[wyman]

2/1, Lebensohl over Reverses

1C 1S
2H 2S
3H 4C
4D 4H

(1) 4H Passable?

If yes:
(2a) Does this necessarily show Hx? Or is xx fine with a suitable hand?

If no:
(2b) Can this cue be shortness?

[aguahombre]

Clubs are trump. We need to know what 4D was to answer further. Responder has more than 4 spades, less than nine points, and less than 3 hearts. Apparently that is not enough information for opener to stop torturing us. He is still probing for slam.

If 4D is a pattern bid, suggesting spade shortness responder might be just cooperating for slam with a cheap noise (Bluhmer?). If 4D is Kickback, responder is answering.

[mikeh]

I don't see lebenshol as being relevant to this auction. 2♠ was uninformative as to strength....it is more important to show long spades than to limit responder's hand.

As to 4♥, we have to balance the desirablity of being able to screech to a sudden stop in an otherwise slam-exploratory auction, with one partner showing strength and the other partner being unlimited, against the ability to have a smooth, informative and cooperative cuebidding exploration of slam.

I suspect that my language reveals my preference: that this be forcing.

The trade-off is that responder basically has to raise 3♥ to 4♥ with a non-slam suitable 2=3 in the rounded suits, and an inability to bid 3N. Thus 4♣ precludes 4♥ as a playable option.

Having said that, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that many would disagree, and I don't think that either side of the argument could 'prove' that their view is the better. It is a useful sequence to discuss with partner.

[wyman]

4D is not kickback.


Opener has shown a 6-5, so he's either 2506, 1516, or 0526 unless he's got more extreme shape. 4D is slam interest and a cuebid, so you can rule out 0=5=xx=6.


And yes, Mike, Lebensohl is pretty irrelevant. But I failed to post "not playing kickback" and I've already been asked about that, so I was just trying to include as much info as possible.

And Mike, I'm not sure on which side of this coin I fall, but my thought in favor of 4H being passable was "what would R do with QJxxx / Qx / xxx / xxx?" [the trade-off you point out]

[Codo]

I am with Mike and with your example hand I would bid 5 ♣]over 3 ♥. I am not in a position to know whether 4 ♥ or 5 ♣ is the better game, but I have no tool to find it out. I can easily construct hands, where one descission works and the other fails, but such is life.

If I would use 4 ♣ or 4 ♦ over 3 ♥for that purpose, I cannot show other hands with these bids. And I like 4 ♣ as slamgoing with clubs and 4 ♦ as slamgoing with hearts.

For your second question: As a general rule, the first cue in partners long suit is never shortness, but I would make an exeption here, because this shortness could be of immense value in a slam and my space below 5 ♣ is too limited to be too stringent in ym choice.

F.E. with Qjxxx, x, Axx,Jxxx I would bid 4 Heart- what else?

[mikeh]

wyman, on 2012-February-20, 11:48, said:

And Mike, I'm not sure on which side of this coin I fall, but my thought in favor of 4H being passable was "what would R do with QJxxx / Qx / xxx / xxx?" [the trade-off you point out]

I think you are doing the same thing here as you did in your post about 4♣ by responder over our 3N....and it is exactly the sort of thing I find myself doing at the table when I am playing badly.....you are constructing hands on which a conservative action appears called for....you are imagining horrible hands for partner.

Why not imagine QJxxxx Kx xx Axx? I don't think keycard helps a great deal here, since we won't be able to count tricks....is partner x AQxxx A KQJxxx or void AJxxx Ax KQJxxx? and so on. Bear in mind that these are hastitly concocted hands: if you think that cuebidding is inferior to some other action, I suspect that you could come up with alternative 'glass half full' examples.

I think you fell into the same ultra-pessimistic trap when you suggested, in the other recent thread, that opener's 4♦, over responder's natural slam try of 5♣, might be natural on a horrible hand for clubs. My experience, which has been gained the hard way, is that such thinking is tough to talk oneself out of at the table, but that it is very, very bad for one's game.

[Yu18772]

Assuming 3♥ is absolutely gf, shouldn't bad hand bid 4♥ or 5♣? Also, I think 4♥ is a cue because of 4♦ - the opener started a cue bidding auction so that is what we are forced to do. Whether or not to cue a shortness in partners bid 5 card suit - its a matter of agreement.

Yu

[whereagles]

seems like a cue to me... lol

[gszes]

I agree with mikeh in principal but not in detail.
with a 2/3 rounded suit hand and no slam
interest responder should bid 5c. The same
bid they would make with 22 rounded or
even 12 rounded. with 21 rounded I would bid
4h.

Therefore we must conclude that 4c is an
attempt to set trumps with at least some
slam interest.

This means 4h is totally forcing and almost
assuredly is short in hearts with a large
club fit.

[bluecalm]

Quote

I don't see lebenshol as being relevant to this auction. 2♠ was uninformative as to strength....i

I remember we had this discussion back in the day.
I was unconvinced back then and since then I learnt a lot about systems of the best pairs in the world and I remain on my position.
2S should be weak and to play. Playing it as wide ranging sucks. It's the most likely partial we have, I am eating my cards (KQTxx xx xxxx xx) if partner is forced to bid after 2S.

As to the problem I think 4C set clubs as trumps and 4H is cuebid so not passable.

[MrAce]

I agree with Aguaman and MikeH, i wouldnt pass this.

[wyman]

Ok, so there's near unanimous agreement that 4H is a cue. I'm convinced as well, and I guess we just live with those times when responder has to take a position and bid 4H (over 3H) with a ratty hand with Qx of hearts and 3 clubs.

So, (2b)? What say you? By my count, we've got 1 vote for "yes, it can be shortness."

[aguahombre]

wyman, on 2012-February-21, 08:46, said:

So, (2b)? What say you? By my count, we've got 1 vote for "yes, it can be shortness."

I don't think that is the count u have, so far from the posts. Implicicit in most of them is that don't have 3 hearts. There is no reason to assume exactly two of them. 4♥ can be bid with shortness whether it is a cue or not by your definition of a cue. Is a Last Train type noise considered a cue, or just a stall, or something else?

[wyman]

aguahombre, on 2012-February-21, 10:39, said:

I don't think that is what u have, so far from the posts. Implicicit in most of them is that don't have 3 hearts. There is no reason to assume exactly two of them. 4♥ can be bid with shortness whether it is a cue or not by your definition of a cue. Is a Last Train type noise considered a cue, or just a stall, or something else?

I don't see where I'm assuming 2 hearts, nor why 4H is last train-ish.

We "agreed" that 4C is slam-positive for clubs. Now opener makes a 4D cue. Under what conditions is a 4H call by responder reasonable? Should he bid 4H with, say
AKxxx/xx/xxx/Qxx?
KJxxx/Qx/xxx/Kxx?
AKxxx/x/xxxx/Qxx?
QJxxx/x/KQxx/Qxx?
QJxxx/Q/Qxxx/Kxx?
KQxxxx/--/Qxxx/Kxx?
...

i.e., 4H should be control showing I think, per the discussion above. If not, I've misunderstood the general sentiment. So, if that's the case, can the control be shortness, or is it better to reserve this cue to show a fitting (top) honor?

[FrancesHinden]

This is a horrible auction, because neither hand has obviously managed to limit itself and we're at the 4-level. There are a few implicit assumptions in the discussion that I'd like to make explicit:

a) How limited is 2S? Personally I play it as forcing for a round, but if I have a weak hand I pass partner's next non-forcing call : so e.g. ....2S-2NT-3C is forcing. With a minimum weak hand with 5 spades I lebensohl out to clubs (and consequently 1C-1S-2H-2NT-3S is non-forcing). This works because I can't have a minimum weak hand with 6 spades (it made a weak jump shift in my style).

b) Was 3H forcing? This is non-obvious if 2S could have been weak. We have agreed that 3H is forcing, that a really minimum 5-6 has to bid 3C non-forcing.

Those two together mean that, for me, responder can't have a weak hand with 5 spades and 3 clubs. Although it sounds like he's been tortured into giving unwilling preference at the 4-level, that's not what he's done. But this only works if assumption (a) above is true, or at least if responder is expected just to bid 3NT over 3H without a good hand.

So yes, 4D is a cue for clubs BUT I don't think it promises a control, because both 4H and 4S directly sound non-forcing, it's opener's only real slam try.

And yes, 4H is a cue. Given opener has shown 5-of them, I think it can be any of the A, K or Q. I don't think it's a singleton or void unless (just possibly) responder has unexpected club length i.e. at least 4. There's such a huge difference between AQxxx opposite Kx with Kxx trumps and AQxxx opposite x with Kxx trumps that I don't believe you can afford to treat them the same way.



{keen observers know I play T-Walsh, but these reverse sequences are unchanged in my system}

[phil_20686]

wyman, on 2012-February-20, 11:48, said:

And Mike, I'm not sure on which side of this coin I fall, but my thought in favor of 4H being passable was "what would R do with QJxxx / Qx / xxx / xxx?" [the trade-off you point out]

He would bid 4H over 3H. Bidding 4c then 4h, even if natural, shows some values, else you would just go to the best game directly.