Lebensohl

[EUVID]

I've just started using lebensohl over 1nt interference. This now takes the place of "system on" and stolen bid. In this month's Bridge Today, Matthew Granovetter argues against using the convention. The main reasons is the loss of the natural 2NT bid and the opportunity it gives the advancer to name a suit for partner to lead against an eventual 3NT contact that could set it; even if the delcarer or his partner has a stopper in the overcalled suit.

 

Do others use the convention regularly and if so, do they find it effective? Is it better than "system on"?

[awm]

I think it's definitely better than "system on." It's very useful to have both non-forcing and forcing three-level sequences available, particularly in the minors.

 

On the other hand, Rubensohl (or transfer lebensohl) may be a better treatment. This avoids some of the disadvantages in that responder can actually name a suit (via transfer).

 

I think the set of hands where you really want a natural 2NT bid is relatively small.

[inquiry]

I think it depends upon the level of interference. After a 2♣ overcall, lebehnshol is unneeded, and a simple system on with double being stayman (MOST ESPECIALLY if 2♣ was natural) is fine. Over a double of 1NT, make sure you know what you are playing (system on, or some conventional run out). After 2♦ to 2♠, rubenshol or lebehnshol are both fine options.

 

I agree that the need for a natural 2NT is not a big issue.

[Finch]

I've seen the argument about 4th hand being able to make a lead-directing bid twice, but it just never happens in practice.

 

Partner has enough to open 1NT

RHO has enough to intervene over it.

You have the values for 3NT (and I assume you are using the strange 'slow shows' approach).

And LHO wants to make a lead directing bid in a different suit?

 

I recommend either

i) taking some large penalties, or if you don't like that idea

ii) playing 'fast shows'

[pclayton]

Granovetter likes to be contrarian sometimes - see his views on weak 2's and the like. While some of his ideas have merit, new ideas tend to sell magazines. Bergen is the same way. Who wants to read: "the world community plays sensible treatments and there's nothing new in the world of bidding (yawn...)"?

 

A natural 2N isn't a big loss after 1N (2x), since the hand can be shown with a negative double.

 

Agree with Adam about Rubensohl, and Ben about Lebensohl only on over 2D, 2H and 2S.

[Al_U_Card]

One of the better conventional treatments. Rubensohl notwithstanding, for me the only question is; "Should the double be penalty or take out?"

[Walddk]

My advice is:

 

Casual partnerships: Lebensohl.

Regular partnerships: Rumpelsohl.

 

There is more to forget if you play Rumpelsohl, but in my opinion it's the best there is.

 

(Rumpelsohl by Paul van Rijckevorsel, Bridge World, Oct. 1992: p16).

 

Roland

[mike777]

I just read the article. Matt G. does argue for a natural 2nt bid. In fact he would get rid of almost all artificial 2nt conventions. He feels the need for a natural 2nt bid is that important. Here are some of his points.

 

1) Naural 2nt is too important to lose.

2) Finding out about a stopper in the overcalled suit is not important. He assumes you will almost always have one somewhere.

3) The need for 3 level forcing minors suit bids is not that important.

4) He prefers X as penalty.

5) Leb allows more room for LHO to enter the bidding. You let 4th hand to double a cuebid, or pass or raise his partner or bid a new suit, giving information to the overcaller.

6) Over weak 2-bids losing a natural 2nt bid is too important.

7) 1h=p=2h=p

......p=x=p=2nt here is better as natural and not minors.

8) The gain from a natural 2nt makes up for any loss of Leb.

[hrothgar]

I just read the article. Matt G. does argue for a natural 2nt bid. In fact he would get rid of almost all artificial 2nt conventions. He feels the need for a natural 2nt bid is that important. Here are some of his points.

 

1) Naural 2nt is too important to lose.

2) Finding out about a stopper in the overcalled suit is not important. He assumes you will almost always have one somewhere.

3) The need for 3 level forcing minors suit bids is not that important.

4) He prefers X as penalty.

5) Leb allows more room for LHO to enter the bidding. You let 4th hand to double a cuebid, or pass or raise his partner or bid a new suit, giving information to the overcaller.

6) Over weak 2-bids losing a natural 2nt bid is too important.

7) 1h=p=2h=p

......p=x=p=2nt here is better as natural and not minors.

8) The gain from a natural 2nt makes up for any loss of Leb.

Out of curiousity, are the points that Granovetter makes simple assertions or does he provide any kind of formal analysis to back this up? Granovetter has a good track record in competition, so even assertions that he makes are worth considering. However, a lot of his ideas seem controversial (to say the least).

 

In addition, he seems to be arguing in favor of using both penalty double AND natural 2NT responses. Lets assume a relatively normal auction like

 

1N - (2H) - ???

 

Id be interested in understanding what type of hands are suitable for a natural 2NT overcall as opposed to a penalty double. (Personally, I think that you're aiming at a very small target)

[mike777]

I agree these are mainly assertions with a wee bit of data or backup.

 

I think he bids 2nt with hands such as:

xxx..Qx...KJTxx...Jxx and penalty with more.

[pigpenz]

yes I agree it tends what the interference shows. systems on , lebensol, and negative doubles are all workable at the same time depending on the nature of the interference.

but like any loaded gun it should be handled with care only after discussion.

[bid_em_up]

For what its worth, I took a non-scientific poll of 31 "stars" from a variety of countries, asking the question,

 

"Do your regular personal partnerships (meaning non-client) play some form of lebensohl over 1NT interference?"

 

Out of the 31, the responses were, 22 said yes (about 5 said some variation), and from 9, I received no response at all, and not a single no.

 

This, to me, is enough to suggest that leb is widely used by top partnerships, at least in some form. (The 5 that said some variation use either rubensohl or transfersohl)

 

Yes, there may be some here and there that I did not run into that do not play leb or at least some variation of it. But I am reasonably certain that they are few and far between and if they dont, I would guess its because they have other ways of handling interference.

 

The only one who gave a hint of some that may not play it, was Charlie Weed, who said that most of his partnerships do, but the Cayne style doesnt (meaning Jimmy Cayne). I didnt ask jec what he did instead of leb.

[pigpenz]

i have noticed at times when opps interfere with known suits (2 suited) that some partnerships will play negative doubles also especially since the likelyhood of another run is more proabable with 2 suits vs one.

[Miron]

I don't like Granovetter's ideas (well, some of them). I read his book "Murder at the bridge table" (maybe the name is bit different, not sure now) and some of the ideas are sometimes 50 years old. They are not completly bad, but better agreements exists.

 

But what is the Rumpelson method? I know&play Lebensohl, but this one I hear for the first time. Can someone post description or some link?

 

Thanks

[1eyedjack]

Starting with the double: I prefer this to be takeout than penalty. The 1NT opener will never have a hand suitable for a penalty double opposite a passing partner who might have nowt. But a protective take-out double by the 1NT opener after (his) RHO has made no attempt for game and LHO decided not to double at the outset, while not entirely risk free, is often a viable call. If responder has a suitable hand he could pass the protective double, so occasionally the penalty double will be found by conversion. Normally, both partners should be playing a similar meaning to the double, so if a takeout protective double is permitted then the direct double should normally also be take-out orientated.

 

Once you agree on t/o double, you can then shade the values to rather less than a full-blown game try. Opener can use lebensohl in response to the double so that game can still be investigated and rejected as appropriate. This enables you to contest the partscores rather more aggressively on hands where responder knows that the partscore should be contested but otherwise lacks the mechanism to do so and has to pass. These hands are I think rather more frequent than the "obvious" penalty double by responder.

 

It may be that a penalty double is more appropriate against opponents whom you judge to be lacking in skills, but I take the view that you should design your system to cater for the best opposition. Lesser opposition will lose to you anyway, without personalising your methods for them, and life is complicated enough without attempting that.

 

As to other bids than double, I *quite* like Lebensohl by responder - certainly I am happy to give up the natural 2N bid. But I think that fiddling about with the available bids can get you small improvements. One thing I dislike about Lebensohl is leaving in doubt responder's suit when he has to go through 2NT to show it (and may never get that chance). Other methods are around that both show the suit at the outset and allow for strength clarification, but again with the loss of the natural 2N bid.

[Al_U_Card]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The dbl for t/o or penalty by responder only. Opener can hardly ever want to penalize, sitting in front of the interference. Opener should use the double for takeout as well as 2NT for the minors. I like to have responder use the double as t/o, but with enough cards that it can usually be left in (he will pull if it is on weakness)

[1eyedjack]

Sorry if I wasn't clear.  The dbl for t/o or penalty by responder only.  Opener can hardly ever want to penalize, sitting in front of the interference.  Opener should use the double for takeout as well as 2NT for the minors.

I don't think that this was ever in question. My point is that the required treatment of a reopening double by opener (for takeout) determines or justifies that the direct seat double should be for takeout.

I like to have responder use the double as t/o, but with enoug cards that it can usually be left in (he will pull if it is on weakness)

The three most significant situations where a take-out double in direct seat causes problems are:

(1) Opponents psyche an overcall, and both opener and responder are too long in the suit to double for take-out.

(2) Direct seat has a penalty double hand type and protective opener is unable to protect with double. Although infrequent, this is particularly costly if responder lacks values to go for the game bonus as an alternative to the penalty.

(3) Direct seat makes a takeout double that is light on values but attractive shape, and opener converts to penalty with trump length, but the hands have insufficient combined strength to beat their contract despite the bad trump break (which of course the opponents are now alerted to).

 

Item 3 you could take on the chin at matchpoints, but rather demoralising if you double them into game at IMP.

 

So it is critical for the partnership to agree on the minimum values required for a takeout double and consequently (at IMP anyway) whether opener has discretion to convert. If the double has to be robust then you find some additional penalty doubles that others (playing direct seat penalty doubles) would miss, and you also have some protection on misfitting hands, where you can choose to defend doubled rather than go minus your own way. If you permit light doubles then you will successfully contest the partscore more aggressively on other hands, but miss out on some penalty doubles when opener has the length but feels under pressure to bid.

 

I don't have a strong opinion about which method is better (although I think that either, with agreement, is better than playing direct seat penalty double). I have a leaning in favour of the lighter double but would not insist on it opposite a partner who felt strongly the other way.

[blackshoe]

Barry Rigal, in Precision in the 90s, recommends Lebensohl in forcing situations, e.g. after (2♠ (weak)-X-(P)-?, and Rubensohl in non-forcing situations, e.g. after (1NT)-?. I like the idea, but I haven't found anyone around here (in f2f bridge) willing to play it. Most local players have a hard enough time just remembering their basic system. ;)

[Al_U_Card]

Since most conventions (RKCB, Lebensohl etc.) have had entire books devoted to them, it is understandable that most people who play them retain only the name and the basic responses and maybe if you are lucky the implications of using same.

 

Only pros, with their frequency of play and self-interest in all of the nuances seem to "exploit" systemics to the appropriate degree. That said. you can live without most conventions as long as you have reasonable agreements. (after all, a "convention" is just a standardized agreement)

 

Your real test is finding a like-minded pard and then coming to terms with what and how to play. Good luck (you may need it as well as lots of tolerance and perseverence.... ;) )

[glen]

My preferences are:

 

- Better Minor Lebenshol - on a frequency basis better bang for the buck, and more frequently required that invite 2NT.

 

- A stolen bid type of approach over interference under 2♠, where the methods can handle an invite 2NT (with and without a four card major not shown by the opponents).

 

- Over 2♠ and higher suit overcalls, a double showing values and at least one stopper in the suit bid, if natural.

 

- Opener is encouraged to double for takeout if a bid is passed back to them, and they have shortness in the bid suit.

 

The first three items are not mainstream choices of the expert community.

 

 

Direct doubles for penalty don’t seem to come up a lot. When I’ve been doubled after interfering with the opponents’ notrump, sometimes the contract makes, and sometimes they get less than the value of their game. The interference seems to cost more when it tells the opponent declaring a contract how to play the hand, or keeps the opponents out of a poor spot.

[1eyedjack]

My normally preferred method:

 

Double = Take-out (may just be competitive, but can be varied by agreement) - see previous posts in this thread. Lebensohl response to the double by opener.

 

Other than double, and subject to the override below:

2 suit = natural and weak

2N = Diamonds (any strength if not biddable at 2 level)

3C = Hearts (any strength if not biddable at 2 level)

3D = Stayman with a guard (start with double then cue if required for Stayman without guard)

3H = Spades (at least invite 2S will be available for weak hand)

3S = Clubs (strong)

 

Override:

2N/3C/3H show Clubs rather than the above if it would otherwise show opponents' suit.

 

Comparison with Rubensohl:

The 2-step transfers into the red suits allow for a wider range with which responder can compete. If you use (eg) 3C as transfer to D, opener has the choice of accepting or refusing, but refusing takes you beyond 3D. If responder wants to play in 3D regardless then he would be obliged to pass.

The main cost of that policy is that when opponent's suit is Spades you give up on competing to the 3 level in Clubs.

Some might argue that it can also wrong-side a red-suit contract, but I have not noticed that to be a problem in practice, whatever the theory.

 

All this assumes a natural overcall. Usually 2C (and often 2D) will be artificial, which adds another dimension.