid three of a four-card minor. When doubler has extras you're fine -- you've shown values, partner will bid 3♥ or something over which you can bid 3NT. When doubler has a minimum, he normally is close to "classic" takeout double shape (i.e. 3433 13-counts don't double) so you're probably fairly safe at the three-level (much more likely to hit an 8-card fit). Occasionally you play in the "wrong" minor or miss a 21-22 hcp 2NT when that's the best partial. I'd say neither is a huge concern.

[whereagles]

robson/segal ---> lebensohl ^^

[MickyB]

Lots of things to say here.

I agree with Gnasher that it is far from clear that weak take-outs make life harder for the oppo than transfers do. IMO they make some sense opposite a first seat 1NT opening (you are preempting a hand that is yet to bid) but no sense opposite a second seat 1NT opening. This is quite convenient actually, because given the decision I would only ever play a weak (mini) no-trump 1st NV.

There's no way a 3433 16-count should be doubling a 2♥ weak take-out. Partner is still there, with a few points and a heart shortage he will protect. Note that this wouldn't work over a transfer, as partner wouldn't enter a live auction on such a hand - the 16 count has to take some action, presumably doubling the 2♦ transfer to show a good hand.

If David (Burn) was to convince me that leb isn't of great merit in this auction, I would instead play 2NT as scrambling rather than natural. In fact, maybe this is better - you still get a weak and a constructive way to bid to 3♥ over 2♠ and to 3♦ over 2♥ - put the weak option through the scrambling 2NT and the constructive option bids it directly.

Maybe many should be looking towards England for bidding theory...David Collier's blog for starters

[Halo]

Natural.

With these old methods I personally favoured double as values to double the 1NT opener. 2NT is invitational in that context.