[Hanoi5]

Red vs White, you hold:

---

Partner deals and opens 1♥, you respond with a forcing 1NT and he reverses into 2♠, what do you bid?

1♥-1NT
2♠-???

I guess there can be a case for 2NT, 3♠ and 3NT, which do you choose and why? What do you think of the others?

[Fluffy]

2NT is NF for many, so that is out. between 3♠ and 3NT I don't really know, 3♠ sounds good.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

If you play Leb3 ( Lebensohl over partner's reverse ), then 2NT! is the start of a sign-off... and ostensibly relays to 3C for pass or correct.

Since you have enough for game w/stops in the unbid and no real support for partner's major, except for a Moysian in spades, you could just go to 3NT.

However, any bid other than 2NT! is forcing, so you may want to just bid 3C and see what develops.
With extra Ht length, you may want to be in 4H. If he bids Sp again, showing the rare 5s/6h, you may want to be in a Sp slam.

[dake50]

I like 3D as advance Q, then 4S. Even if 4-3 spades and needing a H-ruff.
This should play. If partner's 4 non-majors are D:KJx C:x maybe slam.

[Phil]

I don't play structured reverses / Ingberman / Lebensohl here, so 2N is natural. However, we are in a force through 3♥, so why not let partner pattern out? We might hear about six hearts, five spades, or even a minor suit fragment. If its diamonds I'll play 3N, but if its clubs, then I'm interested in a suit contract.

[mikeh]

dake50, on 2010-December-03, 09:20, said:

I like 3D as advance Q, then 4S. Even if 4-3 spades and needing a H-ruff.
This should play. If partner's 4 non-majors are D:KJx C:x maybe slam.

The difficulty with that approach is that many would think that 3♦ is how you'd bid with say Kx xx KJ109xxx xx. In fact, if you wouldn't bid 3♦ with that hand, what would you bid with it?


If you say: I'd have bid 3♦ wjs immediately, then either accept that for many, wjs's into a minor over a major are not used (they interfere with Bergen and other possible treatments) or change the hand to make it too strong for a wjs yet not strong enough for a gf.

I suggest that the odds that you have slam interest in spades after responding 1N to 1♥ are somewhat less than the odds that you have a hand with a long minor, especially when your partner has 9+ cards in the majors.

[han]

I play 2NT as forcing and it seems perfect.

[mikeh]

As for the hand itself, I vote for 3♠. This hand has all the hallmarks of a hand that will play very well in a moysian, if partner has a decent spade suit: imagine AJ10x AKQxx xx Kx: 4♠ is the best game, and AJxxx AKxxxx x x, 6♠ is a fair slam, even if difficult to bid.

As to whether 2N is forcing, my preference would be that it were not, but I see good arguments either way. I don't pretend to know what 'standard' is even in NA, let alone elsewhere....the comments so far suggest that there is no 'standard' treatment. I do suspect that 2N as lebensohl would be a small minority position.

[han]

Why do you prefer that 2NT is non-forcing?

I think 3S is good if 2NT is NF, but if 2NT is forcing then I think that is better. Imagine partner bidding 3H, we have a nice 4D bid. If partner bids 3C or 3D we can still bid 3S. If partner bids 3NT I will pass, if partner is 4522 I think it will often be best.

[mike777]

Hanoi5, on 2010-December-03, 06:37, said:

Red vs White, you hold:

---

Partner deals and opens 1♥, you respond with a forcing 1NT and he reverses into 2♠, what do you bid?

1♥-1NT
2♠-???

I guess there can be a case for 2NT, 3♠ and 3NT, which do you choose and why? What do you think of the others?

3s...3nt a close second....for me 2nt would be much weaker.

[mikeh]

han, on 2010-December-03, 11:33, said:

Why do you prefer that 2NT is forcing?

I think 3S is good if 2NT is NF, but if 2NT is forcing then I think that is better. Imagine partner bidding 3H, we have a nice 4D bid. If partner bids 3C or 3D we can still bid 3S. If partner bids 3NT I will pass, if partner is 4522 I think it will often be best.

Did you mean: Why do you prefer that 2NT is non-forcing?

Or am I simply being too egocentric in thinking that you were addressing this post to me?

If 2N is forcing then I agree that it will often work out well.

If otoh 2N is forcing then maybe we can usefully define 3♠ more precisely. I hope we can agree that in a '2N is forcing' method, there is still room for a 3♠ hand, and that such a hand will always be based on 3 card suppport. Therefore, maybe it ought to be something very much along the lines of this hand....a GOOD 3 card fit (H10x or better, maybe) and a maximum with at least 3 controls. I appreciate that I am sort of defining the bid to match this hand, but I don't think that is inappropriate if we are stipulating that most 3 card 'raises' would go through 2N.

Such an agreement would, I think, enhance slam bidding on hands such as AJ10xx AKxxxx x x....if you 'knew' that partner held at least Kxx and a minor suit A, slam is already a possibility...not that you'd drive there, but you'd certainly risk the 5 level.

However, my well known deep disrespect for logic makes me doubt my own reasoning

[Fluffy]

http://www.bridgebas...__1#entry336019

[fromageGB]

I'm all for lebensohl responses to a reverse, so for example I'd bid 2NT then 3♦ with a long weak hand, or a direct 3♦ forcing if stronger.

So on this hand, as my 1NT denied 4 spades, 3♠ is the perfect forcing bid for me.

Without an agreement on the 2NT then I would not risk 3♠ being passed, and would bid 3NT.