[mgoetze]

---

3♦ is what?

[rbforster]

Extra values and natural, non-forcing.

[fromageGB]

Our agreement is that it is forcing and not natural. If you bid 3♣ as expected, partner can pass. That would be the way he bids with less than an opening hand and long clubs. However, if you have a really good hand, you may want to bid 3C as forcing if you could. We have said that 3♦ means that you would not have passed 3♣, but want to go higher. It is forcing but not game forcing, and you reserve the right to pass 3♥ but would like partner to bid game if he is a 10 count or thereabouts.

I also know someone who plays any bid higher than 3♣ as saying "I would have bid on over any lower bid, but if this is your suit, that's high enough". In that context, it is not natural (could be short) and is also not forcing.

I think either way is playable. But I don't like natural non forcing. If I had that hand I would not have doubled initially.

[nigel_k]

It is a hand that would bid 3♦ natural over a weak 3♣.

Your other agreements will determine whether it could be a strong flexible hand, strong with just diamonds, or maybe ELC.

[Quantumcat]

It shows around 17-20 HCP (or equivalent in shape/suit qualities), is natural, and doubler still has a take-out shape.

Bidding 3♣ says you are happy stopping in 3♣ if responder has 0-7 HCP and four clubs. Therefore not bidding 3♣ says you would like to go higher, and is at least invitational opposite 0-7 HCP. Responder should consider bidding game or at least something encouraging if they hold 6-7 or a nice 5 HCP. 0-4 HCP can pass if they have something of a fit with doubler's natural suit. Doubler would have done something else if he can make game almost on his own (bid game as his first bid, made a Leaping/Non-Leaping Michaels as his first bid, bid 3NT as his first bid or rebid 3NT after your Lebensohl, or cue-bid the opponent's suit as his first bid or as his rebid after your Lebensohl).

[mgoetze]

Well, I'm glad everyone agrees.

[gnasher]

What Nigel K said. I prefer to play it as flexible, so typically four hearts and longer diamonds, with a bit extra in high cards.

[frank0]

Natural and above 3♦ overcall range

[Zelandakh]

There are 2 choices. Standard is written above. An alternative is to use ParadoX; then 3♦ shows a hand that only wants to play 3♦ opposite diamonds but willing to play more opposite clubs. In other words, usually long clubs and short diamonds. In this situation being able to show the extra strength is (probably) more useful. If you use ParadoX here it is most likely because you use it in other auctions and want to keep the same structure to avoid mishaps.

[ArtK78]

The title of this thread is "Standard Lebensohl." In that case, it is natural and strong, but not forcing. Too good a hand to allow partner to pass if he intended to pass 3♣, but not strong enough to force to game.

[aguahombre]

nigel_k, on 2012-April-27, 15:04, said:

Your other agreements will determine whether it could be a strong flexible hand, strong with just diamonds, or maybe ELC.

gnasher, on 2012-April-30, 01:24, said:

What Nigel K said. I prefer to play it as flexible, so typically four hearts and longer diamonds, with a bit extra in high cards.

Four hearts and longer diamonds seems good. That sounds more like ELC than "flexible" to me, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is the "bit extra in high cards" part. A bit more than the expected minimum for a balancing double of 2♠? That isn't much, so I am interested in what a bit extra should mean before I discuss this situation with my partner.

Regarding "Standard Lebensohl", Partner could have up to a decent balanced 14 count and pass 2S in direct position; so, our 2NT call after the balancing double could be stronger than "Standard" ---up to a flat ten...with 3-level pulls suggesting game while not hanging balancer for keeping the auction alive with a dog.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2012-April-30, 08:15, said:

Four hearts and longer diamonds seems good. That sounds more like ELC than "flexible" to me, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is the "bit extra in high cards" part. A bit more than the expected minimum for a balancing double of 2♠? That isn't much, so I am interested in what a bit extra should mean before I discuss this situation with my partner.

I think that "ELC" implies that it doesn't promise any extra values but does promise four hearts. The word "flexible" on its own is less precise about the shape, and doesn't say anything about the high-card strength.

The words "a bit extra" were intentionally vague, but I think I'd need a 13-count or so in the balancing seat.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2012-April-30, 11:04, said:

I think that "ELC" implies that it doesn't promise any extra values but does promise four hearts. The word "flexible" on its own is less precise about the shape, and doesn't say anything about the high-card strength.

The words "a bit extra" were intentionally vague, but I think I'd need a 13-count or so in the balancing seat.

Sounds good. And what were we going to do with 2-4-6-1 or 2-4-5-2 and NOT that little bit extra? This is not a debate; these are just questions.

[fromageGB]

aguahombre, on 2012-April-30, 11:32, said:

Sounds good. And what were we going to do with 2-4-6-1 or 2-4-5-2 and NOT that little bit extra? This is not a debate; these are just questions.

As I play "forcing, not natural, not game forcing" I would still bid 3♦ over 3♣. If partner jumps to game with a 10 count then it may not be a disaster, and for once all the cards could be on the right side.

I don't think there are enough bids available to show all distributions and all ranges of strengths to still stop at the 3 level