[edNZ]

Am currently adding this to my system, and it seems a fairly universal treatment that a direct bid of 3NT denies a stopper in the overcalled suit, whilst a 1NT - (2X) - 2NT - 3C - 3X - 3NT sequence confirms a stopper is held by responder.

Am interested to hear if there is a good/logical reason for this please. Its just that it seems vaguely counter-intuitive and so I would like to know why the system has evolved in this fashion.

If it is of any relevance, I play a 12-14 NT - and this is one of the reasons I am anxious to include it - as, by implication, interference is more likely over this range, than a stronger range.

Any comments on the overall usefulness of this convention also welcomed. If it is worthwhile then I am happy to use it (and it seems that way). But if it doesnt 'add much value' then its probably not a good idea to include something which is reasonably complicated

Thanks.

[ArcLight]

What is the opponents interference shows 2 suits?
What does Lebensohl show? One stopper?

[edNZ]

My understanding is that if a 2-suited overcall includes the suit being bid, then Leb can be used. e.g. 2H showing Hearts and a Minor is deemed a 'Natural' overcall. However, 2D showing both Majors is NOT natural, as neither major is specifically bid. Bidding after an artificial overcall seems to be a related, but separate topic.

Good question on the'number of stoppers'. I assume one is sufficient. In an ideal world a 'decent' stopper would be preferable, but, equally, 1NT may be able to provide further assistance in the suit in any case.

[bid_em_up]

It evolved in that fashion because it is easy to remember "Direct Denies".

When it was originally espoused some 20+ years ago, you would frequently run across pairs that were playing "Direct Promises stop" and "slow" denies. You may still encounter some pairs that do, but it is no longer mainstream.

It is extremely useful in the fact that it lets you describe your hand more accurately (forcing, invitational, or non-forcing).

It becomes even more useful when combined with such things as leb after X of weak 2, and leb after reverse which allow responder to clarify whether or not they actually hold decent values or not (but dont worry about those too much right now).

A single stop is sufficient (all that you promise anyway) when showing a stop via a Leb sequence.

Leb is not quite as efficient when dealing with two suited overcalls. Somewhere around here, I have the book on leb, which describes when it can be used and when it cannot. If I remember correctly, it can be used against two suited overcalls where at least one of the suits is known, but not in cases where both suits are unknown (but it has been a while since I have actually read it). And unfortunately, it may be in storage at the moment.

While I dont have any cold, hard facts to back this statement up, I cannot imagine any top pair not playing leb (unless they have some other method of dealing with a similar hand).

Go ahead and add it to your arsenal. In the long run, it ranks right up there with RKC, transfers, and negative doubles, as one of the few conventions that absolutely must be played, imo.

[FrancesHinden]

Direct shows is, I believe, the majority approach here in the UK.

I don't believe there's any strong theoretical difference between the two: while 'direct denies' may be easily memorable, also easily memorable is that bidding 3NT at the first opportunity shows a strong desire to play in 3NT!

[whereagles]

Try SSS - slow show stop.

[david_c]

edNZ, on May 22 2006, 02:15 AM, said:

Am currently adding this to my system, and it seems a fairly universal treatment that a direct bid of 3NT denies a stopper in the overcalled suit, whilst a 1NT - (2X) - 2NT - 3C - 3X - 3NT sequence confirms a stopper is held by responder.

Am interested to hear if there is a good/logical reason for this please.

It's easier to understand if you look at a different sort of Lebensohl situation: that is, after a double of a weak two. Then if you compare

(2X) - dbl - 3X

and

(2X) - dbl - 2NT - 3C - 3X

you want the first of these to deny a stop and the second of these to show a stop, because it makes a difference to who is declarer in NT. From this you get the principle "fast denies", and for consistency people then like to apply it to any other sequence where you have a choice of going through 2NT or not.

[FrancesHinden]

You do have a point, though in fact we've recently decided that the auction (2X) x (P) is so different to 1NT (2X) ? that there's no logic in playing the same way in both auctions.

(
the two big differences are:
i) in one case only you can choose who declares the NT
ii) you don't have a take-out double available after (2X) x (P), which has a big impact on all the other possible auctions, because you have to fit many more hand types in
)

[Cascade]

bid_em_up, on May 22 2006, 05:40 PM, said:

It is extremely useful in the fact that it lets you describe your hand more accurately (forcing, invitational, or non-forcing).

In some auctions you cannot invite in some suits. You also give up a natural invitational 2NT.

Quote

A single stop is sufficient (all that you promise anyway) when showing a stop via a Leb sequence.

This is a two way shot. Either partner has a second stop or you have nine running tricks (perhaps you need some finesses).

Quote

While I dont have any cold, hard facts to back this statement up, I cannot imagine any top pair not playing leb (unless they have some other method of dealing with a similar hand).

I am not claiming to be part of a top pair but I usually play quite happily without Lebensohl.

We play this simple structure:

X = takeout - double and bid is forcing (usually forcing to game but if we can get our suit in at the two-level it is only a one-round force)

new suit natural and not-forcing

2NT natural and invitational - shows a stopper

jump new suit to three-level natural and forcing (slammish)

cue-bid asks for a stopper

3NT natural to play shows a stopper

4min = two suiter

4Maj to play

This seems to work ok. So I think you can happily play without Lebensohl.

Having said all of this I frequently play Lebensohl in other partnerships and it solves the same problems.

[bid_em_up]

Cascade, on May 22 2006, 06:27 AM, said:

bid_em_up, on May 22 2006, 05:40 PM, said:

It is extremely useful in the fact that it lets you describe your hand more accurately (forcing, invitational, or non-forcing).

In some auctions you cannot invite in some suits. You also give up a natural invitational 2NT.

Quote

A single stop is sufficient (all that you promise anyway) when showing a stop via a Leb sequence.

This is a two way shot. Either partner has a second stop or you have nine running tricks (perhaps you need some finesses).

Quote

While I dont have any cold, hard facts to back this statement up, I cannot imagine any top pair not playing leb (unless they have some other method of dealing with a similar hand).

I am not claiming to be part of a top pair but I usually play quite happily without Lebensohl.

We play this simple structure:

X = takeout - double and bid is forcing (usually forcing to game but if we can get our suit in at the two-level it is only a one-round force)

new suit natural and not-forcing

2NT natural and invitational - shows a stopper

jump new suit to three-level natural and forcing (slammish)

cue-bid asks for a stopper

3NT natural to play shows a stopper

4min = two suiter

4Maj to play

This seems to work ok. So I think you can happily play without Lebensohl.

Having said all of this I frequently play Lebensohl in other partnerships and it solves the same problems.

Why do I even bother?

The poster asked "Is leb a good convention to play"? I believe the answer to be yes. And said so, while at the same time attempting to show that although I do not know it for a fact, it is my BELIEF that the majority of expert partnerships will play some variation of Leb UNLESS they have some other method of dealing with these sorts of auctions. These include Leb after weak twos and/or leb after reverses. Until you are familiar with Leb over NT interference, the latter two are much more difficult to understand.

The poster asked, "Does Leb show only one stop or does it show more than one"? I answered, A leb sequence only promises one stop by the 2N bidder. Whether or not the NT opener has one is a moot point (and has nothing to do with the original question). Of course he can have one. Then again, maybe he doesnt. The whole point behind Leb is stay out of 3N when neither opener and responder have a stop in the overcalled suit.

Yes, you "may" give up a sequence that is invitational in a minor suit, although there are ways around this. Certain agreements can differentiate whether the auction is forcing to game or simply invitational, depending on responders next call.

Giving up a "natural" 2N invitation is no great loss, imo. If you have this, you should be whacking what they bid for penalties the majority of the time.

BTW, there are also flaws in your mentioned methodology that I can see just on a quick glance. How are you going to bid the following hand after 1N (2S) ?"

xxx KQxxx KJx xx

3H? Natural and non-forcing according to what you stated.
X and then 3H over partners 3C/3D? seems to be 100% forcing on your methods. I could live with this, although I don't consider this to be a "forcing" hand.
3S? maybe, if you really want to be in 3N.
4H? yea, right. Knock yourself out.

But then again, maybe I am not reading what you wrote correctly. (Or you omitted something).

How do you whack opp for penalty when its right to do so? Doesnt appear that you can, to me.

This doesnt even begin to address the fact that while this may work fine for you and your regular partner, I would lay you 100-1 odds that you cannot sit down at a table with a brand new partner and say "Cascade over NT interference, pd?", and expect them to have the foggiest idea of what you are talking about, nor can you give them a cursory summary and expect it to be remembered or successful at the table. (In other words, this is a treatment that you use instead of leb, as I originally referred to.)

[kenberg]

1. I seriously doubt that there is any strong reason for slow shows stopper over slow denies stopper. I play slow shows because everyone I play with plays slow shows.

2. I like to play: If the suit they overcall in shows that suit, with or without another suit, known or unknown, then Leb is on and refers to that suit. If the suit they overcall in does not show that suit, then Leb is off. With work, you can do better than this but you need some sort of rule and this one usually suffices. There are other issues as well with Leb and I recomend reading some full treatment and adopting whatever is given in its entirety.

3. I think Leb earns its keep but I can imagine playing without it. It can be exciting to play 1N-(2H)-3N and let everyone guess who if anyone has a stopper.

4. Over 2something-X-Pass-?, Robinson (Washington Bridge Standard) recommends that an immediate 3NT is to play while 2NT (forcing) and then 3NT shows a willingness to play 3NT but invites a pull. (Note that this is a psychological clash with slow shows over nt.) I like this. Both auctions assume that the doubler does not have a stop and so, presumably, the NT bidder does. There is a cost here in not being able to respond to the X with 2N to play but if the follow-ups are carefully discussed then I think again it earns its keep.

Obviously taking away a natural call is always a cost. In the case of Lebensohl I think it is often played without adequate discussion and so you pay the price of eliminating the natural call without getting full benefit of the convention. This could well be a bad bargain. With enough discussion I think the general consensus is that it is worthwhile. As you see, there are dissenting views.

[Tomi2]

I play (learned) Leb this way:

slow shows... the 4 card major!
fast denies the 4 card major

every 3nt bid shows a stopper and every cuebid in ops suit asks for s atopper

so if you pass 3nt you always have a stopper (either after 2nt and after not bidding 2nt) and if your partner bids 3 in ops suits he asks you for a hold.


in the case (2♠) - x - (p) - 3NT = I have no hold and no 4 card ♥ the NT is played by the wrong person

if you play like I suggested the bidding would be (2♠) - x (p) - 3♠ - (p) - 3NT


on the other hand, if the bidding goes:
(2♠) - x - (p) - 2NT - (p) - 3♣ - (p) - 3!S - (p) - 3NT the NT will be played from the wrong side, but in most cases the X-bidder has also a 4 card ♥ suit so 4♥ will be the contract

[joshs]

People play fast arrival in lots of auctions, so its convienyant for memory reasons to play fast arrival, but this is slightly inferior for a number of reasons:
a. If you have 2/3 small and partner has a weak holding the opps 2 level call might get raised, which will let you x it and go plus rather than get to 4 of a minor...
b. If you have a stopper and have to bid 2N first this gives you LHO a chance to get a 3 level lead direct in (its not often this happens...)

Also, when you have the stayman and a stopper hand, what the heck do you bid with Ax Kxxx QJxxx xx after
1N-(2S)-2N-(3S)-P-P-?

What exactly does x show here? Maybe it is the stayman and a stopper hand...

Note: In leb over weak 2 x, bidding NT to show no stopper is a terrible way to play. Most people use 3N direct and 2N then 3Nt either to:
a. distinguish how NT oriented you are
or
b. distinguish strength

I think a is better, using 2N then 3N on a hand like:
Qxx xx KQJxx Axx (showing doubt that 3N is correct)
While direct jumps show a strong liking for playing NT.

[edNZ]

Thanks for all your replies and comments.

It seems that there is little in the way of absolute reason for 'direct denies' being employed. I did, however, come to a vague conclusion that (when playing a weak NT) the bid of 3NT prevents LHO from bidding 3 of their major which, in turn, may help their partner save in 4M once in a blue moon. It also prevents LHO from bidding a new suit at the 3 level which would need to be a decent suit, and effectively lead directional. Seems joshs also believes this is a possible reason also :-)

i.e. 1NT - (2H) - 3NT cuts out the ability for LHO to bid 3H (or even to mention 3C or 3D which would have to be a decent suit, and lead directional).

I already use a version of Lebensohl if partner has reversed and I have a poor hand, although in reality it comes up extremely rarely. I am also open to using it after a weak 2 opening by opps, although I am a little less convinced that 2NT is not useful as a natural bid in this instance. All in good time....

[Cascade]

Quote

Yes, you "may" give up a sequence that is invitational in a minor suit, although there are ways around this.  Certain agreements can differentiate whether the auction is forcing to game or simply invitational, depending on responders next call.

Giving up a "natural" 2N invitation is no great loss, imo. If you have this, you should be whacking what they bid for penalties the majority of the time.

In your first post you stated:

bid_em_up, on May 22 2006, 05:40 PM, said:

It is extremely useful in the fact that it lets you describe your hand more accurately (forcing, invitational, or non-forcing).

My point is that this is an overstatement. There are many invitational hands that you cannot show via Lebensohl and in fact one of its fundamentals is that it gives up on a natural invitational 2NT.

Quote

BTW, there are also flaws in your mentioned methodology that I can see just on a quick glance.  How are you going to bid the following hand after 1N (2S) ?"

xxx KQxxx KJx xx

3H? Natural and non-forcing according to what you stated.
X and then 3H over partners 3C/3D?  seems to be 100% forcing on your methods. I could live with this, although I don't consider this to be a "forcing" hand.
3S? maybe, if you really want to be in 3N.
4H? yea, right. Knock yourself out.

How do you handle this invitational hand via Lebensohl:

not 2NT that is artificial and shows a weak hand if you rebid 3♥

not 3♥ that is forcing

not Double if you play that for penalties or maybe you do :

Quote

Giving up a "natural" 2N invitation is no great loss, imo. If you have this, you should be whacking what they bid for penalties the majority of the time.

I wouldn't want to be "whacking" the opponents with this hand - no trump tricks, potential disaster if partner has a good heart fit etc.

Personally I would be happy to force to game if we find a heart fit then great. If partner has a good spade stopper then we are likely to have some chance of nine tricks and in my partnership on this type of auction we can get out in 4minor if partner has a five-card minor (hopefully diamons) and no fit for hearts and no spade stopper.

Quote

How do you whack opp for penalty when its right to do so?  Doesnt appear that you can, to me.

We play negative or takeout doubles when they overcall 1NT. My guess is that this is quite a common practice these days. I certainly don't miss penalty doubles

Penalty doubles are low frequency and can be handled other ways by a natural 2NT or 3NT or even a pass and if you are lucky partner will back in with a takeout double of his own which you convert.

Quote

This doesnt even begin to address the fact that while this may work fine for you and your regular partner, I would lay you 100-1 odds that you cannot sit down at a table with a brand new partner and say "Cascade over NT interference, pd?", and expect them to have the foggiest idea of what you are talking about, nor can you give them a cursory summary and expect it to be remembered or successful at the table.  (In other words, this is a treatment that you use instead of leb, as I originally referred to.) 

I wouldn't describe it like that but I can say :

Negative Doubles - double and bid is strong

New suits non-forcing (we can always compete for the partscore)

Jump new suits are forcing.

This covers most of my agreements and as I stated is very simple and natural.

If playing with an experienced player I can add "Leaping Michaels" to cover the 4minor bids.

Given the majority of this is natural or common (negative doubles) we are very unlikely to have a misunderstanding. I would expect this to be both successful and memorable.

The real problem that I have with Lebensohl is the ambiguity after a 2NT response e.g.

1NT (2♠) 2NT (3♠);
?

Now you can easily have a hand where you have no idea whether you have a great hand for partner or a poor hand. I prefer to resolve this ambiguity by having partner bid his suit immediately.

You can also resolve this ambiguity by using some form of transfer Lebensohl but that has other disadvantages - you give the opponents an extra bid.

So I concluded that with a few minor tweaks you can achieve almost exactly the same affect as Lebensohl by sticking to natural methods and discussing carefully some situations with your partner.

I do not claim that mine is the best method and others could easily have better solutions. But I don't think that Lebensohl adds much or any value over other good essentially natural* methods.

*Takeout doubles are not technically natural but are very common.

[glen]

kenberg, on May 22 2006, 03:29 PM, said:

1. I seriously doubt that there is any strong reason for slow shows stopper over slow denies stopper. I play slow shows because everyone I play with plays slow shows.

When you don't have a stopper, the auction is more likely to bounce. Therefore one tries to define hands without a stopper as soon as possible.

For example:

1NT-2S-3NT(denies)-4S--? --> opener here has the information to make a decision or a forcing pass

1NT-2S-2NT(leb)-4S--? --> opener here does not have available a forcing pass

So direct denies is better.

[bid_em_up]

I will assume you didnt notice, but my first post was written at 12:45 am. Sorry if it wasnt completely clear that I was referring to auctions such as:

1N (2H) 2S completely non-forcing
1N (2H) 2N 3C 3S absolutely invitational or
1N (2H) 3S 100% forcing.

The last time I checked (and it has been awhile, so I could be mistaken), the sequence 1N (2S) 2N 3C 3H shows a hand that is while not quite good enough to force to game, it is not supposed to be totally bust either. Remember, you do not HAVE to bid over 2H/2S, pass is always an option. So, the majority of times it will be an invitational hand or a hand that contains enough values to play at the 3 level, as such, it is not necessarily to be treated as absolutely non-forcing, but considered to be quasi-invitational for lack of a better description.

Again, I could be mistaken, but I am fairly certain this is how Ron Anderson describes the sequence, in his book, The Lebenshol Convention Complete. The only real "invitational" sequences you give up are those in minor suits and even these can be dealt with via certain other methods. (Dangit, now I gotta go digging through the storage unit hunting the book).

Quote

I wouldn't want to be "whacking" the opponents with this hand - no trump tricks, potential disaster if partner has a good heart fit etc.

Huh? How can a hand that by your own definition of your 2N bid (Invitational WITH stop) not have any trump tricks? Must be that new and improved logic I keep hearing so much about, but I certainly dont follow it.

Quote

We play negative or takeout doubles when they overcall 1NT.  My guess is that this is quite a common practice these days.  I certainly don't miss penalty doubles.

Oh, I am fairly certain you miss them all the time. Or at least, you miss the opportunity to make them anyway.

Quote

Penalty doubles are low frequency and can be handled other ways by a natural 2NT or 3NT or even a pass and if you are lucky partner will back in with a takeout double of his own which you convert..

Penalty doubles are only low frequency if you remove them from your arsenal of available bids, or dont make them. And, how in the name of decent bridge, can the NT opener possibly begin to "back in with a takeout double of his own", when he doesnt know if responder has any values or not??

As I stated, for me, giving up a natural 2N invitation is no great loss. In your structure, it is almost as bad (or even worse) than the leb sequence, as your 2N invitational bid is only IF responder has the stop in the overcalled suit along with invitational values. What are the actual odds of this? And if and when responder actually does hold this hand, I reiterate, you probably should be doubling them for penalty instead of inviting via 2N the majority of the time (unless you are red and they are white). Take your sure plus instead.

(As a side thought, how often do you play in 2N/3N -1? after a 2N invitational sequence, when you could have been plus by simply defending?)

If anything, I would expect X to show invitational with stop and 2N to show the takeout/invitational hand without stop. At least then you would stand some chance of defending if and when it is correct to do so.

[Cascade]

Quote

I will assume you didnt notice, but my first post was written at 12:45 am.

I think the timestamps on the posts are the local times of the reader. At least that is what appears for me. So I have no idea of your local time.

Quote

Sorry if it wasnt completely clear that I was referring to auctions such as:

1N (2H) 2S completely non-forcing
1N (2H) 2N 3C 3S absolutely invitational or
1N (2H) 3S 100% forcing.

The last time I checked (and it has been awhile, so I could be mistaken), the sequence 1N (2S) 2N 3C 3H shows a hand that is while not quite good enough to force to game, it is not supposed to be totally bust either. Remember, you do not HAVE to bid over 2H/2S, pass is always an option. So, the majority of times it will be an invitational hand or a hand that contains enough values to play at the 3 level, as such, it is not necessarily to be treated as absolutely non-forcing, but considered to be quasi-invitational for lack of a better description.

Again, I could be mistaken, but I am fairly certain this is how Ron Anderson describes the sequence, in his book, The Lebenshol Convention Complete. The only real "invitational" sequences you give up are those in minor suits and even these can be dealt with via certain other methods. (Dangit, now I gotta go digging through the storage unit hunting the book).

Quote

A TWO NOTRUMP bid is artificial, forcing opener to bid three clubs.
Responder's rebids over three clubs:
...
( Any suit bid below the rank of the overcall is a signoff.
...

The Lebensohl Convention Complete in Contract Bridge, Ron Anderson pg 16.

Ron Anderson seems to clearly state this is a sign-off. The example that he gives is a six-card heart suit with a six-count.

Quote

Quote

I wouldn't want to be "whacking" the opponents with this hand - no trump tricks, potential disaster if partner has a good heart fit etc.

Huh? How can a hand that by your own definition of your 2N bid (Invitational WITH stop) not have any trump tricks? Must be that new and improved logic I keep hearing so much about, but I certainly dont follow it.

I was referring to your example hand - the balanced 9-count with five hearts.

Quote

Quote

We play negative or takeout doubles when they overcall 1NT.  My guess is that this is quite a common practice these days.  I certainly don't miss penalty doubles.

Oh, I am fairly certain you miss them all the time. Or at least, you miss the opportunity to make them anyway.

Quote

Penalty doubles are low frequency and can be handled other ways by a natural 2NT or 3NT or even a pass and if you are lucky partner will back in with a takeout double of his own which you convert..

Penalty doubles are only low frequency if you remove them from your arsenal of available bids, or dont make them. And, how in the name of decent bridge, can the NT opener possibly begin to "back in with a takeout double of his own", when he doesnt know if responder has any values or not??

I don't strive to make penalty doubles at 2Maj. The downside is just too big. This combined with the low frequency tips the balance easily in favour of takeout doubles. It also allows us to overload the double a little which again IMO is sound practice since it is efficient to make the lowest call more frequent.

Just on general principles after an overcall two players have already announced some length in the overcalled suit and some values. How likely is it that you will also have the general strength and trump length/strength that you would want to double for penalties. Yeah Yeah I know it can happen it is just not very likely and it is much more likely that if you do have some strength you will want to be suggesting other denominations hence the takeout double.

Opener's risk in backing in is similar to the risk of coming in with a takeout double or an overcall (or even an opening bid). You don't know if partner has any strength but on balance it is worth the risk. Passing of course carries its own risks in all of these situations.

Quote

As I stated, for me, giving up a natural 2N invitation is no great loss. In your structure, it is almost as bad (or even worse) than the leb sequence, as your 2N invitational bid is only IF responder has the stop in the overcalled suit along with invitational values. What are the actual odds of this? And if and when responder actually does hold this hand, I reiterate, you probably should be doubling them for penalty instead of inviting via 2N the majority of the time (unless you are red and they are white). Take your sure plus instead.
(As a side thought, how often do you play in 2N/3N -1? after a 2N invitational sequence, when you could have been plus by simply defending?)

If anything, I would expect X to show invitational with stop and 2N to show the takeout/invitational hand without stop. At least then you would stand some chance of defending if and when it is correct to do so.

I agree giving up an invitational 2NT is no great loss. We did evolve this method to preserve the natural 2NT. We evolved it to utilize a negative double and to eliminate the ambiguity of Lebensohl. 2NT was left free so we put a natural invitation in there.