CSGibson Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 I was thinking about lebensohl after a weak 2 in diamonds, and I was wondering specifically about this auction: (2♦)-X-(P)-2N*,(P)-3♣*-(P)-3♦. Intuitively, I think the auction should be 9-11 HCP with two four card majors, asking doubler to pick the level and suit, but I honestly haven't seen the auction in any textbooks, and, to my knowledge, have never seen the auction at the table, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 I think should should be a general force (you should at least have one way to show a general game force). Maybe this is offtopic, I'd recommend lebensohl off over 2♦. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSGibson Posted April 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 I think should should be a general force (you should at least have one way to show a general game force). Maybe this is offtopic, I'd recommend lebensohl off over 2♦. And how would the general force be different than an immediate 3♦ call? Note: I do not disagree with 3♦ being forcing, as it would be silly to play it non-forcing. I am just wondering what the difference should be for an immediate 3♦ vs a 3♦ through lebensohl. I thought that the hand I gave, with two four card majors and 9-11 HCP, would be a good hand to assign to that sequence, since a takeout double over 2♦ will often have 4-3 in the majors, or sometimes 5-3, and this way you can be sure of playing in the 4-4 fit instead of the 4-3, and at the appropriate level, but I want to make sure there isn't something else even more useful. As for lebensohl off, that does make some sense, though I find it very useful to differentiate between invitational hands with 4 card and 5 card majors (same reason, often 4-3 in majors), which lebensohl allows me to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick_s Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 I haven't discussed this with pard, but I would assume that the two sequences were the same as for Lebensohl over intervention over 1NT. i.e. Staymanesque with a diamond stop vs Staymanesque without a diamond stop. Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 And how would the general force be different than an immediate 3♦ call? Immediate 3♦ denies a diamond stopper so partner bid 4♣ with 3325 and small diamonds. 3♦ via 2NT shows a diamond stopper. I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.