[VixTD]

It did strike me as strange that anyone could fail to make 4♣, but I didn't look into it any further. Strange things happen in these matches. Now I have done, I can explain it. I got the result from a hand-typed excel spreadsheet prepared by a hard-working team-member. The entry reads 4♣(W), 8 tricks, NS -130, so it looks like a typing error. Sorry for not spotting it.

[IGoHomeNow]

3S seems OK. This hand really isn't a limit raise.

I think 4C is an awful bid. West does not want to defend game in spades, so why not pass and
see if they bid it. Look at the North hand, would it bid 4S freely? Its pretty clear that the opponents
may have settled for 3S.

4S by north is a direct result of the bad 4C call. Without that call, I don't see how North can
take this mediocre opener and raise a sign-off type bid to game. Pard should have 4 trumps,
but its pretty likely this hand has 4 losers. But facing a 4C call, North is a lot more likely to think
the hand is double fit and that bidding a bit more will be correct.

5C by East is really quite awful. This hand is a defensive MONSTER for this action. The only
real excuse here is that 5C might just make. But this hand is not very different from what
partner expects. Oddly, the hand that partner has is NOT a good 4C bid, so East should assume
partner has a good 4C bid. But what IS a good 4C bid. I'd say its a hand that is happy to defentd
4S. But the east hand has so much defense, that is hard to imagine. Nevertheless, its always
better trust partner over opponents. Therefore I, as East, assume partner WANTS to hear them
bid 4S, or is at least OK with defending.

5S is AWFUL. I would expect this from hand-hog novice players ONLY. 4S was already a thin
call, but defensible in light of the auction. I would not even make a forcing pass, but in this
auction, there should not be a forcing pass implication. I would not play with a partner who
made such bids more than once in a blue moon.

Here is how I think the auction should go.....

1S - 2NT - 3S - P
P - P

If NS bids 4S freely, West should bid 5C.

[miamijd]

Lots of bad bids in this auction. 1S and 2NT look pretty normal in any system. But after that:

1. 3S is a bit of an underbid. You have four spades, not three; the Kd is well-placed; and partner rates to have a heart honor, so the QJ will be working. Better to bid 3D (unus over unus) showing a limit raise or better in spades.

2. 4C is fine, although I would consider 5C.

3. 4S is OK as a two-way bid in IMPs. It might make (doubtful, but you never know), or the opponents could make 4C.

4. 5C by East is poor. He's already shown his hand. Why bid again? If someone is going to sacrifice here, it needs to be West.

5. South should X 5C

6. North should probably X with two bullets, but I guess I could live with a pass (this is why it's important for South to bid 3D at his first turn; then he can make a forcing pass over 5C).

But bidding 5 over 5 with the North hand is just plain awful.

CHeers,
Mike

[msjennifer]

ahydra, on 2017-February-28, 05:14, said:

That's not Lebensohl, that's Unusual vs Unusual (UvU).

ahydra

Sir,I beg your pardon,there are 6(Six) situations where Lebensohl is applicable.It s likely that perhaps you know only one.The remaining five situations is what I leave it to you to find out.The six situations were given in details by an International player to my daddy who passed it to me.If you wish to call it by any whatever other name it's your pleasure to do so.For me it is and will remain LEBENSOHL.

[VixTD]

miamijd, on 2017-February-28, 23:00, said:

....this is why it's important for South to bid 3D at his first turn; then he can make a forcing pass over 5C)

Is it standard to play that a limit raise+ sets up a forcing pass over the enemy game? Or does it depend upon whether:

(i) your side has actually bid game
(ii) the vulnerability
(iii) the level of the enemy action

?

[ahydra]

msjennifer, on 2017-March-01, 03:53, said:

Sir,I beg your pardon,there are 6(Six) situations where Lebensohl is applicable.It s likely that perhaps you know only one.The remaining five situations is what I leave it to you to find out.The six situations were given in details by an International player to my daddy who passed it to me.If you wish to call it by any whatever other name it's your pleasure to do so.For me it is and will remain LEBENSOHL.

Are you PhilG007 in disguise or something? (see also your post on the other thread about 2NT rebids)

See here, or look it up in the Encyclopedia of Bridge, etc. The Lebensohl convention involves a 2NT bid over which partner is expected* to bid 3C. It may well have six usages - and I actually do know of four (the ones listed in that wiki article), but "after a 2-suited overcall" is not one of them! For a start, responder can't bid 2NT here - it's insufficient.

The convention of "after 2-suited overcall, one cue = 4th suit, other cue = good raise" is most definitely called UvU. Google it, look it up in a book, whatever you like; you will see I am right. (Though I guess you are still entitled to call it something else if you so desire.)

ahydra

* with occasional exceptions, of course

[ahydra]

VixTD, on 2017-March-01, 06:44, said:

Is it standard to play that a limit raise+ sets up a forcing pass over the enemy game? Or does it depend upon whether:

(i) your side has actually bid game
(ii) the vulnerability
(iii) the level of the enemy action

?

I wouldn't expect a limit raise+ by itself to set up an FP, but if partner raises that to game I would then expect pass to be forcing. (Our criterion is "we've shown we've got game high card strength and opps bid above 3NT") There may be some argument for making things more stringent though - in some cases partner might be bidding on a weak hand with a ton of shape and opps' game could even be making, though in that case you would of course expect partner to bid rather than pass or sit a double.

We don't have a lot of experience with FP so expert input on VixTD's question could be useful here - e.g. I believe a number of expert pairs do only use FPs when at adverse vul.

ahydra

[msjennifer]

ahydra, on 2017-March-01, 07:40, said:

Are you PhilG007 in disguise or something? (see also your post on the other thread about 2NT rebids)

See here, or look it up in the Encyclopedia of Bridge, etc. The Lebensohl convention involves a 2NT bid over which partner is expected* to bid 3C. It may well have six usages - and I actually do know of four (the ones listed in that wiki article), but "after a 2-suited overcall" is not one of them! For a start, responder can't bid 2NT here - it's insufficient.

The convention of "after 2-suited overcall, one cue = 4th suit, other cue = good raise" is most definitely called UvU. Google it, look it up in a book, whatever you like; you will see I am right. (Though I guess you are still entitled to call it something else if you so desire.)

ahydra

* with occasional exceptions, of course

Sir,one of your two guesses is correct.Which one? The second one where you say that I am fully entitled to call it by any other name and to me it includes Lebensohl.I feel sorry but your first guess is quite off the mark.I humbly request you to see my profile and you will see my real name.As regards my profession also you can get a hint from my interests.I ,thank you profusely for very kindly supplying the other details about encyclopaedia and all which by the way I knew already.In the end ,I wish to make a polite request " We agree to disagree".

[neilkaz]

The awful 5♠ bid is bidding the same values at least twice in the auction.

[Jinksy]

nekthen, on 2017-February-28, 06:00, said:

I have been thinking about the risk/reward for bidding 5♠

Compare results to other room playing 5♣ undoubled I will assign 40% to 1 and 2 and 20% to scenario 3

Result for bidding 5♠ 1 lose 150 2 win 550 3 win 0 (sometimes they will double)
So expected return from bidding 5♠ is 40% -150 40% +550 and 20% 0 = 160

So, maybe at teams, 5♠ is actually correct? You have to think that scenario 1 is 2-3 times more likely than scenario 2 to make not bidding 5♠ correct

On the NS hands and the EW bidding, we maybe want to be in 5♠. But it goes off regardless, and S has a far more suitable hand than he's shown - so if you're supposed to reach 5♠, I don't think it's North's job to get you there.