[Fluffy]

Phil, on Sep 29 2010, 02:19 PM, said:

hanp, on Sep 29 2010, 07:40 AM, said:

ONEferBRID, on Sep 29 2010, 06:38 AM, said:

Both in Ingerberman and Lebensohl3 ( Ron Anderson's 1987 book: The Lebensohl Convention Complete ) .. 2S is forcing... in fact it is game forcing.

I seriously doubt Ron Anderson recommended 2S to be game forcing, that doesn't make any sense.

Why are we treating a book written in the 1980's as gospel?

Treating 2♠ as GF is so LOL.

Bah, stop laughing at me will you?

[Fluffy]

4321, on Sep 28 2010, 06:00 AM, said:

What was wrong?

The forum you picked for your question

[peachy]

ONEferBRID, on Sep 29 2010, 10:34 AM, said:

Treating 2♠ as GF is so LOL
Well, here is one from 1998:

http://www.cs.sfu.ca.../lebensohl.html.

Brad Bart's Synopsis of Lebensohl

Lebensohl over Reverses

1♣-1♠-2♥-2♠
Natural and nonforcing....

A ) Who is Brad Bart?

B ) What happened to the generally accepted principle (AFAIK) that opener who reverses, promises a third bid? Which means that 2S bidder is assigning none of the qualifiers "forcing", "non-forcing", "sign'off", to the 2S bid.

C ) Perhaps this is a terminology problem. See point B )

[bucky]

Well, I think "reverse promising a 3rd bid" is a result of treatment rather than dictated by logic. The opener should be prepared to play at 3-level in either of his suits, but that doesn't mean the same has to apply in responder's suit.

There are lots of merits to play 2♠ forcing at least one round (I play that), it is this treatment that makes "reverse promising a 3rd bid". But I also think 2♠ non-forcing (i.e. passable) is playable, by partnership agreement. Of course opener doesn't HAVE to pass with extra value/shape.

[ONEferBRID]

Thanks, Peachy... Re: 2S...I had not thought of it in that light before.

Quote

1D-1S-2H-2S is neutral, just showing 5-card spade suit. The "forcing" aspect comes from the fact that opener has promised a third (bid ) when when he reverses, so opener cannot pass 2S. Even if 2S is agreed as weak hand, it still cannot be passed. 1D-1S-2H-3C is natural and GF, if playing Lebensohl or BWS, where 2NT is artificial.

[4321]

Thanks all, especially Free and P Marlowe, because I think the same. "The first opinion is always true" (international proverb).

http://www.bridgeguy...uitForcing.html
As we can see, spade repeat (2s or 3s) should show spade 6+ or very good 5.

It's possible to bid 3d instead 3s, but it should be very intuitive bid, because opener, remembering the variation of the rule of symmetric by E.Culbertson (if I hold a long suit, may be my partner holds a long suit too), hopes to find 5 in spade in partner's hand.
+ he haven't see slam intentions in that moment.

That 9% slam was wined. Fortuna...

[bucky]

4321, on Oct 1 2010, 11:53 AM, said:

http://www.bridgeguy...uitForcing.html
As we can see, spade repeat (2s or 3s) should show spade 6+ or very good 5.

I think you are confused with 4sf in reverse sequence. In a normal sequence, repeating your own suit at minimum level wouldn't be forcing, so with 5+ in the suit and GF value you often need 4sf. In reverse sequence if you can repeat the suit without fear of getting passed out, your 4sf should DENY 5+ in the suit.

[4321]

May be, but is this principle common for Main Bridge Club of BBO? How to be sure? Here is a point.

Here is my variant:
1d - 1s
2h - 3c
3s - 3n
4d - 6d/n

3n - stronger than 3n without 4th suit, expecting quantitive invit 4n or Gerber,
4d - good diamonds 6+,
6d/n - normal bid with figur addition in diamonds and not minimal strengs.

[bucky]

Well, I don't know there is any principle at BBO, other than "no to assume anything". If you are playing with a random pick-up partner, bidding to 6♠ is really expected. Without good agreement, it is impossible to bid well.