[kenberg]

I got the Bulletin yesterday, thought of this thread, and came down this morning to mention that the issue showed up there. And then I saw the Echo post.

I, especially online, play a lot of hands where discussion has been minimal. If pard suggest Leb, I try for the following: Leb is on if the bid they make shows that suit. It may also show other suits, known or unknown, but it must show that suit and then stoppers means stoppers in that suit. Hardly optimal, but at least it's quick and definite.

W/o at least a little time for discussion, I prefer not to play Leb. Similarly for Bergen: 1S-X-3C is what? I am not asking for an answer, I am pointing out that "Bergen pard?" "OK" doesn't suffice. Just as "Leb?" "Ok" doesn't suffice. I have seen this create a fiasco several times.

These cautions are obvious and well known, but also very frequently ignored.

[marcD]

I think this has little to do with lebensohl but rather with your agreement against Landy or equivalent. If you normally play that over 2♣ majors 2M shows stopper and 3M shows shortage I would continue playing the same with x showing Heart values . Therefore 3NT is to play

[cherdano]

I guess this thread gives good evidence for Mike Fladder's ruling being wrong.

[pclayton]

fred, on Sep 30 2008, 05:11 PM, said:

655321, on Oct 1 2008, 12:59 AM, said:

In the absence of a specific agreement, I would assume opener is expected to pass without looking at his hand.

This is a very smart answer IMO. In fact, in my regular partnerships I make this specific agreement.

It is important to get to 3NT without giving the 4th hand a chance to say what major he wants led.

Also, sometimes by going slowly you give the opponents room to find out that they should be bidding 4 of a major over your 3NT.

I hate when that happens

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Assume you play a direct 3N is natural and shows stops in both majors:

--I would argue responder will seldom have both majors so 3N becomes seldom used.

-- I would assume 2N-->3♣--> 3N would show 'doubt' in these methods. Something like: xxx xxx AKx KQxx. Isn't this the time that we are worried about responder taking a call over 2N when opener has both majors stopped? Give opener a single stop in one and a double stop for instance.

Furthermore, Opener can't double for penalty 3M (responder could have a single-suited minor).


If responder has one major stopper, I think both methods are equal. I assume we would both Lebensohl and bid our stopper.


On the other hand, if you play that 3N denies a stopper in either suit (as I prefer),

--If responder has both majors stopped I have to slow the auction down with 2N, but I will welcome 4th hand to come in with 3M. Responder gets a 'fielder's choice' on whether to double 3M or bid 3N.

--When responder doesn't have a stop in the majors, I want to preempt 4th chair from making a lead directing bid over 2N by bidding 3N.

[fred]

pclayton, on Oct 3 2008, 05:47 PM, said:

-- I would assume 2N-->3♣--> 3N would show 'doubt' in these methods. Something like: xxx xxx AKx KQxx.  Isn't this the time that we are worried about responder taking a call over 2N when opener has both majors stopped?

No - this is a hand where you want to play 3NT. Same goes if your AKx was in one of the majors instead of diamonds.

The reason is that you have more to gain (the game bonus) when you are right than you have to lose (an undertrick or two) when you are wrong, especially since you are unlikely to have a game bonus available in 5 of a minor.

Dare your RHO find the winning lead (if there is one) on his own.

Dare your LHO to bid 4 of a major - you will be happy to Double him.

This is a poker situation, not a bridge situation.

Practice trumps theory and, in my experience, the "undefined" 3NT is a big winner in practice.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[gwnn]

Fred are you saying that this stop showing/denying idea is bad after a 2 suiter or bad in general?

[fred]

gwnn, on Oct 3 2008, 06:48 PM, said:

Fred are you saying that this stop showing/denying idea is bad after a 2 suiter or bad in general?

Bad idea when the overcall shows a 2-suiter.

Good idea when the overcall shows a 1-suiter.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[pclayton]

fred, on Oct 3 2008, 10:46 AM, said:

pclayton, on Oct 3 2008, 05:47 PM, said:

-- I would assume 2N-->3♣--> 3N would show 'doubt' in these methods. Something like: xxx xxx AKx KQxx.  Isn't this the time that we are worried about responder taking a call over 2N when opener has both majors stopped?

No - this is a hand where you want to play 3NT. Same goes if your AKx was in one of the majors instead of diamonds.

The reason is that you have more to gain (the game bonus) when you are right than you have to lose (an undertrick or two) when you are wrong, especially since you are unlikely to have a game bonus available in 5 of a minor.

Dare your RHO find the winning lead (if there is one) on his own.

Dare your LHO to bid 4 of a major - you will be happy to Double him.

This is a poker situation, not a bridge situation.

Practice trumps theory and, in my experience, the "undefined" 3NT is a big winner in practice.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Then use xx xx AKxx KQxxx. I don't care. I'm sure there's a hand where you will stop playing poker and start playing bridge .

Certainly 2N--> 3C--> 3N means something for you and Brad.

[fred]

pclayton, on Oct 3 2008, 07:19 PM, said:

Then use xx xx AKxx KQxxx. I don't care. I'm sure there's a hand where you will stop playing poker and start playing bridge .

Certainly 2N--> 3C--> 3N means something for you and Brad.

True, but it has nothing to do with stoppers.

We don't play Lebensohl or any other stopper showing/denying mechanism when the opponents have shown a 2-suiter.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Echognome]

cherdano, on Oct 3 2008, 08:30 AM, said:

I guess this thread gives good evidence for Mike Fladder's ruling being wrong.

Was really the only poll I could think of to figure out a sensible way to judge the situation. I will go further to disagree with Flader's ruling on the basis that in order to rule "result stands" you are basically saying that South would pass 3NT given the correct information! I think that was just a poor ruling.

This poll was actually made to address one of our posters who said he would rule that South had "failed to play bridge" when he passed 3NT with the given explanation. I thought it extremely harsh to rule that when it seemed obvious to me that South was confused as to their agreements.