Lebensohl after weak twos

[Apollo81]

I'm aware this topic has occurred before.

 

Consider the Lebensohl sequence (2x)-Dbl-(p)-2N-(p)-3♣-(p)-3N.

 

1. What does this mean if undiscussed?

2. What would you like it to mean?

3. Does the identity of the opponents' suit matter? If so, how?

[P_Marlowe]

(2x) - X - (Pass) - 2NT

(Pass) - 3C - (Pass) - 3NT

 

#1 No idea, if I would assume Lebensohl undiscussed

#2 slow showes, fast denies a stopper

#3 no

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[blackshoe]

1. to play in 3NT. Shows a stopper in x.

2. I see nothing wrong with 1.

3. no.

[ArtK78]

1. to play in 3NT. Shows a stopper in x.

2. I see nothing wrong with 1.

3. no.

What is the distinction between this sequence and a direct 3NT overcall?

 

Was the doubler considering slam if responder had values?

[han]

Don't agree that the fast 3NT should deny a stopper in this auction.

 

It seems better to use the slow route to express doubt about the contract. For example, a hand with both minors and a stopper, interested in playing 5 of a minor.

 

Or a balanced 17-count, something like that.

[jdonn]

Everyone thinks I'm a total weirdo, but I like lebensohl to 100% be weak hands. The reason is that there are some hands with some extra strength where you have an awkward shape to double, but could pass the 2NT bid if you knew partner was weak. For example, 4342 16 count with a heart stopper, you could double 2♥ and pass 2NT if you knew it was weak (true partner 'could' have diamonds, but the other alternative was bidding 2NT directly so you are clearly ahead of that strategy.) The classic example would be you get to double a weak 2♦ with 4441 16 or 17, raising a major, passing 2NT, or bidding 3NT over 3♣.

 

Ok enough weirdness. I certainly would rather play 2NT then 3NT as a different range than a direct 3NT, rather than showing doubt about my stopper or something. I don't think anything is standard, and I see little to choose between which is the weaker or stronger way.

[Apollo81]

What about "choice of 3NT/4M" as a possible meaning if their suit is a major?

[mycroft]

well, I guess it would matter in 3) if the suit was clubs :-)

[JanM]

For me, there's a difference depending on which Major they opened. If it's Spades, 2NT...3NT shows a game force with a stopper and 4 hearts - so the doubler can choose between 3NT and 4♥. After 2♥, the jump to 3♠ is is available for that hand, so the 2NT...3NT auction shows doubt - probably only a single stopper.

 

Without discussion? No idea.

[ArtK78]

I apologize. I misread the original post.

 

2NT (Lebensohl) followed by 3NT means (to me) game forcing values with a stopper but without 4 cards in the other major (or either major if the weak 2 bid was in diamonds).

 

2NT followed by a cue bid shows game forcing values, a stopper and a four card major.

 

A cue bid directly shows a four card major, game forcing values but no stopper.

 

3NT directly shows no four card major, no stopper but game forcing values.

 

This is a fairly common approach. Whether the direct 3NT bid makes sense played this way is open for debate.

[Apollo81]

For me, there's a difference depending on which Major they opened. If it's Spades, 2NT...3NT shows a game force with a stopper and 4 hearts - so the doubler can choose between 3NT and 4♥. After 2♥, the jump to 3♠ is is available for that hand, so the 2NT...3NT auction shows doubt - probably only a single stopper.

 

Without discussion? No idea.

I'm considering playing a jump to 3♠ as inv with good spades and 2NT..3♠ as inv choice of spades/NT. Then 2NT..3NT is choice of game OM/NT regardless of which major they opened. Sounds somewhat similar to what you're doing.

[Finch]

2NT (Lebensohl) followed by 3NT means (to me) game forcing values with a stopper but without 4 cards in the other major (or either major if the weak 2 bid was in diamonds).

.....

3NT directly shows no four card major, no stopper but game forcing values.

The difference being?

[Gerben42]

Lebensohl is a source of misunderstanding, if not agreed explicitly what to do with the 4 basic sequences.

 

(2x)-Dbl-(p)-2N-

(p)-3♣-(p)-3N.

 

1.

 

Standard is that "slow shows", i.e. this sequence shows a stopper and no interest in the other major. This would mean that a direct 3NT does not show a stopper. This seems like a terrible idea to me, but is "standard".

 

2.

 

My guess is that without any stopper, one should not try and bid 3NT at all, in which case slow shows "I really want 3NT" and quick shows "I have a stopper, but not a good one".

 

Also, I prefer a different version of "slow shows": Slow shows a 4-card major, quick does not. 3x asks for the stopper and denies it, 3N always shows the stopper, so:

 

3NT: stopper, no 4M

2NT ; 3NT: stopper, with 4M

3x: no stopper, no 4M

2NT ; 3x: no stopper, with 4M

 

This is more in line with the "3NT convention", which says if 3NT was a possible contract, bidding it shows wanting to play it.

 

3.

 

This situation is more complicated than 1NT (2x), where you have direct Lebensohl AND a negative Dbl. Here, if opponents have ♦, you must take care of both majors:

 

This is achieved by using my standard convention that if they bid ♦, the other major is ♥. In this case, the "ask for stopper" with 3♦ changes to: Asks stopper and 4-card ♠:

 

3NT: stopper, no 4M

2NT ; 3NT: stopper, with 4♥ no 4♠

3x: no 4♥, asking for 4♠ or stopper

2NT ; 3x: 4♥, asking for 4♠ or stopper

[brianshark]

My regular partner and I play slow shows a 4-card Major.

[gnasher]

1. I don't think that there's a globally standard meaning. If I had to guess what an English player meant by it, I'd assume "fast shows a stop", so 2NT then 3NT denies either a stop or 4 cards in the other major.

 

2. I usually suggest "slow shows the unbid major", like Gerben plays.

 

3. If it's diamonds, I prefer:

- Direct cue = no stop, no major

- Direct 3NT = stop, no major

- Slow cue = no stop, at least one major

- Slow 3M = stop, the bid major

- Slow 3NT = stop, both majors

 

Instead of Lebensohl after a weak two in a major, I like, but have never played, this:

2NT = weak with clubs or invitational+ with diamonds

3♣ = weak with diamonds or invitational+ with the other major

3♦ = weak with the other major or (strongly) invitational+ with clubs.

3OM = invitational, exactly 4-cards

cue = asking for a stop

 

Josh's idea of playing 2NT as always weak and therefore non-forcing seems quite attractive.

[skjaeran]

2NT (Lebensohl) followed by 3NT means (to me) game forcing values with a stopper but without 4 cards in the other major (or either major if the weak 2 bid was in diamonds).

.....

3NT directly shows no four card major, no stopper but game forcing values.

The difference being?

The difference between a stopper and no stopper.....

[peachy]

Lebensohl is a source of misunderstanding, if not agreed explicitly what to do with the 4 basic sequences.

 

(2x)-Dbl-(p)-2N-

(p)-3♣-(p)-3N.

 

1.

 

Standard is that "slow shows", i.e. this sequence shows a stopper and no interest in the other major. This would mean that a direct 3NT does not show a stopper. This seems like a terrible idea to me, but is "standard".

It most definitely is not standard. In fact, this forum is the first place I have ever seen that even proposes "slow shows" in context of our side doubling their weak two opening.

 

Lebensohl over 1NT interference has a different structure than Lebensohl after we Dbl their weak two opening.

[Impact]

A) I use the specific auction shown to indicate a 1/2 stop eg Jxx or Qx (and otherwise appropriate values without the other Major) so as to facilitate getting to 3NT when you have the values - and doubler knows to pull without at least the half stop.

 

It also avoids the situation where neither partner has a stop so they get to some crazy suit contract going off on at least 2 top suit cashes and ruff(s)

 

:P I prefer to use reverse Lebensohl so that direct bids (except C) are weak, a jump to 3NT says I have stop(s) and values and an immediate cue is a DAB (directional asking bid) while a delayed cue via 2NT is a 2 -suiter unsuited for leaping Michaels in response to the double...

 

regards