[rona_]

Scoring: MP

---

the bidding" Pass pass 1nt 2clubs by south (alerted as one suited hand) 2 hearts by West, pass pass pass. Lead was the 6 of clubs.


Playing lebensohl without any special partnership agreements, how would you bid the West hand over a natural two clubs and how would you bid it in the hand above. Do you need a special agreement to play transfers over an artificial two clubs? Do you only play lebensohl over two diamonds, hearts and spades? And another question not related to this hand. What about doubles over natural two club bids or non natural bids. Is there a general rule as to which one is stayman and which is penalty?

Many thanks to all who respond.

Rona

[paulg]

When an opponent calls over your 1NT, you need an agreement as to when you play "systems on", that is, when are transfers still used. In SAYC this is actually defined: systems are on over a double, and systems are off over any other interference. This is a reasonable arrangement over a strong 1NT especially when the double is non-penalty. In other natural bidding systems, the use of "systems on" tends to be poorly defined and, without discussion, I would assume that systems are off after interference.

With regards to bidding this hand over the nebulous 2♣, my first decision is whether to force to game or not. The options are:

• Bid 2♠ - this is to play and would be the conservative choice (maybe not a bad idea at matchpoints)
  
• Bid 2NT (Lebensohl) and follow up with 3♠ - this is invitational but I'd prefer a sixth spade for this sequence in case partner passes!
  
• Bid 3♠ - this is game forcing and asks partner to choose the best game

This hand is borderline but I am an aggressive soul and would bid 3♠.

With respect to doubles of natural and artificial bids, my preference is that:

• doubles of artificial bids should show values, essentially a balanced or quasi-balanced hand that would invite game or better
  
• doubles of natural 2♣/2♦ bids are played as Staymanic
  
• doubles of natural 2♥/2♠ bids are played as values for 2NT (or better) with at least a doubleton in their suit

This method gives up the direct penalty double but allows you to handle more hands.

What's standard? Hard to tell, but opposite an expert I'd expect doubles of natural and artificial overcalls to be more takeout than penalty. With beginners, perhaps more penalty than takeout.

Paul

[csdenmark]

Lebensohl is a bit complicated to handle so not wise for beginners/intermediate to deal with.

You find the sequences here: Lebensohl and other conventions in BSS format

[helene_t]

Lebensohl defines 2NT as a pubbet to 3♣ so you can bid 3x either directly or via 2NT. This can be used to distinguish forcing hands from invitational hands or to distinguish hands with a stop in the enemy suit from hands without. The details depend on what version of Lebensohl you play and, in particular, whether your suit is higher-ranking or lower-ranking than the enemy suit.

Lebensohl does not modify 2-level free bids which are "to play" in almost all schemes. I know some play "system on" against an artificial 2♣ (dbl is Stayman).

I would consider dbl followed by 2♠. Advantages:
- If partner understands that I have an invitational hand with spades, I can show this while allowing us to stop at the 2-level.
- We get to know what suit we need to guard for 3NT.

Disdavantages:
- It allows South to tell his parrtner what suit to lead against a spades contract.
- Partner may misunderstand. He may think that I have a weak hand with four spades and longer clubs.

[kenberg]

"Playing Lebensohl without any special partnership agreements" is apt to cause trouble. If a pick-up wants to play Leb I try to get the following minimal agreement: Leb is on if (and only if) the suit they bid shows that suit with or without another, specified or unspecified. Thus 1N-(2D=dont)- 3N denies a diamond stopper, 1N-(2D=majors)-3N is to play. This is hardly optimal but it is something. In the case at hand, Leb would be off but you are still left with the option of whether transfers are on. I like to play that they are (specifically after an artificial 2C, where double can be Stayman) but others differ. I do not assume they play this unless they have said so.

So now: undiscussed, what do I do with this hand. Prayer might help. If I have played a few hands with pard I might have some idea of what he might think undiscussed bids might mean. I would not bid hearts. I would either bid spades (hoping he doesn't think it a transfer to clubs) or pass, intending to bid spades over the expected continuation of (2D)-pass-(2H). The trouble with this latter is pard will not play me for this much strength. Doubling and then bidding spades might be right, but risks some misunderstanding. If I pass, probably N will bid 2H rather than 2D (assuming he understands 2C) followed by pass-pass to me. Back to prayer now. I would probably bid 2S.

With most partners, I would expect them to think an immediate 2S showed spades not clubs, and I would expect them to think it showed values since I had the option of waiting and then competing with 2S. This seems logical to me, but playing pick-up you simply take your chances.

[pclayton]

I don't play Lebensohl over any 2♣ call, regardless of its meaning. System is on; transfers (and whatever your 2♠ and higher calls mean). Double is basically stayman, but pard is allowed to pass.

[mike777]

My guess is the vast majority 98%+ of bridge players have not discussed in full detail what they play over strong 1nt interference.

[HeartA]

I would treat West's hand as game forcing strength. Playing Lebensohl (standard without special discussion), I would bid 3S, forcing to game. Yes, it's unfortunate that 4S would fail due to 5-0 spades.

Direct 2H over 2C is weak and 1NT opener should pass. While via 2NT (responder) - 3C (1NT opener) - 3X (responder), if X is higher than opp's suit, it is invitational, if X is lower than opp's suit, it is weak.

[HeartA]

mike777, on Dec 3 2006, 03:31 PM, said:

My guess is the vast majority 98%+ of bridge players have not discussed in full detail what they play over strong 1nt interference.

I don't think so. With Lebensohl, it is detailed enough to deal with interference.

Or you could add lebensohl over 2D and up, system on over 2C as Phil said.

[mike777]

HeartA, on Dec 3 2006, 05:45 PM, said:

mike777, on Dec 3 2006, 03:31 PM, said:

My guess is the vast majority 98%+ of bridge players have not discussed in full detail what they play over strong 1nt interference.

I don't think so. With Lebensohl, it is detailed enough to deal with interference.

Or you could add lebensohl over 2D and up, system on over 2C as Phil said.

Even with Lebensohl there is great debate...most play slow shows stopper but fast shows stopper is better in theory.

Ok but I really believe the number is closer to 99.5% do not discuss in full detail.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

without any discussion, defence against
any intervention is hard.
But you have the option to pass, to find
out which suit he holds.
Giving you the chance to use your methods
against natural overcalls.

Another option

- X showing values, suggesting a penalty,
will earn money, if they regular overcall on
crap red vs. green
- 2x natural, competitive
- 2NT Lebensohl, showing at least inv. values,
2NT followed by a suit bid on the 3 level over 3C
shows one suiter with inv. strength
- jump to the 3 level shows a suiter with game
forcing values

With kind regards
Marlowe

[awm]

Most established pairs have discussed lebensohl a bit. I think the common agreements include:

(1) Systems on over X and possibly 2♣. In the US most people play systems on over both, perhaps in part because Hamilton (2♣ showing any one suit) is so common.

(2) Slow shows stopper, fast denies (or the reverse, but this is the more common agreement in the US).

The hand in question was problematic because one partner thought systems were on over 2♣ and the other did not.

The situation where established pairs often have trouble is when the overcall is artificial. For example:

1NT - (2♦ majors): is 2M to play (lebensohl), or a good hand with a minor (unusual v. unusual), or stopper showing? Does double show diamonds, strength in a major, both minors, general values?

1NT - (2♦ one major): What does double show? How about pass followed by double?

1NT - (2♥ showing spades): Is double showing hearts or general values? How about pass followed by double? What does 2♠ show (probably not to play...)?

If a particular method over 1NT is commonplace where people play they've often discussed it, but a novel method (regardless of technical merit) can take even strong pairs by surprise. Even the relatively innocuous Landy 2♣ (majors) sometimes confuses people who are used to playing double of 2♣ as "stayman" (perhaps not the best choice when 2♣ was majors).

[inquiry]

Lebehshol never applies over 2♣ overcall. Lebehshol is a way (among other things) to signoff in 3 of a suit or, invite to game in three of a suit. Over 2♣ you can just play new suit at the two level not forcing, jumps to three level invite, and cue-bid game force (and double takeout), or of course, system on with double as stayman and transfers. Lebehnshol always starts at 2♦.... at least that has always been my understanding.

[csdenmark]

inquiry, on Dec 5 2006, 04:40 AM, said:

Lebehshol never applies over 2♣ overcall. Lebehshol is a way (among other things) to signoff in 3 of a suit or, invite to game in three of a suit. Over 2♣ you can just play new suit at the two level not forcing, jumps to three level invite, and cue-bid game force (and double takeout), or of course, system on with double as stayman and transfers.  Lebehnshol always starts at 2♦.... at least that has always been my understanding.

Here you are certainly right Ben that Lebensohl does not apply. I think the explanation is important.

Lebensohl is a 3-way tool.
Lebensohl is NOT a 4-way tool.
Lebensohl is NOT a 2 way tool(mostly).

The requirements for Lebensohl is a genuine suit has been shown. Therefore Lebensohl is mostly used over preempts. The limit use and the complex structure are the reasons why Lebensohl is a tool not worth considering for beginners/intermediates.

[kenberg]

While it may be right to play that Lebensohl is off over 2C regardless of the meaning of 2C that is not a universal opinion. And of course the problem here was whether transfers were on. This is a related problem but not the same problem.

Imo, it isn't really that Lebensohl is too complicated for intermediates, rather it is too unsettled for pick-ups. It's a useful convention but it's pretty easy to find five people with five different views about what means what. Here is an example: In Lebensohl you can bid, after the overcall, Stayman with a stopper 1N-(2D)-2N-3C-3D, and Stayman w/o a stopper 1N-(2D)-3D. But if 2D does not show opponent's diamonds both these auctions probably show our diamonds, the second forcing, the first not. You hope. Further, suppose the overcall is 2C (natural). You see the problem: a 2N bid brings 3C, over which you cannot bid 3C Stayman. But suppose double is Stayman. OK, now X = Stayman w/o club stop, 3C =Stayman with club stop. Or vice-versa. Or neither. Folks do not all see it the same. Thay are often very certain, but their certainty is different from other's certainty.


Leb is fine, including for intermediates, but you need to agree on a source.

[sfbp]

I normally play that the meaning of their interventions doesn't make a difference to the meaning of my bid except in one case: where the overcaller promises one specific suit and it isn't the one he names.

This is a philosophy from precision, where people just like to make rubbish bids.

Having said that, I play leb over 2♦ and up. Trying to recapture my ability to describe the hand.

After X, with a weak (actually 12-15) NT I play that runouts are on, which is not the same as systems on. With a strong nt (15-17), systems are on, 2C may be desperation stayman.

After 2C, regardless of meaning, I play systems on in either case. Why? Because about half the time opps make the wrong bid, and I don't want to get a bad score because they misbid. It's impossible to have firm agreements about your bids' meanings when opponents may get theirs wrong and are bidding destructively (the basis of all interference). In addition I've lost nothing relative to no interference.

2♣ gives me the chance to double or bid 3♣ for stayman, and to transfer as usual.

Much better in my experience to have bidding agreements that do not change with different flavours of opponents' conventional overcalls.

Granted, if they bid 2♦ showing ♥ then it's worth having some ammo ready, but in the absence of discussion double is "natural" (neg or penalty depending on partnership) in all other cases of 2♦ thru 2♠.

What about X of 2♣ as a transfer to 2♦? Anyone ever tried that? Seems to me it ought to work as you still have 3♣ as stayman albeit a bigger (or wilder) hand.

Stephen

[bid_em_up]

inquiry, on Dec 4 2006, 09:40 PM, said:

Lebehshol never applies over 2♣ overcall. Lebehshol is a way (among other things) to signoff in 3 of a suit or, invite to game in three of a suit. Over 2♣ you can just play new suit at the two level not forcing, jumps to three level invite, and cue-bid game force (and double takeout), or of course, system on with double as stayman and transfers.  Lebehnshol always starts at 2♦.... at least that has always been my understanding.

While this may be the way you play it, I am fairly certain it is not what Ron Anderson describes in his book, "The Lebenshol Convention Complete".

But I am at work and the book is at home, so I cannot check it right now. The best I can do is refer you to Bridgeguys.com which says after 1N-2x, where X is listed first:

RHO bids 2C/D/H/S = X is penalty.
RHO bids 2C = 2D/2H/2S are to play.
RHO bids 2D = 2H/2S are to play.
RHO bids 2H = 2S is to play.

Many people apparently like systems on and stolen bid doubles over NT interference when 2C is the suit bid. I am not a fan of this treatment, however.

[kenberg]

Stephen,
Your way of playing Lebensohl is probably fine, as are other ways, but really I see all this as proving mostly that if a pick-up partner wants to play Lebensohl there is a lot for to be said for declining if he will let you, or agreeing and then hoping the ambiguous cases do not arise.

With a pick-up, the main task is to avoid playing in 2-2 fits. Here is something that happened the other day:
1D 1H
2C 3H
?

Partner might mean 3H as invitational, partner might mean 3H as forcing. I passed, partner meant it as forcing and had the values for forcing. But all cards were wrong and she took only 9 tricks for a very good board our way. We were in a bad contract, but not a hopeless contract.

The point is that if you are wrong in a situation like this, you may recover even if the odds are against it. If you land in a 2-2 fit, you cannot recover. The conclusion I draw is that playing Lebensohl is fine if you have time to get it straight, otherwise junk it. The same goes for Bergen raises. I have seen partnerships land in horrible contracts because one of them thought 1H-(X)-3D is still Bergen and the other thought it was not. Whatever the merits of Bergen raises (I am not an enthusiast) clearly they should be played only if there is time or resources to be clear on when they are on/off.

Lebensohl/Bergen/Drury/transfers, even Stayman, have the potential to land the user in a no-possible-way contract if there is not time for discussion. All of these conventions are fine for intermediates. It's the pick-up partnerships that have trouble.

[csdenmark]

bid_em_up, on Dec 5 2006, 10:10 PM, said:

inquiry, on Dec 4 2006, 09:40 PM, said:

Lebehshol never applies over 2♣ overcall. Lebehshol is a way (among other things) to signoff in 3 of a suit or, invite to game in three of a suit. Over 2♣ you can just play new suit at the two level not forcing, jumps to three level invite, and cue-bid game force (and double takeout), or of course, system on with double as stayman and transfers.  Lebehnshol always starts at 2♦.... at least that has always been my understanding.

While this may be the way you play it, I am fairly certain it is not what Ron Anderson describes in his book, "The Lebenshol Convention Complete".

But I am at work and the book is at home, so I cannot check it right now. The best I can do is refer you to Bridgeguys.com which says after 1N-2x, where X is listed first:

RHO bids 2C/D/H/S = X is penalty.
RHO bids 2C = 2D/2H/2S are to play.
RHO bids 2D = 2H/2S are to play.
RHO bids 2H = 2S is to play.

Many people apparently like systems on and stolen bid doubles over NT interference when 2C is the suit bid. I am not a fan of this treatment, however.

This is correct Ron Anderson - thats the one you have in full in the web-site link I provided on top of this thread.

Please remember 2♣ must be a genuine suit and after 1NT opening 2♣ interference mostly means something else(any 1-suiter or ♥+♠). Therefore Ben is right Lebensohl is not right here.

[csdenmark]

kenberg, on Dec 5 2006, 10:15 PM, said:

Lebensohl/Bergen/Drury/transfers, even Stayman, have the potential to land the user in a no-possible-way contract if there is not time for discussion. All of these conventions are fine for intermediates. It's the pick-up partnerships that have trouble.

Ken the point of conventions are they will normally work just perfect for all who knows and need no discussions. It is in fact therefore much talk in BBO Forum is just confusing for many who want to take advantage from others knowledge. There are too little knowledge and all too much personal elaboration. Often it is impossible to see what is what.

There are oceans between Bergen/Drury/transfers and Lebensohl.
The first ones are all fairly simple and frequently used. Lebensohl is complicated and rarely used. Lebensohl will lead you to disasters if mis-interpretated.