BBO Discussion Forums: Leb/Reverse - BBO Discussion Forums

2N/2♦ is leb, what is partner doing, is there any reason to use Leb with a game going hand?

I would think 2NT followed by 3NT is stronger than a direct 3NT.

This isn't a very helpful answer, but it's a matter for partnership agreement...

The first point is that, after the overcall, partner might think that you are no longer playing Leb i.e. that 2S/2NT/3C/3D would all be non-forcing, because partner could bid 2H (cue bid) with any good hand. So if I were uncertain, I might guess that partner thinks Leb is off.

However, suppose I am certain that Leb is on here.

Without having discussed it, and playing with a good and scientifically-minded partner, I would think
- partner could have jumped to 3NT over 2D to suggest playing there, but didn't
- going more slowly usually expresses doubt of some form, either about strain or about level.
- if partner was uncertain about her heart stop, or was interested in hearing about spade support, or wanted to hear if you had 5-6 in the minors, she could have cue-bid 2H instead of bidding 2NT. So partner is confident that NT is the right strain, played her way up; I'd expect a lot of cards in hearts.
- that means partner was uncertain about level. By bidding 2NT followed by 3NT, she gave you the chance to show a game forcing hand rather than 'only' a reverse. When you bid 3C, you confirmed that you didn't have substantial extra values on top of a reverse. So I'd expect partner to have more high cards than with a direct jump to 3NT, but not enough to drive beyond game. She could jump to 3NT with a 9-10 count, so I think this shows more like 11-13 (ish).

So in summary: with doubt about where to play, partner would have cued 2H; therefore she was mildly interested in slam but when you bid 3C she saw no reason to go past 3NT.

(as a side note, in my partnership we play a jump to 3NT as 12-14 and 2NT then 3NT as weaker. Partner might have guessed it should be that way round.)

Either way I pass 3NT.

I like/agree with Frances's line of thought. I also like fast arrive to apply only in suits, not in NT. That is, NT jumps show extras. Having 3N direct jump show 12-14 is MORE helpful than having it show 9-11. With 15-17 I assume 4N is proper. I assume 2N then a raise of partner' s 3♣ to 4♣ would be Minorwood.

In my partership a direct 3nt bid means it. Well heeled in stoppers or at least no alternative in say a 4-4-3-2.

2nt followed by 3nt shows some doubt about the correct strain. Something along the lines of 3 cards in clubs and a holding like ♥Kx or ♥ Ax where we may need 9 fast runners but 5♣ could be the spot.

If opener has a shape of 2-1-4-6 they should pass the direct 3nt and pull the indirect one unless the clubs look good to run.

2NT, then 3NT is used with 9-10 and direct 3NT=11-13 (for us). Don't know if the opposite method is better or worse; but at least it is consistent with "jumps in NT are not fast-arrival" from other situations.

My first reaction is that the two sequences differentiate between having and not having a heart stopper the same way Lebensohl after an overcall of 1N or takeout double of a weak 2 does (whichever your agreement on this is).

I'm not saying this is the right or even a reasonable agreement, but this would be my guess at the table if undiscussed.

ggwhiz, on 2012-September-08, 13:28, said:

This scheme would seem to work well if Opener/reverser bids 3C. But, it could get quite cloudy the rest of the time ---when opener is not minimum for his reverse. Now responder with 3-card club support has not shown his positive (9+) values, as he would have if he just bid a simple 3C instead of NT.

Perhaps if responder has 9+ with 3-card support, which does include KX or AX of the unbid suit, and opener cares --he can allow a later 3NT bid by going slow.

aguahombre, on 2012-September-08, 17:41, said:

A big yes as to the follow up auctions getting cloudy. Opener can break the potential sign off sequence with a non 3♣ bid and is that extra shape, points or both?
If they later remove a slow 3nt with extra shape, responder has things to think about control wise with the top of their range.

These can be very trying auctions but most satisfying if you get them right.

ggwhiz, on 2012-September-08, 19:54, said:

Not sure how to answer that. One way to describe it might be: Once he has gotten a response, his playing strength is such that he doesn't want 3C to end the auction.

What if there were no interference.
Does the "slow" way to 3NT "show" a stop in the 4th suit -- ♥ ?
Does the "direct" way "deny" a stop ?

Personally, I can't recall ever using the "slow" Leb route to 3NT after a Reverse, and, unfortunately, I don't have my Anderson Lebensohl reference with me.... lol .

EDIT 1: Anyway, by a similar theme, I have game values for 3NT where "slow-shows" stop(s)in opp suit ( ♥ ), and " direct-denies" a stop .

EDIT 2: Well, I can see something wrong with the above approach: The lead will be into through Opener's hand.

jillybean, on 2012-September-08, 10:19, said:

I think partner rebid 3nt show ♥ stopper with 9-11p,it is not allowed to bid 4nt as quantitative by opener.
so this is a simple common problem,merely.

I am having trouble finding a responding hand, on this particular auction, which would need to bid 2nt/then 3nt --or a direct 3nt---without a heart stopper. What did 1S show? If it showed 5, fine with less than 9 pts, we can still rebid 2S redundantly. With 3 clubs we can leben to 3C with less than nine. With 3 clubs and 9+, we can bid 3C.

I always liked the K-S approach, but most partners want to play Lebish, so recently I have tried to merge them with the goal of convincing all to go both ways:

1X-1M(1N)
2R-?

2M = 5+, ambiguous strength
2N --> 3C = EITHER bad hand, 5-8 (will pass or bid 3X to play) OR 9-11 or 15+, 4 in M, stops
3X = inv values, in practice usually GF (9-11 support)
3N = 12-14, stop
4X = GF values, in practice usually slammish (12+ support)
4th suit = natch, 4M-5+4th, 9+

after R's 2N, O can break with true GF hand, using K-S Updated structure.

This is optimized for 1RF reverses on mins something like x AQTx AKT9xx xx, not to everyone's taste, and Kickback. Also play 1X-1Y/1S and 1D-1M/2C as forcing, the latter seq as in K-SU, to allow inv+ splinters. All seems to fit pretty well.

jillybean, on 2012-September-08, 10:19, said:

Without interference, 2H! over 2D is Leb. [ See the "pinned" primer on Reverse bidding at the top of this forum ] .

Perhaps it should still be with the 1H interference on this hand.
That way, it leaves room for Opener to first bid NT ( 2NT ) with ♥-stop(s), especially if he had A Q .... Of course in this example, he doesn't have hearts.

aguahombre, on 2012-September-09, 11:44, said:

Slow shows, fast denies is for lebensohl over 1nt auctions. Reverse auctions are necessarily suit oriented so if you bid notrump you mean notrump stopper wise so I agree with this.

That's why it is called Ingberman instead of lebensohl in my neck of the woods.

I am interested why you use 2NT as Lebensohl here rather than 2♥ (the lower of the 4th suit and 2NT). Given the agreements in place it seems that Frances nailed this early on (as usual).

ggwhiz, on 2012-September-09, 20:04, said:

Zelandakh, on 2012-September-10, 05:23, said:

I think there was a recent thread on the distinction between Lebensohl and Ingberman, but I'm too lazy to search for it. To summarize what I believe to be the case:

Lebensohl (over reverses) and Ingberman are identical EXCEPT in the case where opener reverses into 2D. In that case, Lebensohl uses the lower of 4th suit/2NT as the artificial weak bid; Ingberman always uses 2NT as the artificial weak bid. Therefore, in Jillybean's original post, North (if 2NT was intended as the artificial weak bid, whether or not 3NT was a planned followup) was playing Ingberman, not Lebensohl.

I think it's confusing to use the term "Lebensohl" in this context, because many people assume that it has the same structure as Lebensohl in other auctions, so that all weak responder hands go through 2NT. I'd suggest using Tim Bourke's designation, "Modified Blackout", if I thought anyone would listen.