[hautbois]

---

You play Lebensohl.

[kenberg]

I held this hand and I bid 3♦. It's touch and go whether it is worth a 3 level bid but I decided to go with it. My thinking was that if partner is not so supportive of one of the minors he would find a double more attractive if he held full diamond support but not club support rather than full club support but lacked diamond support. In the first case he might reason that we might be able to survive a club response to his double because the opponents might choose not to hit it even of it can be beaten, fearing a run. In the second case he would be far more nervous about how to cpe with a diamond response to his double.

That was the theory.

Btw, if I start with 2NT, definitely a possibility, I still must choose after pard's 3♣ whether to play it there or convert to 3♦. I am converting to 3♦ on the same reasoning as above.

[cherdano]

In my view this is a clear 2N.

[billw55]

2NT. Not sure I can construct a worse 8 count. Next I pass 3♣. This might give us two bites at getting to the right strain, whereas 3♦ is unilateral.

[aguahombre]

Liebenscramble/2MX solves this problem. It is still Lieben in strength, but Doubler bids her choice of minor with a hand willing to subside opposite weakness. Loses when advancer is weak with 5 Clubs and doubler is 4=3 in minors, but gains when Doubler is 4-3 opposite 4-4 in minors.

(2M)-3m instead of Doubling is already big but, with even bigger, Doubler can bid higher than 3m after Lieben.

[kenberg]

cherdano, on 2013-December-19, 07:20, said:

In my view this is a clear 2N.

And after 3♣ from partner, you leave it in clubs or convert to diamonds?
I don't dispute that this hand is slim for a 3 level bid but it still presents a problem of choosing a strain.
I see the Lebenscramble of aqua above, but we were not playing that.

I am expecting to make this if we play in our fit, and not make this if we do not play in our fit. So....?

[aguahombre]

kenberg, on 2013-December-19, 08:07, said:

I see the Lebenscramble of aqua above, but we were not playing that.

Neither were we, until I saw this post, recalled the frequency of this problem, and made it up --fully expecting someone to improve on it.

[cherdano]

kenberg, on 2013-December-19, 08:07, said:

And after 3♣ from partner, you leave it in clubs or convert to diamonds?

I doubt it matters, but I would pass. I guess our clubs are slightly better than our diamonds. I don't know whether there is a big difference between doubling with 2=4=5=2 versus 2=4=2=5. What I do know is that 3♣ isn't doubled yet.

[nige1]

hautbois, on 2013-December-19, 01:20, said:

You play Lebensohl.

---

IMO 2N = 10, 3♦ = 8, 3♣ = 7. Fair hand. Good texture. Support for unbid suits. Too queeny for 3m but you could hold worse 8-counts. Not worried about being doubled

[kenberg]

I looked up the hand that I held yesterday and the spots were a bit different, but possibly the OP just chose random spots. At any rate, I said I held this hand but perhaps it was just a close relative.

In my case, pard has Ax in one minor, Axxx in the other. Better guess right.

I am interested n how people choose. IF I regard the hand as strong enough to skip Leb then it seems 3♦ is definitely preferable to 3♣. If partner, over my 3m, bids 3♠ I will be much happier bidding 4♣ after my 3♦ than I would be with 4♦ after my 3♣.

But I accept that 2NT is probably the better choice, leaving me with placing the contract after pard completes the relay. My minors, on the hand I held, were ♦ QT63 and ♣ QT62. This will play better opposite Axxx than opposite Ax. .

Maybe it's a coin toss. My coin was not my friend.. We had a decent game despite this and a couple of other disasters.

[aguahombre]

When making a direct Double over an opening 2-bid, it is a practical assumption to place a floor of 6-8 random HCP in the hand of partner at the outset and treat her bypasses of Lieben with a lower 3-bid as 9+ but less than a demand to game. This hand, with its doubtful QX in Spades, is a minimum expectation for a Leben 2NT.

[hautbois]

Ken: I'm certain it's the same hand. I picked random spots as I didn't grab a hand record and they aren't posted on districtsix.org yet. I didn't think the exact spots would matter.

I bid 3♣ because I thought 2NT was too unilateral with poor shape, expecting partner to correct if short in clubs. I suspect 3♣ would be the favorite if I held xx Qxx Kxxx Kxxx.

I got raised to 5, but this isn't an ATB post.

[kenberg]

hautbois, on 2013-December-19, 14:02, said:

Ken: I'm certain it's the same hand. I picked random spots as I didn't grab a hand record and they aren't posted on districtsix.org yet. I didn't think the exact spots would matter.

I bid 3♣ because I thought 2NT was too unilateral with poor shape, expecting partner to correct if short in clubs. I suspect 3♣ would be the favorite if I held xx Qxx Kxxx Kxxx.

I got raised to 5, but this isn't an ATB post.

Right, somewhere along the line I lost interest in blame, although discussion of who might have done what differently is always of interest.The hand was at a District 6 STaC which stands for Sectional Tournament in clubs or some such.


Maybe it should be a different thread, but I think it is worth discussing the following: Given (2♠-X-(Pass)-? suyppose that you are 4-4 in the minors. Suppose you play Leb, and suppose that the hand is strong enough to warrant a call of 3m (i accept that the one we had wasn't). Which m do you choose?

Take the simpler case: (1♣-X-(Pass). Suppose thta you are 4-4 in the majors but lack the strength to bid 2♣. I choose 1♠ and I regard it as standard. The auction is unlikely to die there and if it does you are probably not taking ten tricks, so you will get another chance top show your hearts. For example: (1♣-X-(Pass)-1♠-(2♣)-Pass-(Pass)-?. You have an easy 2♥ bid while if you had started with 1♥ you might be unhappy about bidding 2♠.

So does this reasoning apply after (2♠)-X-(Pass)-?. I think that it does. You have to allow that the auction might not die there. Partner might bid 3♠, or perhaps tthe opponents will, at any rate your hand might be such that you would like to now bid your other minor, and you will be a lot happier if you started with diamonds.

As mentioned above, I have no great interest in ATB, but I am often curious about the hands after the discussion has run its course, so I hope you don't mind my posting them. The original discussion has pretty much run its course, with strong opinion in favor of 2NT.

E-W vul Matchpoints

---

I guess playing in 5♣ is better than playing in 3♦. If no one doubles, that is.