[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-28, 18:36, said:

1NT-(2♦)-?

2M is NF, 3M is F, 2NT then 3M is inv.

It would make sense if, over reverses, the same principle applied. My understanding is that for some reason I don't know, it doesn't.

Indeed, I phrased it the way I did because a number of people (me included) use PFA outside clubs and put the force thru 2N.

[aguahombre]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-27, 14:05, said:

KQJxx and out is a really obvious 4♠ bid sadly.

Actually it is not. It is an obvious 2S bid, rather than 2NT, so having that hand is not possible as the auction went (even, if advancer did in-fact have that hand). I cannot imagine putting someone in the position of having bid 2NT with KQJXX XXX XXX XX and trying to conduct a poll. Would 4S be an attempt to unscrew his own error, or an attempt to use UI?

If the player who bid 2NT with that hand was only clueless at that point, but had a clue what 3NT should show over Leben, then he should pass 3NT to avoid slam.

[Cyberyeti]

aguahombre, on 2012-February-29, 04:21, said:

Actually it is not. It is an obvious 2S bid, rather than 2NT, so having that hand is not possible as the auction went (even, if advancer did in-fact have that hand). I cannot imagine putting someone in the position of having bid 2NT with KQJXX XXX XXX XX and trying to conduct a poll. Would 4S be an attempt to unscrew his own error, or an attempt to use UI?

If the player who bid 2NT with that hand was only clueless at that point, but had a clue what 3NT should show over Leben, then he should pass 3NT to avoid slam.

You seem to have ignored a lot of the discussion.

It appears there is a variant where 2♠ is forcing and 2N->3♠ is the signoff, which would be the only (not very) sensible explanation for what's happening.

In that case, partner will not be going slamming over 4♠, it's what you do with 6 small and out.

[aguahombre]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-29, 05:32, said:

You seem to have ignored a lot of the discussion.

It appears there is a variant where 2♠ is forcing and 2N->3♠ is the signoff, which would be the only (not very) sensible explanation for what's happening.

I can only assume you were joking. Yes, I chose to ignore that "variant", because it could only be someone's convoluted thinking, not a real variant

[Cyberyeti]

aguahombre, on 2012-February-29, 08:27, said:

I can only assume you were joking. Yes, I chose to ignore that "variant", because it could only be someone's convoluted thinking, not a real variant

I just wish somebody had asked the question "What were you thinking when you bid 2N", as that would have made this somwhat easier.

[blackshoe]

Somehow I got off the track, which was lebensohl after weak 2 doubled, and onto lebensohl over reverses. Just disregard my last couple of posts.

[sfi]

I gave five people the hand xxx KQJxx xx xxx and the auction (2S) - X - (P) - 2NT; (P) - 3NT.

3 passed without comment. 2 bid 4H but said it was close.

I trust this is a close enough approximation of the actual situation to suggest that pass is a logical alternative?

[blackshoe]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-29, 05:32, said:

You seem to have ignored a lot of the discussion.

It appears there is a variant where 2♠ is forcing and 2N->3♠ is the signoff, which would be the only (not very) sensible explanation for what's happening.

In that case, partner will not be going slamming over 4♠, it's what you do with 6 small and out.

aguahombre, on 2012-February-29, 08:27, said:

I can only assume you were joking. Yes, I chose to ignore that "variant", because it could only be someone's convoluted thinking, not a real variant

Ideally, we would have asked the players involved what their agreements are.

Cyberyeti, on 2012-February-29, 08:46, said:

I just wish somebody had asked the question "What were you thinking when you bid 2N", as that would have made this somwhat easier.

Indeed,this question is key.

sfi, on 2012-February-29, 12:39, said:

I gave five people the hand xxx KQJxx xx xxx and the auction (2S) - X - (P) - 2NT; (P) - 3NT.

3 passed without comment. 2 bid 4H but said it was close.

I trust this is a close enough approximation of the actual situation to suggest that pass is a logical alternative?

Is it? Would all five of these players have bid 2NT with this hand? Would any of them? If so, are they playing the methods of the offending partnership?

[bluejak]

mycroft, on 2012-February-28, 13:05, said:

This is interesting, because what people are saying here is the way I always thought Lebensohl should be played. But people around here (including the person who I ask about these things), think that 2NT, then 3♠ is the bailout, and 2♠ directly is a good, but not game-forcing hand.

I don't know if that changes anything...

It does. I thought I knew all the strange ideas people come up with, but in a non-pre-emptive type situation, bidding more with a weak hand so you go off, and less with a strong hand so as to make lots of overtricks is a new one for me.

Would you mind if I called it the "mycroft approach" for classification purposes?

[sfi]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-29, 17:36, said:

Is it? Would all five of these players have bid 2NT with this hand? Would any of them? If so, are they playing the methods of the offending partnership?

Yes, they all would have bid 2NT, or at least didn't comment on that. You did notice that I swapped the majors to make the 2NT bid normal?

We don't have any indication that the methods are unusual, despite two followups from the original poster. We do know that the person holding the hand that bid 2NT wanted to show a weak hand. Hence the adjustment to my poll.

Are you asking if I can find 'peers' of the bidder, by which you mean 'people who want to sign off over a takeout double of 2H and remember a Lebensohl 2NT is a weaker way to get to the three level but forget that spades outrank hearts'? Not easily, and neither can you. So you do the next best thing. I have provided some results of asking others where they would pass on the actual auction (despite thinking the bidding was bizarre) and other results on a largely equivalent auction where a majority would pass 3NT. If you don't think that's valid evidence, I'm curious to see what you do think is valid.

[blackshoe]

sfi, on 2012-February-29, 22:16, said:

Yes, they all would have bid 2NT, or at least didn't comment on that. You did notice that I swapped the majors to make the 2NT bid normal?

We don't have any indication that the methods are unusual, despite two followups from the original poster. We do know that the person holding the hand that bid 2NT wanted to show a weak hand. Hence the adjustment to my poll.

Are you asking if I can find 'peers' of the bidder, by which you mean 'people who want to sign off over a takeout double of 2H and remember a Lebensohl 2NT is a weaker way to get to the three level but forget that spades outrank hearts'? Not easily, and neither can you. So you do the next best thing. I have provided some results of asking others where they would pass on the actual auction (despite thinking the bidding was bizarre) and other results on a largely equivalent auction where a majority would pass 3NT. If you don't think that's valid evidence, I'm curious to see what you do think is valid.

I'm just trying to make sure we're making the right ruling for the right reasons.

[Hi_Lali]

The 3NT bidder forgot the Lebensohl convention and thought her partner had a H stopper with points inviting 3NT so she bid 3NT. It was suggested to me that opposite a strong NT hand that bypassed the 2NT, there are some who would be more inclined to bid 4S. My question then is if your partner opened 2NT showing a strong 20-21 flat hand, would you still say you would transfer to S and then bid on to 4S unilaterally with only a 5cd suit? The scoring is mp's and your partner is favored to have the AS so I would be more inclined to pass feeling that there were at least 4 probably 5 tricks in NT which scores better and 3NT partner said she has good stoppers in the preempt suit.

[WellSpyder]

Hi_Lali, on 2012-March-01, 00:00, said:

My question then is if your partner opened 2NT showing a strong 20-21 flat hand, would you still say you would transfer to S and then bid on to 4S unilaterally with only a 5cd suit?

If that is the question, my answer is definitely no. But there is a big difference. Over a 2N opening I will be able to show my suit straight away via a transfer, and if partner bids 3N rather than accepting he transfer he is denying spade support. In the Lebensohl case, I haven't shown straight away which suit I've got, and partner can't be denying support for all 4 suits! (Some might play 3N after opening 2N the other way round, as some sort of super-accept with spade support, but either way you have a lot more to go on in knowing whether to bid 4S or not than in the Lebensohl case.)