[Ronald7777]

playing Lebensohl :

1NT - (3♣) - 3♠

Is 3S gamerforcing or not ?

thx

[helene_t]

Hi Ronald,

welcome to the forum!

Yes, this is played as a game force by most (although I think Cascade on this forum prefers to play it as nonforcing - probably it makes more sense to play it as nonforcing if you play weak NT than if you play strong).

It means that a weak hand with long spades will have to either pass or double. Double, of course, is an option only if you have a bit of defense as partner will sometimes pass it.

It is probably better to play 3♥ as a transfer to spades so that you can bid with both weak and strong hands, but standard is natural and forcing.

[kenrexford]

This is a really good sequence for "Systems On" and a "Stolen Bid Double," played "As If Opened 2NT." Meaning:

X = Puppet Stayman
3♦ = Transfer to hearts
3♥ = Transfer to spades
3♠ = GF with "diamonds" (typically a 3NT raise without a stopper)
3NT = to play

[Lorne50]

Without discussion it is forcing, but if you run simulations you can show that playing it NF and guessing the right game when you are stronger will win more often than it loses.

However there are other methods that are better - Rubinsohl (basically transfers with a few twists) is one worth looking at (http://www.bridgeguy.../Rubinsohl.html).

[MrAce]

Ronald7777, on 2013-November-22, 10:19, said:

playing Lebensohl

It is % 100 GF., under your description of agreements.

[aguahombre]

I guess I am ignorant about "Lebensohl" over 3C.

Playing 1430, is 1N (2S) 3H gameforcing?

[Ronald7777]

Thanks for your answer eveybody

Meanwhile I discovered a book of Ron Andersen "The Lebensohl Convention Complete".
On the pages 29-31 the author describes my problem.
Playing Lebensohl 3♠ is forcing.

greetings

[helene_t]

But Ronald, as Aquahombre somewhat sarcastically hints: This has nothing to do with Lebensohl.

Lebensohl is an artificial 2NT bid. So playing Lebensohl has consequences for the forcing character of example
1NT-(2♠)-3♥*
because 3♥ denies a hand suitable for a 2NT bid.

After an interference at the 3-level, Lebensohl obviously can't apply.

[Antrax]

Helene you don't play insufficient Lebensohl over 3♣?

[Trinidad]

Antrax, on 2013-November-27, 04:00, said:

Helene you don't play insufficient Lebensohl over 3♣?

Palooka!

It's obviously superior to play insufficient transfers in combination with natural sufficient bids. It is very important to rightside the contract in these competitive auctions.

Rik

[MrAce]

aguahombre, on 2013-November-26, 11:17, said:

I guess I am ignorant about "Lebensohl" over 3C.

Playing 1430, is 1N (2S) 3H gameforcing?

Not fair to reply with sarcasm to sarcasm

[helene_t]

Trinidad, on 2013-November-27, 04:37, said:

Palooka!

It's obviously superior to play insufficient transfers in combination with natural sufficient bids. It is very important to rightside the contract in these competitive auctions.

Rik

I think it's better to play the reverse. If you want partner to declarer, make a sufficient transfer. If you want to declare, make an insufficient bid baring partner and then bid the contract.

[Trinidad]

helene_t, on 2013-November-27, 05:08, said:

I think it's better to play the reverse. If you want partner to declarer, make a sufficient transfer. If you want to declare, make an insufficient bid baring partner and then bid the contract.

Your view is outdated. It was the correct view before the last rule change about insufficient bids. It saddens me to see that you haven't been following the theoretical developments in this area.

Your system often fails in practice since partner will forget that your sufficient bids are transfers, and poor results are inevitable. Keep it simple and play natural at the three level and (obviously) transfers at the two level.

Someone less enlightened (not you, of course) might think that it doesn't matter which one is the transfer and which one is natural. They might think that you are equally likely to forget transfers in both cases.

But they have overlooked the additional possibilities that the insufficient bid gives: Once you have made your insufficient transfer, you simply say: "Oops, I see that my transfer was insufficient.". All that is left to do then is tell the TD that sufficient bids at the three level would also have been transfers (with partner nodding, obviously) and you are set. With the new laws one can replace the insufficient transfer by a sufficient transfer, no problem.

Rik

P.S. Do I really need to add a smiley?

[blackshoe]

Baring partner might have some rather unfortunate consequences.