Lebensohl

[p_t_red]

I've had a couple of auctions recently that went 1NT by partner, 2 clubs by RHO, and I wanted to use double for Stayman. Unfortunately, BBO 2/1 requires the use of Lebensohl here. I know of no one who uses Lebensohl at this

point. The main reason is you no longer have the use of the 2NT relay for Stayman with a stopper. Your only bid

is to queue bid 3 clubs (is that a queue bid since they may not have clubs), and play that as may or may not have

a stopper. But no one I know of who plays Lebensohl plays it that way and the convention is not written up that way,

so why does BBO play it that way?

[ArtK78]

To the best of my knowledge gained by playing in Robot tournaments, the double of 2♣ is Stayman.

[Vampyr]

I've had a couple of auctions recently that went 1NT by partner, 2 clubs by RHO, and I wanted to use double for Stayman. Unfortunately, BBO 2/1 requires the use of Lebensohl here. I know of no one who uses Lebensohl at this

point. The main reason is you no longer have the use of the 2NT relay for Stayman with a stopper. Your only bid

is to queue bid 3 clubs (is that a queue bid since they may not have clubs), and play that as may or may not have

a stopper. But no one I know of who plays Lebensohl plays it that way and the convention is not written up that way,

so why does BBO play it that way?

 

When the opponents have bid 2♣ and you are playing Lebensohl, it is very common to use 2♦ as the replacement cue bid when bidding the "slow" way.

[Bbradley62]

To the best of my knowledge gained by playing in Robot tournaments, the double of 2♣ is Stayman.

Yes, this is correct.

 

When the opponents have bid 2♣ and you are playing Lebensohl, it is very common to use 2♦ as the replacement cue bid when bidding the "slow" way.

Since OP is asking about "BBO 2/1", by which I presume he means "GIB's 2/1", let's not confuse the issue with what might be "very common" at your club. In the GIB system, bidding 2♦ over opponent's 2♣ is a Jacoby transfer to hearts, not a "replacement cue bid".

[hv=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=pn|Bbradley62,~~M35637,~~M35635,~~M35636|st%7C%7Cmd%7C4S5689H4QAD6KAC56Q%2CS4KH2TD24QC2379JK%2CS37QH3578JD389CTA%2C%7Crh%7C%7Cah%7CBoard%206%7Csv%7Ce%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C1N%7Can%7Cnotrump%20opener.%20Could%20have%205M.%20--%202-5%20C%3B%7Cmb%7C2C%21%7Can%7CCappelletti%20-%20single%20suited%20--%2014-%20HCP%3B%2010%2B%20total%20points%20%7Cmb%7C2D%21%7Can%7CJacoby%20transfer%20--%205%2B%20H%20%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7C2H%7Can%7CTransfer%20completed%20to%20H%20--%202-5%20C%3B%202-5%20D%3B%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cmb%7Cp%7Cpc%7C]360|270[/hv]

[Vampyr]

In the GIB system, bidding 2♦ over opponent's 2♣ is a Jacoby transfer to hearts, not a "replacement cue bid".

 

It may well be. But after 2NT-3♣, many play that 3♦ is whatever the delayed cue bid would have been. This may or may not be played at my club; I have no idea. In any case 2♣ overcalls are usually artificial around here, so different methods would apply.

 

I see the source of the confusion -- I had typed 2♦ in error.

[barmar]

I'm not sure what system the OP is talking about, since there's nothing called "BBO 2/1". In the Stock Convention Cards list there's "BBO Advanced 1.3" and "BBO Advanced (2/1=GF)". The first is a Full Disclosure card, and it doesn't have anything filled in for dealing with interference over 1NT. The second is a regular BBO convention card, but it also doesn't say anything about Lebensohl.

 

I don't think the issue is so much whether you're playing Lebensohl, but whether you're playing penalty doubles of 2-level overcalls. If 2♣ is natural and you're playing penalty doubles, the double has to be for penalty; you can use 3♣ as Stayman. But if 2♣ doesn't show clubs (e.g. they're playing Capp or Landy), there's no need for a penalty double, so the double should be Stayman.

 

In fact, I just checked my copy of Ron Anderson's "Lebensohl Convention Complete". In Chapter 6, "Lebensohl After Artificial Overcalls", it specifically says "Vs. artificial two clubs shoing an unspecified one-suiter: Double is Stayman, otherwise ignore the overcall. (No Lebensohl Needed.)" (emphasis his).

[PhilKing]

It may well be. But after 2NT-3♣, many play that 3♦ is whatever the delayed cue bid would have been. This may or may not be played at my club; I have no idea. In any case 2♣ overcalls are usually artificial around here, so different methods would apply.

 

I see the source of the confusion -- I had typed 2♦ in error.

 

I've never heard of that, but it sounds terrible.

[Vampyr]

I've never heard of that, but it sounds terrible.

 

I think it is OK. You lose one of your three possible ways to show diamonds, but you gain the ability to bid Stayman with a stopper (or without one, whichever your method specifies after the puppet.) It's not a big deal as an agreement, though, since maybe one pair in 50 plays a 2♣ overcall as natural.

[PhilKing]

I think it is OK. You lose one of your three possible ways to show diamonds, but you gain the ability to bid Stayman with a stopper (or without one, whichever your method specifies after the puppet.) It's not a big deal as an agreement, though, since maybe one pair in 50 plays a 2♣ overcall as natural.

 

Why not just double for take-out?

 

And if you've got something against diamonds, you can always play transfers.

[Vampyr]

Why not just double for take-out?

 

Perhaps you have got only one major.

 

And if you've got something against diamonds, you can always play transfers.

 

Maybe. I am not familiar with methods that involve transferring into 4-card suits; I am sure they are superior to the one I mentioned. But I don't think there is that much in it, because as I mentioned before, natural, one-suited 2♣ overcalls are rare enough not to spend too much brain power on.

[PhilKing]

Perhaps you have got only one major.

 

 

 

Maybe. I am not familiar with methods that involve transferring into 4-card suits; I am sure they are superior to the one I mentioned. But I don't think there is that much in it, because as I mentioned before, natural, one-suited 2♣ overcalls are rare enough not to spend too much brain power on.

 

Name a hand suitable for 2/3♦ that can't double for take-out or bid 3♣. It sounds like a bizarre convention.

 

And who said anything about transferring to 4-card suits? I just double for take-out with (shock) possibly only one four-card major. Over 1NT-(2♣) you have available 3♣, 2NT (puppet to 3♣) then 3NT, and double followed by 3♣ all as exploratory maoeuvres. Why would you need 2♦ as yet another cue bid?

[Bbradley62]

I've had a couple of auctions recently that went 1NT by partner, 2 clubs by RHO, and I wanted to use double for Stayman. Unfortunately, BBO 2/1 requires the use of Lebensohl here. I know of no one who uses Lebensohl at this point. The main reason is you no longer have the use of the 2NT relay for Stayman with a stopper. Your only bid is to queue bid 3 clubs (is that a queue bid since they may not have clubs), and play that as may or may not have a stopper. But no one I know of who plays Lebensohl plays it that way and the convention is not written up that way, so why does BBO play it that way?

Bottom line for OP: when playing in Robot or Express tournaments, with the pre-loaded 2/1 convention card, Lebensohl does not apply over a Cappelletti 2♣ overcall of a 1NT opening. After 1N-(2♣), double is Stayman and everything else is "system on" as if opp had passed.

[Vampyr]

Why would you need 2♦ as yet another cue bid?

 

You mean 3♦. It's useful if you want to retain your "slow" way of bidding Lebensohl, having a cue-bid available to show (usually) or deny a stopper, while at the same time exploring for a major-suit fit. The same as if they had overcalled some other suit. Perhaps you don't play Lebensohl, but if you did you might want to have the same structure available over natural overcalls of all four suits. Or maybe not; it is not a matter of much interest to me.

[PhilKing]

You mean 3♦.

 

I do?