[iandayre]

3NT is by far the best game contract on this hand. Do you have the methods to get there?

I have to believe that everyone will start with a double of the weak 2S opener. Take it from there.

http://tinyurl.com/m8u29kb

Yes I could have made 4H on the 4-2 had I not misclicked.

[mike777]

Perhaps:


x then 3d(leb) by north showing some decent values but nonforce
then perhaps 3s by south and then 3nt by north??

I am going to guess that some may try 2nt rather than x by south??

tough hand.

[billw55]

Only way seems to be for people who use a cuebid to show a half stopper. Otherwise somebody just guesses.

Alternatively, can anyone penalize 2♠, for 500? Not as good as 600 for game, but no disaster at IMPs.

[Mbodell]

Yeah, X-3♦-3♠-3nt seems reasonable.

[Free]

Nope

[Fluffy]

Mbodell, on 2015-January-15, 01:07, said:

Yeah, X-3♦-3♠-3nt seems reasonable.

Do you play 3♦ forcing or ultra thin take out doubles?

[mike777]

Perhaps playing tfr leb then:

x-3c-3d-3nt
3c forcing 3d then 3nt to show some doubt in spades?

[gszes]

Assuming one is playing leb it goes 2s x p 3d (forcing). P would
vastly prefer to bid NT vs diamonds so the dia bid (if not interested
slam) would deny a spade stop. The reason for forcing is the partnership
sometimes has to be willing to invest 1 level to make sure they get
strain correct and if they occasionally overbid preempts work.

Since 3d generally denies a spade stop it becomes quite simple for 3s to
ask for a partial stop for NT. It may be a cue bid but we can always find
that out later.

2s x p 3d p 3s p 3n IMHO it is best to save a 3s bid (2s x p 3s) for a hand with
no semblance of a spade stop so partner can make some kind of rational decision
as to the possibility of 3n.

[iandayre]

gszes, on 2015-January-15, 13:36, said:

Assuming one is playing leb it goes 2s x p 3d (forcing). P would
vastly prefer to bid NT vs diamonds so the dia bid (if not interested
slam) would deny a spade stop. The reason for forcing is the partnership
sometimes has to be willing to invest 1 level to make sure they get
strain correct and if they occasionally overbid preempts work.

Since 3d generally denies a spade stop it becomes quite simple for 3s to
ask for a partial stop for NT. It may be a cue bid but we can always find
that out later.

2s x p 3d p 3s p 3n IMHO it is best to save a 3s bid (2s x p 3s) for a hand with
no semblance of a spade stop so partner can make some kind of rational decision
as to the possibility of 3n.

Certainly 3S over 3D is easy enough be it forcing or invitational. I think the great majority play Lebensohl such that the 3 level new suit advance is value showing, not forcing, so N was too good for that action. I think playing 3 of a minor as forcing has some merit though. Certainly 3H over a double of 2S should not be.

[mike777]

btw since you are playing with a robot what does a direct 3nt or 2nt then 3nt show by the north bot?

I mean do the bots play leb and if so fast leb or slow leb

In any case I wonder when playing with the bots if it just pays to grab nt first and bid 2nt here by the human? I mean bid nt with many many offshape hands also

I thought that is how Leo plays and wins?

[lycier]

billw55, on 2015-January-14, 14:13, said:

Only way seems to be for people who use a cuebid to show a half stopper. Otherwise somebody just guesses.

Alternatively, can anyone penalize 2♠, for 500? Not as good as 600 for game, but no disaster at IMPs.

Yes,I agree.If play "eastern cuebid",it is very easy to bid up to 3nt,orelse,very hard to get to 3nt.

[Mbodell]

Fluffy, on 2015-January-15, 04:42, said:

Do you play 3♦ forcing or ultra thin take out doubles?

3♦ is forcing, weaker hands bid 2nt. Unless you are play t-leb or rub in which case you can bid 3♣ with your inv+ ♦ hand.

[cherdano]

In standard Lebensohl, 3♦ is non-forcing, invitational.

[kuhchung]

Mbodell, on 2015-January-16, 02:46, said:

3♦ is forcing, weaker hands bid 2nt. Unless you are play t-leb or rub in which case you can bid 3♣ with your inv+ ♦ hand.

is this a variant local to our region? i've heard this from other peers back in the day and thought it was crazy then (well, i still do)

[Mbodell]

kuhchung, on 2015-January-16, 11:56, said:

is this a variant local to our region? i've heard this from other peers back in the day and thought it was crazy then (well, i still do)

Could be local variant. I learned it as forcing, but obviously from this thread I'm in minority. I think I learned it from 1nt overcall where it became forcing, and then didn't learn a difference when on over weak 2. Or do you play non-forcing in 1nt (2M) 3♦ situation too?

[Stephen Tu]

Mbodell, on 2015-January-18, 01:39, said:

Could be local variant. I learned it as forcing, but obviously from this thread I'm in minority. I think I learned it from 1nt overcall where it became forcing, and then didn't learn a difference when on over weak 2. Or do you play non-forcing in 1nt (2M) 3♦ situation too?

I think you just learned it wrong or from some person who also learned it wrong. Didn't learn any differences vs after 1nt opening which is markedly different situation. Most importantly you are forced to bid without a penalty pass, while over 1nt you don't have to do anything over intervention when very weak. Playing it as GF would make the signoff sequence still very wide ranging, which is the whole reason people started playing Leb ver wk2Lebwk2 ubled in the first place. I recall a couple years ago you thought 3nt denied stopper here, as over 1nt, I think this as GF is equally erroneous, and don't think it is a regional variant.