[bd71]

Starting with this sequence...

1N (2H natural)

...standard Lebensohl gives you ways to show: (A) 4♠ game-force hand with stopper (3♥ after 2N), (B) 4♠ game-force w/o stopper (direct 3♥), © 5♠ game-force (direct 3♠), and (D) 5♠ invite (3♠ after 2N).

It does not give you a way to show (E) a 4♠ invitational hand.

Isn't hand type (E) more common than (D)? Why wouldn't you use the 3♠ after 2N to show (E) rather than (D)?

[aguahombre]

I think most folks are content to double 2H...negative, by their terminology, with an invite containing only 4 spades. Then, they still can have all the other stuff you mentioned.

[TylerE]

IMO, assume partner has a decent (not exceptional, not qucky) but decent 15. Decide if you want to be in game opposite that. Bid accordingly. Invites at the 3 level at MP are often the worst of both worlds. It's a bit like a shove-or-fold decision in poker.... the middle ground is worse than either.

[akwoo]

 bd71, on 2014-October-21, 10:46, said:

Starting with this sequence...

1N (2H natural)

...standard Lebensohl gives you ways to show: (A) 4♠ game-force hand with stopper (3♥ after 2N), (B) 4♠ game-force w/o stopper (direct 3♥), © 5♠ game-force (direct 3♠), and (D) 5♠ invite (3♠ after 2N).

It does not give you a way to show (E) a 4♠ invitational hand.

Isn't hand type (E) more common than (D)? Why wouldn't you use the 3♠ after 2N to show (E) rather than (D)?

Because partner has no way to decline the invite in type (E) with 2-3 spades. Pass lands you in a 4-3 fit, and any bid puts you in game.

In type (D), partner could be stuck with 2 spades, but the 5-2 fit is usually more playable than a 4-3 fit (when the shorter hand has no singleton).

[PhilKing]

If you play double for take-out, none of these obscure Lebensohl sequences are necessary holding a normal hand with four spades. Just double, and if partner bids 2♠ raise to three.

Now you can use the the two cue bids to show extremely distributional hands on which you can't stand partner passing the double. I would use the direct cue to show a three suiter with a void, and the delayed cue to show the minors. With an extreme spade plus minor hand, you can use leaping Michaels.

[MrAce]

 PhilKing, on 2014-October-21, 21:51, said:

If you play double for take-out, none of these obscure Lebensohl sequences are necessary holding a normal hand with four spades. Just double, and if partner bids 2♠ raise to three.

Now you can use the the two cue bids to show extremely distributional hands on which you can't stand partner passing the double. I would use the direct cue to show a three suiter with a void, and the delayed cue to show the minors. With an extreme spade plus minor hand, you can use leaping Michaels.

Interesting, I like that.

[Jinksy]

I'd want a sense of how reliably P's 2♠ will have 4 to rely on that. As opener, with less than 5 cards in a minor or 4-4 in both, I'd often prefer bidding 2♠ on a three card suit. That means typically on either 33(43), also 3433 assuming not such good Hs that he feels like passing, and ditto on both 34(42)s.

Do you think that's misguided? At MPs I think it must be winning bridge - even at IMPs, as long as P's on the same wavelength, it feels like the best strategy. Bidding 3m on some mediocre 4-card suit seems to land you in a Moyesian a level higher (and scoring an IMP fewer even if you make) too often for my blood, when P just felt like competing with eg 42(43). And let's face it, most of us are prone to competing in such positions on shapely 4333s...

[helene_t]

It's not great if opener can bid 2♠ on a 3-card suit and responder can leave it in with 3-card support as well. I think it's better that opener doesn't do it but that responder does. Especially if opener is allowed to have five spades.

[aguahombre]

This is intended as a legitimate question: Does it matter whether the Double guarantees any number of Spades from 4 to zero, as long as it shows invitational + values? Seems like the continuations will cover the cases.