Lebensohl after weak 2s

[shevek]

Wish this convention had a name of its own, rather than a borrowed one.

Anyway, some people suggest it works the same way as over 1NT but that's not sensible.

 

Is the following "standard"?

 

(2♠) X (no) ?

 

3NT

to play, probably not 4 ♥s

 

3♠

stopper ask, maybe a solid minor

 

2NT - 3♣ - 3♠

4 ♥s, NO stopper

 

2NT - 3♣ - 3NT

4 ♥s, stopper

 

Seems okay, though partner from the "slow shows" Lebensohl mindset will have a different interpretation.

 

The problem with this style is the risk of reaching a no play 3NT, like we did recently:

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa6hj73dkq952ckj5&n=s84hak62djt3caq73&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=2sdp3nppp]266|200[/hv]

 

I bid the crude 3NT for -200 when 5♦ is easy.

I did that because I thought going through 2NT would show 4 ♥s.

 

Subsequently, I suggested a change.

3NT direct = don't touch, so double stopper or source of tricks

2NT then 3NT = choice of games.

 

Is that playable?

It means giving up on something. Which?

[aguahombre]

When partner has a t/o double of 2S, relax about spade stoppers; devise your personal ways of using Lebensohl without that. If advancer has spade stopper(s) and wants to bid 3NT he bids 3NT.

 

Imo, the given advancing hand with its working 14 count is too strong for 3D (about 12 would be the max for us. So, what to bid is a problem. We would bid 3s under our agreements, and when Doubler bids 4C, we would bid 4D showing doubt about trump and tolerance elsewhere. Then, Doubler raises to 5.

 

As a side note, after (2S) X (P) we call 2nt "Lebenscramble". Doubler continues if minimum for her Double with 3C or 3D. That way we don't die in a 4-3 or 3-3 fit when we could avoid it. This has drawbacks if advancer is 3-5 in the minors, but gains when she is 4-4 and pretty much breaks even otherwise.

[steve2005]

Could use Transfer Lebensohl

 

3♣ (INV or GF in ♦) -3♦-3N showing GF with ♦ and a stopper

 

now doubler can pick his game

[Trinidad]

I play the cues and 3NT after weak twos the same as after 1NT:

 

2♠-Dbl-Pass:

or

1NT-2♠:

Fast

3♠: 4♥, GF, "no stopper"

3NT: to play "no stopper"

 

And after

2NT-3♣:

Slow

3♠: 4♥, GF, "with stopper"

3NT: to play "with stopper"

 

It may technically not be optimal to play exactly the same, but at least it is easy on the memory.

 

The only difference is what constitutes a "stopper".

When partner has opened 1NT, he is somewhat expected to have a stop. This means that when I show a stop, a single stop will do, and when I deny a stop, I really don't have a stop and partner has to have "extra stop" over what he is already expected to have.

When partner has made a takeout double, he is more or less expected to have a singleton. That means that if I bid a direct 3♠/NT ("no stopper"), I do have somewhat of a stop, but I need help: Play 3NT if you have half a stop. If I bid a slow 3♠/NT, it means: "I know that you won't have a stop. Don't worry. I have it covered."

 

Rik

[helene_t]

If you play Lebenshol in response to a balancing seat double you should probably play "slow shows" so that the 2NT bidder doesn't become declarer in 3NT when it is doubler that has the stopper.

 

This hand is difficult to bid, though. Chris Niemeijer has a blame transfer route, 2NT followed by 3NT showing doubt about 3NT. I am not sure how N is supposed to react to that with this hand. Maybe 4♥. And maybe South would correct 4♥ to 5♦. Otherwise, 4♥ has some play at least.

[Mbodell]

Standard near me is direct denies. In that context:

 

Is the following "standard"?

 

(2♠) X (no) ?

 

3NT

to play, probably not 4 ♥s

 

Standard is to play, definitely not 4♥, and no or only weak spade stop.

 

3♠

stopper ask, maybe a solid minor

 

Standard is game force with 4♥ and no or only weak spade stop.

 

2NT - 3♣ - 3♠

4 ♥s, NO stopper

 

Standard is 4♥ and a good stopper.

 

 

2NT - 3♣ - 3NT

4 ♥s, stopper

 

Standard is not 4♥, but a good stopper.

[Stephen Tu]

Standard near me is direct denies. In that context:

Standard is to play, definitely not 4♥, and no or only weak spade stop.

 

Really? Direct denies is pretty standard in our area when partner opens 1nt. But after a weak two? I'd be really shocked playing with a new partner if 3nt was anything but to play and with a stopper. How much sense does it make to deny a stopper when partner is presumably short and expose whatever possible Kx he might have to the lead? The open 1nt case is markedly different since the stopper is held way more often, plus the side that declares has already been fixed. It makes no sense to me that the assumption that "direct denies" should still hold after a weak two.

 

The big question in my mind is what the delayed 3nt should mean. I think there isn't really a standard here one can count on. The "shows doubt" interpretation I've seen a lot, but I also think the "choice of games, 4 cds in other major" seems useful and schemes include that. But there is also cue & delayed cue available so as shevek says the question is which thing to give up, and how to arrange. Unfortunately I've seen many different schemes and no standard without discussion. I don't think any of the rest of your post is really "standard", as it seems to follow your "direct denies" assumption, which I don't think holds.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Leb2 is confusing because there are 2 schools of thought on the matter.

There is the source by Ron Anderson and another by Karen Walker .

 

After DBL of opps weak-2M open:

 

Karen Walker ( http://www.prairienet.org/bridge/leb.htm ) :

 

-- bidding 3NT always ( fast or slow route ) shows an M-stop in Leb2

 

-- cuebidding 3M ( either fast or slow route ) does not guarantee M-stop

 

-- only slow route (always Stayman) shows 4cd oM ( whether cuebid 3M or 3NT )

 

Ron Anderson

 

-- bidding 3NT ( fast ) shows M-stop and little interest in any other contract

[ No mention of a slow route to 3NT and no examples ] .

 

--cuebidding 3M ( fast or slow route ) implies ( but no guarantee) 4 cds other Major

fast ( direct) denies oM-stop

slow ( indirect) shows oM-stop

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Other sources similar to Anderson concerning Stayman:

cuebids imply--but do not promise-- 4-of-a-Major

direct-denies stop

slow-shows stop

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I'm not advocating one over the other, but I bet MOST use the Anderson version.

[Vampyr]

My partners and I do not expect the doubler to have a stopper, so Lebensohl for us differentiates the strength of the hand. If responder wishes to be in 3NT, she is on her own in the stopper department.

[shevek]

I play the cues and 3NT after weak twos the same as after 1NT:

 

2♠-Dbl-Pass:

or

1NT-2♠:

Fast

3♠: 4♥, GF, "no stopper"

3NT: to play "no stopper"

 

And after

2NT-3♣:

Slow

3♠: 4♥, GF, "with stopper"

3NT: to play "with stopper"

 

It may technically not be optimal to play exactly the same, but at least it is easy on the memory.

 

The only difference is what constitutes a "stopper".

When partner has opened 1NT, he is somewhat expected to have a stop. This means that when I show a stop, a single stop will do, and when I deny a stop, I really don't have a stop and partner has to have "extra stop" over what he is already expected to have.

When partner has made a takeout double, he is more or less expected to have a singleton. That means that if I bid a direct 3♠/NT ("no stopper"), I do have somewhat of a stop, but I need help: Play 3NT if you have half a stop. If I bid a slow 3♠/NT, it means: "I know that you won't have a stop. Don't worry. I have it covered."

 

Rik

 

Yes, it's not technically optimal. The big difference is that 3-level suit bids are no longer forcing.

After (2♠) X (no)

 

you bid 3♠ with

♠xx ♥xx ♦AKQxxx ♣Kxx

 

What else? If partner is in 1NT mode, he'll bid 4♥ with 4 of them plus a stopper.

[Trinidad]

Just to add: Playing the way as described below, the auction will be easy:

2♠-Dbl-Pass-3NT¹

Pass-4♣²-Pass-5♦

All pass

 

¹ To play with a poor stop

² No way he will sit for 3NT

 

Rik

 

I play the cues and 3NT after weak twos the same as after 1NT:

 

2♠-Dbl-Pass:

or

1NT-2♠:

Fast

3♠: 4♥, GF, "no stopper"

3NT: to play "no stopper"

 

And after

2NT-3♣:

Slow

3♠: 4♥, GF, "with stopper"

3NT: to play "with stopper"

 

It may technically not be optimal to play exactly the same, but at least it is easy on the memory.

 

The only difference is what constitutes a "stopper".

When partner has opened 1NT, he is somewhat expected to have a stop. This means that when I show a stop, a single stop will do, and when I deny a stop, I really don't have a stop and partner has to have "extra stop" over what he is already expected to have.

When partner has made a takeout double, he is more or less expected to have a singleton. That means that if I bid a direct 3♠/NT ("no stopper"), I do have somewhat of a stop, but I need help: Play 3NT if you have half a stop. If I bid a slow 3♠/NT, it means: "I know that you won't have a stop. Don't worry. I have it covered."

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

Yes, it's not technically optimal. The big difference is that 3-level suit bids are no longer forcing.

After (2♠) X (no)

 

you bid 3♠ with

♠xx ♥xx ♦AKQxxx ♣Kxx

 

What else? If partner is in 1NT mode, he'll bid 4♥ with 4 of them plus a stopper.

If your takeout doubles are sound, partner is only going to have a stop in spades when he has a big hand.

- If he has a minimum hand, and a good spade stop, he should pass (since his values are wasted) rather than double.

- If he has a 15-18 hand, and a good spade stop, he should bid 2NT rather than double.

 

Hence, if he doubled and has a good spade stop, he will have 18+. This means that you can afford to bid a direct 4♦ with your hand: GF, no good spade stop. This will get you to 5♦ when partner has a normal, minimum takeout double (e.g. ♠Jx ♥AQxx ♦Jxx ♣AQJx) and 3NT doesn't have a chance.

 

Using 3♠ to ask for a spade stop seems logical, but it isn't. You are forcing to game, opposite any hand partner has. But when he has a spade stop, and hence a great hand, and slam should be investigated, you ask him to bid 3NT. ?!?

 

Rik

[Stephen Tu]

If your takeout doubles are sound, partner is only going to have a stop in spades when he has a big hand.

- If he has a minimum hand, and a good spade stop, he should pass (since his values are wasted) rather than double.

 

Disagree. There are lots of hands holding something like Ax or Kx of spades that are strong enough to double, but not "big hands". If you choose to pass with min takeout doubles with these holdings, you will tend to get robbed blind. The player with shortness should tend to get in the auction, it's safer as you have support for the other suits. Relying on partner to balance with mins and 3 cd spades is less sound.

[Vampyr]

Disagree. There are lots of hands holding something like Ax or Kx of spades that are strong enough to double, but not "big hands". If you choose to pass with min takeout doubles with these holdings, you will tend to get robbed blind. The player with shortness should tend to get in the auction, it's safer as you have support for the other suits. Relying on partner to balance with mins and 3 cd spades is less sound.

This argument is valid, but on balance I agree with Trinidad.

[Mbodell]

Really? Direct denies is pretty standard in our area when partner opens 1nt. But after a weak two? I'd be really shocked playing with a new partner if 3nt was anything but to play and with a stopper. How much sense does it make to deny a stopper when partner is presumably short and expose whatever possible Kx he might have to the lead? The open 1nt case is markedly different since the stopper is held way more often, plus the side that declares has already been fixed. It makes no sense to me that the assumption that "direct denies" should still hold after a weak two.

 

I agree that it might not make total sense for leb over nt to follow the same pattern as leb over weak 2. But I'm pretty sure if you surveyed the majority of people who play both they'd play the same thing.

[aguahombre]

I agree that it might not make total sense for leb over nt to follow the same pattern as leb over weak 2. But I'm pretty sure if you surveyed the majority of people who play both they'd play the same thing.

I am very surprised that you, and some others here, are part of that majority.

 

Our use of Lebenscramble after 2SX might not be even close to optimum; but getting spade stoppers out of the mix must be a good thing.

[Stephen Tu]

I agree that it might not make total sense for leb over nt to follow the same pattern as leb over weak 2. But I'm pretty sure if you surveyed the majority of people who play both they'd play the same thing.

 

I'm pretty damn sure that if you surveyed the top players in our area, and asked whether 2x-dbl-p-3nt denied a stopper, playing leb/wk2, that they'd think you were nuts about this, and that 3nt is simply "to play". Certainly I can't ever remember a time when I opened 2x, it went dbl-p-3nt, and opps alerted and indicated that 3nt denied a stopper. Why don't you ask around a little, report your findings?

[MrAce]

Using 3♠ to ask for a spade stop seems logical, but it isn't. You are forcing to game, opposite any hand partner has. But when he has a spade stop, and hence a great hand, and slam should be investigated, you ask him to bid 3NT. ?!?

Rik

 

Game and where to play the game comes before slam. Also you may need that info (a stopper in opponent suit) in slam bidding too sometimes. Either 3♠ or 2 Nt and then 3♠ should be asking stopper. I can't imagine a pair disabling themselves from playing 3 NT just because they can not ask stopper.

[Trinidad]

Game and where to play the game comes before slam. Also you may need that info (a stopper in opponent suit) in slam bidding too sometimes. Either 3♠ or 2 Nt and then 3♠ should be asking stopper. I can't imagine a pair disabling themselves from playing 3 NT just because they can not ask stopper.

They can "ask" for a stopper.

 

You often need a double stop.

 

Responder effectively "asks" by saying that he has a single stop (do you have some help, partner?), by bidding an immediate 3NT.

 

Responder tells that he doesn't need any help by bidding a slow 3NT.

 

I could imagine bidding 3NT with a singleton K (or Qx) and a good source of tricks, effectively asking partner: do you have some help stopping spades?

 

It is a bid shifting in the degree of stop that you are asking about, but the concept is that an immediate 3NT asks for help in stopping, whereas a slow 3NT says that we are going to play 3NT, regardless of the stop situation. The shifting means that you win with a running suit with advancer opposite an ugly takeout double with doubler. I win with KQJx with advancer and a void with doubler.

 

Another effect is that the advancer will be declarer, with the 2♠ opener on lead. I think that this is more often an advantage than a drawback. I will bid 3NT with Qxx, seeing partner pass with Ax, and the weak two bidder is on lead. Stephen and you will bid 3♠, asking for a stop and will see partner bid 3NT with Ax and see them lead through your queen. Of course, it is possible that the takeout doubler holds Qxx and advancer Ax, but it is more likely that advancer holds Qxx and doubler Ax.

 

So, I would say that "asking help" by bidding 3NT is more effective than asking for a stop with 3♠. And it has the advantage that it is exactly equivalent to Lebensohl after a 1NT opening, and, therefore, easy to remember.

 

Rik

[Stephen Tu]

It is a bid shifting in the degree of stop that you are asking about, but the concept is that an immediate 3NT asks for help in stopping, whereas a slow 3NT says that we are going to play 3NT, regardless of the stop situation. The shifting means that you win with a running suit with advancer opposite an ugly takeout double with doubler. I win with KQJx with advancer and a void with doubler.

 

Another effect is that the advancer will be declarer, with the 2♠ opener on lead. I think that this is more often an advantage than a drawback. I will bid 3NT with Qxx, seeing partner pass with Ax, and the weak two bidder is on lead. Stephen and you will bid 3♠, asking for a stop and will see partner bid 3NT with Ax and see them lead through your queen. Of course, it is possible that the takeout doubler holds Qxx and advancer Ax, but it is more likely that advancer holds Qxx and doubler Ax.

 

I don't see how you "win", vs. one playing the "slow 3nt shows doubt" while "3nt is to play" version. It's just reversing the two sequences. With Qxx just bid a slow 3nt and let partner only pass with help. With xxx spades and otherwise game values use the cue bid.

 

My main problem is your assertion that:

(1) Min takeout doubles with Ax/Kx in spades should pass instead because of the suboptimal placement of some values in spades. In my view, this leaves you missing 3nt/4H with say 14 opposite 11-14, when partner can't balance. It also loses some double partial swings when you can make 3 of something and they are making 2 spades. Now granted you will get some back when 3nt/3 level partials fail when 2 spades also fails, but in my estimation being able to double on something like Ax KQxx AJx xxxx is a net positive.

(2) 15-17 with something like Ax in spades should always overcall 1nt instead of doubling (at least I think this is what you implied). I personally will double with quite a lot of these, because I think I will go plus more often playing a 3 level partial in a suit than declaring 2nt when partner is too weak to move over 2nt.

[Trinidad]

I don't see how you "win", vs. one playing the "slow 3nt shows doubt" while "3nt is to play" version. It's just reversing the two sequences. With Qxx just bid a slow 3nt and let partner only pass with help. With xxx spades and otherwise game values use the cue bid.

 

My main problem is your assertion that:

(1) Min takeout doubles with Ax/Kx in spades should pass instead because of the suboptimal placement of some values in spades. In my view, this leaves you missing 3nt/4H with say 14 opposite 11-14, when partner can't balance. It also loses some double partial swings when you can make 3 of something and they are making 2 spades. Now granted you will get some back when 3nt/3 level partials fail when 2 spades also fails, but in my estimation being able to double on something like Ax KQxx AJx xxxx is a net positive.

(2) 15-17 with something like Ax in spades should always overcall 1nt instead of doubling (at least I think this is what you implied). I personally will double with quite a lot of these, because I think I will go plus more often playing a 3 level partial in a suit than declaring 2nt when partner is too weak to move over 2nt.

I think there is a misunderstanding.

 

A) I compared using 3♠ to ask for a stop to using 3NT to "ask" for a stop (by saying that you would like to play 3NT, but do need some help in the stop department). I didn't compare "slow shows" to "fast shows".

 

1) I didn't assert so much that minimum takeout doubles with Ax/Kx in spades should pass. But there is a frequency argument. Hands with N HCPs will tend to pass more often when they have a spade stop and double more often when they have a small doubleton or singleton. So, I will certainly be able to double on the hand you gave (Ax KQxx AJx xxxx). But while I will double on x Kxxx Axx KJxxx, I won't on A Kxxx xxx KJxxx.

2) Similarly, it is not always vs never for overcalling 2NT with a stop. Again, it is a frequency argument. With Ax Axxx Axx Axxx, you and I both double. But that is as much of spade stop that you can possibly get. so your expectation should be less than that. With AQx KQJx Kxx Qxxx neither of us would double.

 

Rik

[MrAce]

Ok Rik, it is my bad that I thought (for some reason I don't know why but probably because of not reading carefully) you suggest those bids to be used for slams.

[Stephen Tu]

I think there is a misunderstanding.

 

Because you didn't write your initial posts well?

 

A) I compared using 3♠ to ask for a stop to using 3NT to "ask" for a stop (by saying that you would like to play 3NT, but do need some help in the stop department). I didn't compare "slow shows" to "fast shows".

One big difference is you seem to advocate responder without at least a partial stopper should bid 4 of a minor or something like that. So if the hands are something like say Ax Kxxx AQxx Jxx opposite xxx Ax xxx AKQxx you may find yourself down in 5c whereas I can reach 3nt.

 

1) I didn't assert so much that minimum takeout doubles with Ax/Kx in spades should pass.

You said:"If your takeout doubles are sound, partner is only going to have a stop in spades when he has a big hand.

- If he has a minimum hand, and a good spade stop, he should pass (since his values are wasted) rather than double.

- If he has a 15-18 hand, and a good spade stop, he should bid 2NT rather than double"

 

So you are now contradicting your earlier post.

[straube]

I like Steve2005's suggestion for transfer Lebensohl. I've tried Googling but haven't found anything. Maybe something like...

 

2N-3C

..........P-to play

.........3D-to play

.........3H-to play

.........3S-minors, no stopper

.........3N-wants partial stop

 

3C-3D (not accepting)

..........P-to play

..........3H-4H/5D

..........3S-stopper ask

..........3N-stopper,COG

 

3D-3H (not accepting)

..........3S-stopper ask

..........3N-COG

..........etc

 

3H-4H/5C, forcing

 

3S-clubs, stopper ask

 

3N-to play

 

Anyone have a better tweak? Btw you can have the customary advantages of transfers like setting trump and then RKC

[Trinidad]

Because you didn't write your initial posts well?

Did I say what caused the misunderstanding?

One big difference is you seem to advocate responder without at least a partial stopper should bid 4 of a minor or something like that. So if the hands are something like say Ax Kxxx AQxx Jxx opposite xxx Ax xxx AKQxx you may find yourself down in 5c whereas I can reach 3nt.

Yes, which is why I wrote that you win on hands like this. And you lose if the doubler holds a slightly different hand, like A Qxxx AQJx Jxxx (not 9 tricks), or A Kxxx AQJx xxxx (9 tricks for you, but I will take 12/13, which outscores you even if I don't reach the slam).

 

You said:"If your takeout doubles are sound, partner is only going to have a stop in spades when he has a big hand.

- If he has a minimum hand, and a good spade stop, he should pass (since his values are wasted) rather than double.

- If he has a 15-18 hand, and a good spade stop, he should bid 2NT rather than double"

 

So you are now contradicting your earlier post.

No, I have clarified my earlier post which, when I reread it, was even clearer than I thought. I have added some emphasis. (You are allowed to call the first sentence in the quoted part "sloppy" if you want to.)

 

Do you consider Ax to be "a good spade stop"? I consider it "a shaky single spade stop with which I can only make 3NT if I have 8 other tricks from top (or a stop from partner, which must be solid since they are going to lead through it)". So, yes, it is a "stop", but no, it is not a "good stop".

 

So, as I said earlier, you win on the hands where we have ♠A + 8 other tricks from top. I win on the hands where we have ♠A, not 8 other tricks from top, but the possibility to develop a few.

 

Rik