[dickiegera]

|2NT is liebenshol asking for a 3 club bid


Should East bid 3♣ or something else?

Thank you

---

[helene_t]

Something is wrong. Presumably it was west who bid 2nt. But I can't imagine that east passed on the previous round

If I bid 2h on the previous round I bid 3sp now

[dickiegera]

helene_t, on 2014-August-18, 06:25, said:

Something is wrong. Presumably it was west who bid 2nt. But I can't imagine that east passed on the previous round

If I bid 2h on the previous round I bid 3sp now

I corrected the bidding Thank You

[P_Marlowe]

East bids 3C, if he is content to stop in a partial.

I am forcing to game, hence I show my card support for partners suit.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kenrexford]

This is an interesting situational problem, mostly because there is an interesting situational solution. When you have this specific auction, and only this specific auction, one could use a completion of 3♦ rather than 3♣ as an artificial means of showing a spade fragment but a minimal reverse (with stronger values just bid 3♠). This keeps the auction below Opener's two suits, in the event that Responder has some garbage hand with only four spades (possibly lousy ones) with diamond support, e.g., ♠xxxx ♥xxx ♦Kxx ♣Qxx? 3♣, instead, would deny three spades.

[Zelandakh]

If going for artificial solutions, would RR transfers not be a better option Ken?

[kenrexford]

Zelandakh, on 2014-August-18, 09:13, said:

If going for artificial solutions, would RR transfers not be a better option Ken?

What are "RR transfers?"

[aguahombre]

kenrexford, on 2014-August-18, 08:49, said:

This is an interesting situational problem, mostly because there is an interesting situational solution. When you have this specific auction, and only this specific auction, one could use a completion of 3♦ rather than 3♣ as an artificial means of showing a spade fragment but a minimal reverse (with stronger values just bid 3♠). This keeps the auction below Opener's two suits, in the event that Responder has some garbage hand with only four spades (possibly lousy ones) with diamond support, e.g., ♠xxxx ♥xxx ♦Kxx ♣Qxx? 3♣, instead, would deny three spades.

Although the example you provided would/should pass 1♦, the idea of 3♦ willing to be passed is a valid one in use by us. The inference of holding 3 cards in Spades is unnessary if the Leb 2NT itself denies a weak response with 5+ Spades.

Fancy transfers don't seem to gain over natural. With hands which are too strong to bid 3D, we can bid semi-naturally also.

[akwoo]

This depends on what your (implied) agreements about partner's strength are.

If partner always has a full 6 hcp for the 1♠ bid and 2N includes every 7 hcp hand, I'd bid 3♠.

On the other hand, I think the modern tendency is that partner can have a hand as bad as

♠Qxxx ♥xx ♦x ♣Kxxxxx

and would have bid 3♦ with

♠xxxx ♥x ♦AQxx ♣xxxx

in which case I think 3♣ is enough.

[kenrexford]

aguahombre, on 2014-August-18, 12:12, said:

Although the example you provided would/should pass 1♦, the idea of 3♦ willing to be passed is a valid one. The inference of holding 3 cards in Spades is unnessary if the Leb 2NT itself denies a weak response with 5+ Spades.

This is not precisely correct, for a somewhat nuanced reason, beyond the possibility of a Moysian.

Consider Opener's decision at the first instance to reverse. I would imagine that the minimum needed for a reverse is lower if Opener has fragmentary spade support, right? I mean, your minimum reverse with 3-4-5-1 is lower than the minimum reverse with 1-4-5-3, surely? If this is true, then a 3♦ call to show that "barely a reverse because you bid spades" hand, and to isolate out a minimum with a stiff or void in clubs, might be a good thing.

[aguahombre]

kenrexford, on 2014-August-18, 12:39, said:

This is not precisely correct, for a somewhat nuanced reason, beyond the possibility of a Moysian.

Consider Opener's decision at the first instance to reverse. I would imagine that the minimum needed for a reverse is lower if Opener has fragmentary spade support, right? I mean, your minimum reverse with 3-4-5-1 is lower than the minimum reverse with 1-4-5-3, surely? If this is true, then a 3♦ call to show that "barely a reverse because you bid spades" hand, and to isolate out a minimum with a stiff or void in clubs, might be a good thing.

Nope, we tuck in and bid 2S which normally promises 4 of them if we are below reverse strength.

[kenrexford]

aguahombre, on 2014-August-18, 14:24, said:

Nope, we tuck in and bid 2S which normally promises 4 of them if we are below reverse strength.

OK.

[gszes]

There will undoubtedly be a hand or two where playing 3c is right and I will pay off to those
by hearing my p 4c bid which I will pass. Even opposite 4 small spades there is quite a bit of
potential here and I am not going quietly into the night when prospects for game are this good.

3s

I do not consider 3s as game forcing but an offer to play there if responder has nothing better
to do. The added benefit of 3s is that it focuses on the singleton club and the main reason
1n opening and/or a 2n rebid was avoided.

[Zelandakh]

kenrexford, on 2014-August-18, 11:44, said:

What are "RR transfers?"

I just meant Responder's Rebid.

[fromageGB]

Certainly I bid 3♣.

I suppose it depends on what standards you adopt for a reverse, but this hand is nothing exceptional. I am not familiar with the use of Lebensohl after a reverse, preferring transfers, but if this 2NT would imply a 4216 shape 5 or 6 count, then 3♣ has a better chance of making than 4♠. Surely a better responder club hand would be bidding a natural 3♣ forcing.

Similarly if Lebensohl 2NT is used as a precursor to playing in 3♦, then you look really silly going off in 4♠ when 3♦ is the only making contract when partner is a 6 count 4333 such as Jxxx, xxx, Qxx, Kxx.

[monikrazy]

3♠ is an excellent bid here. Both 3S and 3D should be forcing to game or at least 4 of a minor, letting responder place the final contract.

[Mbodell]

For me the 2nt bid denies a 5th spade. I have a good hand, but my reverse said that. I'll bid 3♣.

[MrAce]

I like 3 spade but 3 club advocates made some good points that made me hesitate to decide.

[SteveMoe]

I like responder's 2♠ as weak with 5+♠ cards. This lets Lebensohl assure only 4-card holding.
Now 3♦ says no extras but can't stand ♣ (likely 0/1). This lets responder infer ♠ fragment. Opener's 3♠ is forward going (not have that hand here).

[Zelandakh]

SteveMoe, on 2014-August-22, 19:28, said:

I like responder's 2♠ as weak with 5+♠ cards. This lets Lebensohl assure only 4-card holding.

What is Responder doing with 5+ spades and enough for game? Presumably you have at least 4 sequences for 5 vs 6 spades and a club stop vs no stop. What Mobdell wrote (where 2♠ is forcing and not necessarily weak) is more mainstream. You can get away with a non-forcing 2♠ with some system but not many play it that way.