[Ant590]

Say you have the agreement to play Lebensohl after a reverse (I think the same question applies to Ingberman too...)

How do you play the difference between
2NT - 3♣ - 3NT
and
3NT
and
4th suit - something - 3NT

Two options seem to be
(1) One shows doubt about strain
(2) The slow option was seeing if partner was going to break transfer, so 2NT then 3NT is a mild slam try

I'm sure there are more, and better ones than these though...

[TylerE]

I think of the first two the best might be to agree that relaying shows Hxx or better in opener's first suit, and direct 3N denies.

[maggieb]

For one, I strongly recommend playing lebensohl is the cheaper of 4th suit or 2N, as opposed to always 2N. It has very few disadvantages and a lot of very important advantages.

As for for what I play, I like that 2N and then 3N is stronger than a direct 3N. The reason for this is that if partner breaks the 3♣ relay, and you actually have a strong hand, you have more room to sort things out.

[jdonn]

I wouldn't think of 2NT then 3NT as opposed to a direct 3NT as 'showing' anything different, it just means responder wanted more information. So yes the likely meaning of 2NT then 3NT in practice is responder had extras and wanted to see if opener would do more than bid 3♣, but it doesn't matter since opener should never be able to pull the 3NT bid anyway (at least not based on strength, possibly based on shape though).

So if you are responder and partner reverses, and you are considering a 3NT bid, ask yourself if there is a hand opener could show over 2NT that would make you not want to bid 3NT, and if so then bid 2NT instead.

[Jlall]

I play a jump to 3N as 11-12ish with good stoppers in the fourth suit and no fit for partner.

I play the 4th suit as natural if playing leb over reverses. You can have a fit in that suit. I agree with the suggestion to play the cheaper of fourth suit or 2N as the weak bid though, but still an auction like 1D 1S 2H 3C is natural to me.

[Echognome]

I haven't thought about the distinctions too much, but I do like to be able to get out of partner's way when possible. Maybe Justin avoids it by playing 4th suit as natural?

Here's what I mean. Say you have:

KJTx xx xxx KJTx

And the (uncontested) auction starts 1♦ - 1♠; 2♥. I would hate to have to bid 3NT with this hand or else what is partner supposed to bid with 5-6 in the reds? He will have no idea whether to pass 3NT or let you play there. However, if you can bid 2NT then 3NT, then partner can get his hand off his chest by bidding 3♥ and you can happily play in 3NT.

Of course 3NT should have a meaning as well. Just noting a problem I see with jumping in this auction, unless you have discussed it with partner, so he'll know what to do with his various hand types.

[raist]

to expand a little on has been sad

justin plays a jump to 3NT after a reverse as 11-12
presumeably by extension, using lebensohl followed by 3NT would show, 8-10

but as mentioned by maggie earlier
perhaps the faster response (3NT directly) should show less. ie 8-10
and the slower route to 3NT (going through lebensohl first, whether it be the cheaper of the 4th suit or 2NT) sshould show more, 11-12

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Nov 3 2009, 02:47 PM, said:

I wouldn't think of 2NT then 3NT as opposed to a direct 3NT as 'showing' anything different, it just means responder wanted more information. So yes the likely meaning of 2NT then 3NT in practice is responder had extras and wanted to see if opener would do more than bid 3♣, but it doesn't matter since opener should never be able to pull the 3NT bid anyway (at least not based on strength, possibly based on shape though).

So if you are responder and partner reverses, and you are considering a 3NT bid, ask yourself if there is a hand opener could show over 2NT that would make you not want to bid 3NT, and if so then bid 2NT instead.

Agree in theory.

That said, if 2NT...3NT is ambiguous but strongly suggests a pass, then a direct 3NT probably could show something interesting. A simple range, like 11-12 suggested by Justin, seems strange, IMO. Simple HCP range???

If I were allowed to tinker, I'd have a direct 3NT show a specific hand type that maybe solves a possible problem or show something about Opener's first suit. Not sure what.

Heck, maybe even slow shows a stopper makes sense.

[Ant590]

kenrexford, on Nov 4 2009, 02:52 PM, said:

Heck, maybe even slow shows a stopper makes sense.

This is what me and my partner were considering, so basically one shows doubt about 3NT, probably with a doubleton in each of partner's suits. But bidding the non-GF step (2NT for us) to see if partner can break it seems sensible on some occasions too, so then how do you end up in 3NT!

Ah, well, good to know me and my partner are having trouble with auctions where there is no expert standard it seems

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Nov 4 2009, 08:52 AM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 3 2009, 02:47 PM, said:

I wouldn't think of 2NT then 3NT as opposed to a direct 3NT as 'showing' anything different, it just means responder wanted more information. So yes the likely meaning of 2NT then 3NT in practice is responder had extras and wanted to see if opener would do more than bid 3♣, but it doesn't matter since opener should never be able to pull the 3NT bid anyway (at least not based on strength, possibly based on shape though).

So if you are responder and partner reverses, and you are considering a 3NT bid, ask yourself if there is a hand opener could show over 2NT that would make you not want to bid 3NT, and if so then bid 2NT instead.

Agree in theory.

That said, if 2NT...3NT is ambiguous but strongly suggests a pass, then a direct 3NT probably could show something interesting. A simple range, like 11-12 suggested by Justin, seems strange, IMO. Simple HCP range???

If I were allowed to tinker, I'd have a direct 3NT show a specific hand type that maybe solves a possible problem or show something about Opener's first suit. Not sure what.

Heck, maybe even slow shows a stopper makes sense.

I understand wanting to create a differentiation if you don't want opener pulling the slow 3NT anyway, but if you believe you want to play 3NT then I would much rather just bid it right away and give away less information about opener's hand.

[Jlall]

I use a "simple high card point" range because I do not believe that everything is so black and white. For instance, the fact that I bid 3N with 11-12 with good stoppers does not mean that I deny 11-12 when I bid 2N then 3N.

I find 11-12 to be a tough range to deal with as it's on the border of trying for slam but not enough to drive past 3N. I find the need for good stoppers to be there because otherwise you might get to a stupid contract.

Similarly I play 1S 2C 2S 3N as about 16-17, but that does not mean I will never bid 1S 2C 2S 2N with 16-17. If I had a weak red suit I would always bid 2N, so 3N to me shows good stoppers also. 16-17 is the range for the same reason.

FWIW I am not worried partner won't know what to do with 5-6 if I bid 3N, he will bid of course. I am almost always going to be 4324 so what's the problem?

[Echognome]

Jlall, on Nov 4 2009, 07:46 PM, said:

FWIW I am not worried partner won't know what to do with 5-6 if I bid 3N, he will bid of course. I am almost always going to be 4324 so what's the problem?

Are you always raising diamonds with three small when you are 4=2=3=4?

Are you always showing a bad five card club suit when you are 4=2=2=5?

[Jlall]

Echognome, on Nov 5 2009, 10:47 AM, said:

Jlall, on Nov 4 2009, 07:46 PM, said:

FWIW I am not worried partner won't know what to do with 5-6 if I bid 3N, he will bid of course. I am almost always going to be 4324 so what's the problem?

Are you always raising diamonds with three small when you are 4=2=3=4?

Are you always showing a bad five card club suit when you are 4=2=2=5?

It would be an extreme hand that I would bid not bid 3D with support. With your 8 count example earlier I would bid 2N then 3N. With 11-12 I cannot imagine bidding 3N unless I was KQJx xx xxx KQJx or something very very extreme.

I can't think of a hand where I wouldn't bid 3C with 5 of them and 11-12.

[Echognome]

Maybe AJxx Kx Kx Jxxxx?

But I take your point. It's going to be rare to be 4=2=2=5

My point was mainly that 3N shouldn't imply 4=3=2=4, unless you are always raising diamonds on xxx.

Maybe a more common hand might be:

AQxx Kx xxx QTxx

After 1♦ - 1♠; 2♥ - ? are you bidding 3♦ or 3N?

[cherdanno]

Echognome, on Nov 5 2009, 01:51 PM, said:

Maybe AJxx Kx Kx Jxxxx?

But I take your point. It's going to be rare to be 4=2=2=5

My point was mainly that 3N shouldn't imply 4=3=2=4, unless you are always raising diamonds on xxx.

Maybe a more common hand might be:

AQxx Kx xxx QTxx

After 1♦ - 1♠; 2♥ - ? are you bidding 3♦ or 3N?

Justin is bidding 3♦ with this hand. (Me too.)