Stayaman and Transfers with Lebensohl

[Liversidge]

I have come across a version of Lebensohl where Stayman and transfers are on after 1NT ( 2♣). 2♦ asks for a transfer to hearts. Using this system, how is Stayman initiated, and can you transfer to diamonds?

Is there an equivalent for keeping systems on after 1NT - X?

Most sources I have found state that systems are off after interference over 1NT. Do I take it that these ways of keeping systems on are not such a good idea?

[kuhchung]

We call this Systems on over X and 2C.

 

Over X, everything is still on.

 

Over 2C, X is Stayman, 2D is hearts, 2H is spades, etc.

 

Over higher level interference, systems are off. Some people play "stolen bid doubles." The less said of them, the better.

[apollo1201]

Couldn't agree more. Low-level interference actually don't interfere that much so you can still play the system with Stayman and xfers.

 

The only thing you might adapt to depends on the X nature though, especially on a weak NT and/or if the X has a strong possibility of blood. Then you absolutely need to be able to play 2C/D in a long minor or find a "suitable" suit of 7+ cards where you might play undoubled or end up defending if the opponents compete. Some play there all transfers (XX for C, 2C for D, etc.) and pass balanced passing the buck to openeer to find a common suit.

[Liversidge]

Not sure if I should ask this via a new post, but when Lebensohl is used to initiate Stayman, e.g. 1NT-(2♦) -3♦, or 1NT -(2♦)-2NT-(P)-3♦, most references I have found play that the first sequence shows no stop and the second sequence shows a stop, but one or two play the reverse. I haven't been able to find any comment or the pros and cons of one vs. the other. Does it matter?

[Cyberyeti]

Not sure if I should ask this via a new post, but when Lebensohl is used to initiate Stayman, e.g. 1NT-(2♦) -3♦, or 1NT -(2♦)-2NT-(P)-3♦, most references I have found play that the first sequence shows no stop and the second sequence shows a stop, but one or two play the reverse. I haven't been able to find any comment or the pros and cons of one vs. the other. Does it matter?

 

It doesn't really matter. More important is to decide whether you want to play 1N-(2♥)-3♦ vs going via 2N as the good or bad version (clubs you have no choice but you do for the other suits).

[helene_t]

Not sure if I should ask this via a new post, but when Lebensohl is used to initiate Stayman, e.g. 1NT-(2♦) -3♦, or 1NT -(2♦)-2NT-(P)-3♦, most references I have found play that the first sequence shows no stop and the second sequence shows a stop, but one or two play the reverse. I haven't been able to find any comment or the pros and cons of one vs. the other. Does it matter?

There is a slight advantage of bidding "slow shows": when you don't ave a stopper, your LHO might have sufficient length to raise over you 2nt bid and the auction becomes murky. So it is better to use the 2nt bid for hands where you don't expect opps to interfere further.

[kuhchung]

The mnemonic of Slow Shows, Direct Denies may also be easier :)

[Zelandakh]

The mnemonic of Slow Shows, Direct Denies may also be easier :)

Easier than "No Trump, No Stopper"? :blink:

[kuhchung]

That's cute, never heard that one before.

[Liversidge]

Helene gives a good justification for 'slow shows'. In terms of something easy to remember, I was hoping that it wouldn't matter either way. I liked the notion that the use of a relay 2NT : 2♣/cue bid is less positive than a direct suit/cue bid.