[jdonn]

Phil, on Mar 17 2009, 09:20 PM, said:

2N should be Lebensohl when they've bid two five card suits.

Why do we need a bid to say, I have two places to play, when there are only two places to play?

Because I don't know which one I want to play in? I don't understand how you reached your conclusion.

[Apollo81]

FWIW I would take 2NT as natural if I were doubler

[Phil]

jdonn, on Mar 18 2009, 10:19 AM, said:

Phil, on Mar 17 2009, 09:20 PM, said:

2N should be Lebensohl when they've bid two five card suits.

Why do we need a bid to say, I have two places to play, when there are only two places to play?

Because I don't know which one I want to play in? I don't understand how you reached your conclusion.

I reached my conclusion because there's more utility in 2N being used to parse hands that pass over 2♦ but want to show some values versus hands that are busted.

When responder has equal length in the unbid suits, you will get to the longer fit.

When responder needs to show a six count versus a yarb, I will be able to clarify better than you.

I hope you appreciate the tradeoff here.

[jdonn]

I didn't say your conclusion was wrong, just that I don't know how you reached it. You claimed:

There are only two potential places to play
therefore
We don't need a bid to show two places to play

And for the life of me I still don't see how that follows.

I agree there is a tradeoff, one of us can get to the better fit and one of us can distinguish strength. That is a much more reasonable thing to say than your prior post. I do not agree with han that lebensohl is useless, I just think it's less useful. All either of us can have here is our opinion, no one can really present much evidence of anything.

[Fluffy]

2NT is the contract I wanna play, why not try to play it?, worst possible thing is that partner bids 3♣ with his almost known 5 card suit. I don't think he is not passing with 3424.