Lebensohl over weak 2

[Bbradley62]

Can anyone recommend good online documentation of Lebensohl over weak 2? I'm hoping for something that includes the differences (if any) for when partner-of-doubler is a passed hand vs not.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

For starters, check the Karen Walker and Ron Anderson websites .

 

There is also a Norwegian Defense .

[Bbradley62]

Thanks. The Karen Walker site is thorough and helpful.

[mgoetze]

I'm hoping for something that includes the differences (if any) for when partner-of-doubler is a passed hand vs not.

There isn't really a difference, you just adjust the ranges down a bit.

 

The bigger issue is whether you are playing penalty or takeout doubles over 1NT as that will also influence your Lebensohl structure.

[aguahombre]

I'm hoping for something that includes the differences (if any) for when partner-of-doubler is a passed hand vs not.

There are opinions, differing, on this issue..and also if partner is not a true passed hand, and Doubler is in balance seat. Dunno if you will find it all in print, but if you want opinions, most of us are rarely shy about that :rolleyes:

[kenrexford]

FWIW, a good (IMO) next step is to add a Herbert Negative defense to a 3C preempt and to a Precision 2C opening. The simple explanation is that the Herbert Negative works in the exact same way as Lebensohl, except that Advancer bids diamonds at the cheapest available level instead of notrump as the weak relay. Herbert Negatives help as much with major auctions as Lebensohl, and with 3NT decisions, but the cost is that diamond contracts are one level higher if weak.

[helene_t]

But if the Precision 2♣ opening is 6+ OR 5c4M, then diamonds is the suit in which we most often want to play. And when opener has shown 11-15 points, advancer will quite often be broke. Do we really want to sacrifice the weak 2♦ advance?

 

Against 3♣ it sounds better.

[kenrexford]

But if the Precision 2♣ opening is 6+ OR 5c4M, then diamonds is the suit in which we most often want to play. And when opener has shown 11-15 points, advancer will quite often be broke. Do we really want to sacrifice the weak 2♦ advance?

 

Against 3♣ it sounds better.

3C is definitely more ideal than the Precision 2C situation. That preempt takes away so much space.

 

But, the Precision 2C opening also causes problems without Herbert. The question is whether the loss from an occasional overbid set in diamonds is outweighed by the comfort in bidding majors lower and more accurately.

 

The possibility of Opener having a major does not make a diamond fit more likely, IMO. It probably makes a fit in the other major more likely, because Opener will have less length in one major if he is long in the other.

[steve2005]

3C is definitely more ideal than the Precision 2C situation. That preempt takes away so much space.

 

But, the Precision 2C opening also causes problems without Herbert. The question is whether the loss from an occasional overbid set in diamonds is outweighed by the comfort in bidding majors lower and more accurately.

 

The possibility of Opener having a major does not make a diamond fit more likely, IMO. It probably makes a fit in the other major more likely, because Opener will have less length in one major if he is long in the other.

Precision 2♣ uses up only a little more space than 1♠-X and I don't hear a cry for using a Herbert Negative or Lebensohl over that. If there is no further competition from opener's partner Precision 2♣ isn't a huge problem, it's just most people don't have practise bidding over it.

[kenrexford]

Precision 2♣ uses up only a little more space than 1♠-X and I don't hear a cry for using Herbert Negative or Lebensohl over that.

I do, but baby steps.

 

Herbert Negative advances at the one level are quite useful also. The key, though, is to be able to show extras in the major (s) and stay at the two-level. Using this thinking, Herbert Negative after 1S-X makes sense, but HN in lower situations is less important.

[blackshoe]

Over 1M-X, I prefer Cappalletti.