[broze]

---

Partner and I had a misunderstanding on this hand. I sat south and only wanted to ask Keycard in Diamonds. We play kickback.

After 3♣ transfer, is 3♠ natural? How do I keycard in ♦ after 3♠? If 3♠ is natural how do I agree ♠ showing slam interest?

[ahydra]

I would have taken 3S as some sort of superaccept in diamonds - hence no reason 4H wouldn't be kickback for diamonds.

If partner had a different meaning in mind for 3S then you need to sort that out first.

ahydra

[SteveMoe]

Agree with ahydra - though it would be nice to know the 1NT range and tendency to open 1N with a 5-card major. (I have partners who feel once they open 1n they have to get their 5-card major off their chest). Seems like partner might be talking about a "lost" suit. good to talk about that first.

However, if 4♣ over 3♠ would have been a "retransfer" then the way to ensure partner doesn't suffer a brain gap would be to retransfer then bid 4♥ Kickback.

Sure was interesting to see an auction get to RKB with netiher partner mentioning the target suit by name!

[Quantumcat]

SteveMoe, on 2012-June-01, 20:50, said:

Sure was interesting to see an auction get to RKB with netiher partner mentioning the target suit by name!

If you think never mentioning the target suit by name is interesting you should see some of me and my partner's auctions:

1♦(1) 2NT(2)
3♣(3) 3♦(4)
3NT(5) 4♥(6)
5♣(7) 5♥(8)
7♠

1. Exactly 4 spades, 8-20 HCP.
2. Any splinter, 10-12 HCP.
3,4. What splinter? Diamonds.
5,6. KCB? 2 without queen.
7,8. What do you have in hearts? Queen or doubleton.

The two hands:

♠AKQ8-----♠T8762
♥KJ6532---♥AQ4
♦AJ2---------♦7
♣2------------♣A943

[Mbodell]

broze, on 2012-June-01, 09:08, said:

---

Partner and I had a misunderstanding on this hand. I sat south and only wanted to ask Keycard in Diamonds. We play kickback.

After 3♣ transfer, is 3♠ natural? How do I keycard in ♦ after 3♠? If 3♠ is natural how do I agree ♠ showing slam interest?

I'd expect partner to have a maximum NT with 4 or 5 spades for his 3♠ hand. But this assumes that by "transfer lebensohl" it means 2nt forces 3♣ and is either a sign off below their suit or a forcing club hand, and other bids on the 3 level are inv+ transfers (transfer into their suit is stayman, and transfer into nt versus 3nt shows/denies stoppers as agreement). Therefore if partner accepts the invite they have to bid on. If you have this agreement, then I think 3nt is an offer to play, 4♣ and 4♥ are slamming in spades, and 4♦ sets diamonds. So I think the answer is you can't keycard in diamonds.

[Zelandakh]

One of the advantages of playing 3♣ here as weak or GF is precisely that you do not have to mess around with this kind of auction. If you play the inv+ method then you need to have some serious discussions about follow-ups. Without having those discussions, if I had somehow been brainwashed into playing this scheme, I would assume 4♥ was a slam try agreeing spades and not Kickback. Silly question here but if you only wanted to ask for key cards in diamonds then why not start with a 4 level bid, either 4♦ (if natural) or 4♣ and bidding 4♥ over partner's 4♦ rebid? I assume one of these is defined as a key card ask.

[fromageGB]

Wouldn't happen to me, as 3♣ forces 3♦ and may be weak. However, assuming the transfer is at least invitational, then I read 3♠ as a maximum agreeing diamonds with a spade ace, denying a heart ace. 4♥ is unambiguously ace asking in diamonds.

I don't see the point in 3♠ being a natural suit, but perhaps it is with the inv+ method. If so, as Zel says, you need additional agreements. Compulsory transfers are easier!

[broze]

Zelandakh, on 2012-June-04, 05:01, said:

One of the advantages of playing 3♣ here as weak or GF is precisely that you do not have to mess around with this kind of auction. If you play the inv+ method then you need to have some serious discussions about follow-ups. Without having those discussions, if I had somehow been brainwashed into playing this scheme, I would assume 4♥ was a slam try agreeing spades and not Kickback. Silly question here but if you only wanted to ask for key cards in diamonds then why not start with a 4 level bid, either 4♦ (if natural) or 4♣ and bidding 4♥ over partner's 4♦ rebid? I assume one of these is defined as a key card ask.

fromageGB, on 2012-June-05, 10:12, said:

Compulsory transfers are easier!

Could either of you explain to me how the alternative to the inv+ method works? I don't see any inherent weaknesses in it but as you say there need to be more and firmer discussions.

[Zelandakh]

broze, on 2012-July-01, 17:56, said:

Could either of you explain to me how the alternative to the inv+ method works? I don't see any inherent weaknesses in it but as you say there need to be more and firmer discussions.

Let's take the auction above, 1NT - (2♥). Note there are several versions but probably the one most comparable with what you are playing (I assume you use 2NT as weak in a minor or GF in clubs?) is:

2♠ = weak, natural
2NT = weak with clubs, or invitational with diamonds (bid 3♦ over 3♣), or GF with clubs
3♣ = diamonds, weak or GF
3♦ = Stayman
3♥ = spades, INV+
3♠ = stopper ask
3NT = to play

The main downside of this is complexity (although it is no more complex than what I suspect you are playing), plus not guaranteeing clubs immediately can sometimes mean we cannot compete as high as we should (in comparison with straight transfers, Lebensohl itself is even worse). Nonetheless, if you want to have an invite in diamonds this is probably one of the best schemes available.

[fromageGB]

An alternative that includes compulsory transfers, if you are prepared to give up the penalty or takeout double, is, over 1NT (2♥) ...
X = spades
2♠ = minor suit stayman
2NT = clubs
3♣ = diamonds
3♦ = "transfer cue bid", so GF with usually 4 spades
3♥/♠ = ?? maybe stopper ask
3NT = to play

If you normally play this method of showing minors after an uninterrupted NT (ie minor suit stayman, simple transfers) then this method needs no memory. All the transfers are compulsory, and responder is potentially a weak 6 card suit. If responder bids again, it can be invitational ie 1NT (2♥) X (p) 2♠ (p) 2NT, or with a rebid at the 3 level, GF. At least, I play GF. I guess you could play the minor transfer as invitational, then if partner declines the invitation he completes the transfer, and you then cue bid to make it a GF.

The transfer cue bid does not show or deny a stop, but opener completes the transfer if he has no stop. Now 4 card suits are bid up the line, and responder can bid NT if he has a stop. If opener has a stop, he does not complete the transfer, but bypasses it and directly bids a 4 card suit or NT.

So if after their overcall all I wanted to do was ace ask in diamonds, the bidding is
1NT (2♥) 3♣
3♦ 4♥
response ...

[broze]

Ok - I think this scheme makes sense to me. Is this the "Gucci" lebensohl variant I've heard of. That is "gives up invitational with clubs"? I doubt this is much of a loss. You say a downside is complexity but seems to me like an upside is simplicity!

[ggwhiz]

General principle: He who kc's wants to hear about what they supported.

ie. 1♠ - 2♥ - 3♥ - 3♠

4nt = kc on hearts (the suit I supported)
something else followed by 4nt = kc on the suit I supported, (spades). You can't kc on diamonds without bidding 4 of them first here.

At least you know what you're getting.

[fromageGB]

broze, on 2013-March-11, 15:41, said:

Ok - I think this scheme makes sense to me. Is this the "Gucci" lebensohl variant I've heard of. That is "gives up invitational with clubs"? I doubt this is much of a loss. You say a downside is complexity but seems to me like an upside is simplicity!

Simplicity is important for me. I like everything the same as in other sequences, or as far as it is possible, with common principles that are applicable everywhere. So as we play transfers after other things, with a "stolen bid" X, we do the same thing here. It is "system on".

Without interference over 1NT we play
2♥ = transfer to ♠
2♠ = minor suit stayman
2NT = transfer to ♣
3♣ = transfer to ♦
3♦ = 55 majors
so they are exactly the same bids. Except that you no longer need to show both majors with 3♦ so this transfer acts like a classic cue bid of their suit in normal Lebensohl, used for 4 card majors.

When choosing to change to a method such as Zel suggested or one like mine, I think it depends on what your bids mean in uninterrupted sequences. I would prefer to keep them as similar as possible. Comparing these two, mine has compulsory transfers to both minors, which makes competitive bidding easier, and minor suit stayman, but it does not have an invite+ in spades, on the face of it. This latter could be important, perhaps, if you play a 3 point 1NT range. I play 15/16 only, so am happy to have no invitations in a major. If you wanted one, you would X to transfer to spades, then raise to 3♠. And a game invitation in diamonds is impossible without raising to 4.

Just a note on the ace asking bit - as 3♣ in both suggestions is categorically diamonds, if you follow with pass it is to play, and if you follow with 4♥ it is obviously ace asking.

[FrancesHinden]

When in doubt, bids are natural

If 3C was INV+ with diamonds, then 3D is opener's bid with a minimum unsuitable hand.
Any non-3D bid shows extras.
Thus I would assume that
3S is natural, maximum (length depends on your agreements - if you can't have 5 spades then it also shows a diamond fit)
3H shows a maximum with a diamond fit, but can't bid 3NT
(a maximum without a diamond fit and no heart stop probably just bids 3D unless it has 5 spades)

Over 3S:
4C is natural
4D sets diamonds as trumps
4H is a cue for spades
4S is a min with 3 spades (or 4 if opener can't have 5)
3NT is to play

So, no keycard, but I doubt that's really a problem. We can have a cuebiding auction with diamonds as trumps and finish it off with GSF if necessary.