[jillybean]

ACBL Land

Playing the Kokish responses to 2C, obviously the 2H and 2S puppet sequences should be alerted.

Should openers nt responses showing a specific 2 point nt range be alerted?
2C 2D
2N (22-23)

2C 2D
2H 2S
2N (23-24)

and so on.


ty

[chrism]

No. They are natural and not highly unusual nor unexpected.

[mycroft]

I know a pair that Alerts their 2♣-2x; 2NT, because they invert that and their 2NT opening (and they play 2♣-2M as "if you have the 20-21 BAL hand, I want to play here"). They explain, but do not Alert, their 2NT opening, after the auction in the 95% of cases where they're the declaring side.

I think even this is more than the ACBL Alert requirements are, but I think it's correct Actively Ethical bridge.

[GHSteele]

It would seem to me that 2♠ need not be alerted, it is always natural strong spades. The response of 2NT should be alerted as 'asks opener to describe his hand.'
My guess would be that 2♥ should be alerted as 'either ♥ or NT.' The response of 2♠ should be alerted as 'asks opener to describe his hand.'

[blackshoe]

GHSteele, on 2017-February-12, 15:23, said:

It would seem to me that 2♠ need not be alerted, it is always natural strong spades. The response of 2NT should be alerted as 'asks opener to describe his hand.'
My guess would be that 2♥ should be alerted as 'either ♥ or NT.' The response of 2♠ should be alerted as 'asks opener to describe his hand.'

Awfully hard to figure out what you mean here. In your first sentence, do you mean a 2♠ rebid by opener? In your second, are you referring to an auction started 2♣-2NT? In your third, is it 2♣-2♦-2♥? And finally 2♠ is responder's second bid after 2♣-2♦-2♥?

In that last case, if that is what you meant, I disagree. It doesn't ask anything. Opener instructed responder to bid 2♠; he's just complying with the instruction (IOW 2♥ is a puppet bid).

[barmar]

GHSteele, on 2017-February-12, 15:23, said:

It would seem to me that 2♠ need not be alerted, it is always natural strong spades. The response of 2NT should be alerted as 'asks opener to describe his hand.'
My guess would be that 2♥ should be alerted as 'either ♥ or NT.' The response of 2♠ should be alerted as 'asks opener to describe his hand.'

The question was about whether to alert opener's 2NT rebid, because its range depends on whether he bid it immediately or went through the 2♥ Kokish sequence. Everyone knows that you should alert opener's 2♥ rebid, since it doesn't necessarily show hearts. And responder's 2♠ bid after this should be alerted because it's forced, and says nothing about whether he has spades.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2017-February-13, 00:01, said:

And responder's 2♠ bid after this should be alerted because it's forced, and says nothing about whether he has spades.

Is it? My understanding of the full method is that 2♥ is a marionette rather than a puppet and that Responder can rebid something other than 2♠ with specific hand types. Naturally many pairs play a reduce form where 2♠ really is forced but I am not sure if that is the case here.

Like Ed, I do not really understand the first like of GHSteele's post and disagree with the second - explanations of bids should describe what they show and if 2♠ is forced then it is not asking anything. If 2♠ is not forced then it simply denies any of the hand types that would break the marionette.

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2017-February-16, 03:56, said:

Is it? My understanding of the full method is that 2♥ is a marionette rather than a puppet and that Responder can rebid something other than 2♠ with specific hand types. Naturally many pairs play a reduce form where 2♠ really is forced but I am not sure if that is the case here.

Like Ed, I do not really understand the first like of GHSteele's post and disagree with the second - explanations of bids should describe what they show and if 2♠ is forced then it is not asking anything. If 2♠ is not forced then it simply denies any of the hand types that would break the marionette.

But 2♠ says nothing about spades whether there are other possible bids or not. I don't understand how this could not be alertable.

I also think that major-suit negatives, as mentioned above, should be alerted.

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-16, 04:51, said:

But 2♠ says nothing about spades whether there are other possible bids or not. I don't understand how this could not be alertable.

It is clearly alertable in pretty much every jurisdiction, the question is over how it is subsequently described. The post to which I was referring suggested the correct explanation is "asks opener to describe his hand".

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2017-February-16, 06:09, said:

It is clearly alertable in pretty much every jurisdiction, the question is over how it is subsequently described. The post to which I was referring suggested the correct explanation is "asks opener to describe his hand".

Well, other bids might show eg desire to play in a minor at the 3-level opposite 20-21, but every bid denies certain hands. 2♠ is the most common bid, and asks partner to distinguish between ♥ and balanced. For me, the followups are 2NT(20-21(22)), 3NT(25+), 3♥(natural) and 3 other(second suit with hearts). So asking opener yo describe his hand is probably accurate IF opponents know that 2♥ was ♥ or balanced.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2017-February-16, 03:56, said:

Is it? My understanding of the full method is that 2♥ is a marionette rather than a puppet and that Responder can rebid something other than 2♠ with specific hand types. Naturally many pairs play a reduce form where 2♠ really is forced but I am not sure if that is the case here.

Like Ed, I do not really understand the first like of GHSteele's post and disagree with the second - explanations of bids should describe what they show and if 2♠ is forced then it is not asking anything. If 2♠ is not forced then it simply denies any of the hand types that would break the marionette.

I must admit that this is the first I've heard of some "full method" wherein 2♠ is a marionette. I used "puppet" deliberately because afaik the bid is not a marionette.

[wank]

blackshoe, on 2017-February-16, 23:17, said:

I must admit that this is the first I've heard of some "full method" wherein 2♠ is a marionette. I used "puppet" deliberately because afaik the bid is not a marionette.

weak distributional hands are supposed to break. 2NT = very weak both minors, 3m = very weak to play

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2017-February-16, 03:56, said:

Is it? My understanding of the full method is that 2♥ is a marionette rather than a puppet

Does that mean that it has some strings attached? Those should be revealed on the basis of full disclosure.

[mycroft]

IIRC (but I mostly know this through the Precision, 1♣-1♦; 1♥ variant), 2♥ is "I have primary hearts or various strong balanced hands. Please bid 2♠ so I can tell you which one. If you have something more important to tell me, fine." where something more important is usually "I have Qxxxxx and out. You may want to play in my suit."

So, "forces" 2♠. Yes, that probably should be revealed, but since my explanation shouldn't mention responses anyway...

[barmar]

How do people normally describe a Lebensohl 2NT bid? This is pretty similar.

[RMB1]

barmar, on 2017-February-21, 11:34, said:

How do people normally describe a Lebensohl 2NT bid? This is pretty similar.

(sorry, perhaps the question was rhetorical)

In my experience "Lebensohl" or "forces/asks me to bid 3♣".

When I last said something like "asks me to bid 3♣: usually a weak hand, to play at the 3-level, but can be some awkward game-forcing hands", my partner was surprised.

Robin

This post has been edited by RMB1: 2017-February-21, 12:57

[mycroft]

In my experience, "do you know lebensohl? [Yes] It's lebensohl." If no, random flailing.

Also in my experience, "forces me to bid 3♣." That explanation is so totally horrible as to defy comment, but they do it. And then the TD is called when dummy domes down with 4=3=4=2 10 count, and the club lead would set it (and the heart lead doesn't), but "he said he had clubs!" (never mind the "stayman with a heart stopper" explanation after - you just can't get the "transfer" explanation out of their heads).

It's actually relatively trivial (over 1NT) to enumerate the hands, so I do. But I realize I don't think like many bridge players.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2017-February-21, 14:21, said:

In my experience, "do you know lebensohl? [Yes] It's lebensohl." If no, random flailing.

Well, if you say "no", you will get something and can ask supplemental questions. I always say "no".

[barmar]

RMB1, on 2017-February-21, 12:56, said:

(sorry, perhaps the question was rhetorical)

In my experience "Lebensohl" or "forces/asks me to bid 3♣".

When I last said something like "asks me to bid 3♣: usually a weak hand, to play at the 3-level, but can be some awkward game-forcing hands", my partner was surprised.

Robin

Where is the part about bypassing 3♣ if you have an unusual hand for your previous action? That's the parallel I was making with the Kokish 2♠ bid.

[RMB1]

barmar, on 2017-February-22, 10:12, said:

Where is the part about bypassing 3♣ if you have an unusual hand for your previous action? That's the parallel I was making with the Kokish 2♠ bid.

Should I be describing my responses?

Usually I have no agreement beyond "Lebensohl" and "slow denies" and have no agreement about why/how we would by-pass 3♣.