[Echognome]

I'm just curious what other experts play out there and under what circumstances might it vary. The scheme I played in my most recent partnerships was:

Suppose opponents bid at 2Y, Y is not clubs, and that X > Y > Z

2X - Natural, NF
2NT - Puppet to 3♣, then
---Pass - Sign-off
---3Z - Sign-off
---3Y - 4 of the other major (or both majors), no stopper
---3X - GF, both minors (unless X = ♥, then invitational both majors)
---3NT - GF values, no 4M (other than Y) no stopper
3Z - 5+ Next suit, Inv+ unless next suit is Y, then it shows the suit after that
3Y - 4 of the other major (or both majors), stopper
3X - 5+ Next suit, Inv+, unless X = Spades, then shows 5+ clubs, GF
3NT - GF values, no 4M (other than Y) stopper

Maybe an example will make it clearer.

1NT - (2♥) - ?

2♠ - Natural, NF
2NT - Puppet to 3♣, then
---Pass - Sign-off
---3♦ - Sign-off
---3♥ - 4♠, no ♥ stopper
---3♠ - 55 minors, GF
3♣ - 5+♦, Inv+
3♦ - 5+♠, Inv+
3♥ - 4♠, ♥ stopper
3♠ - 5+♣, GF
3NT - No 4♠, ♥ stopper

So, the question is what schemes others might play that they feel are superior (or just as good and easier to remember).

Note: I don't really care about the slow shows or fast shows part of it. I'm completely indifferent which way to play that.

[FrancesHinden]

We had a rethink about these auctions recently, and came to two conclusions:

i) the negative inferences from not doubleing the overcall have an impact on methods
ii) Whatever you play after 1NT (2suit), there's no reason to play the same after, say, (weak 2) x or (multi) x (2M) because the inferences and possible hand types are totally different.

As your original post implied you are starting with a 1NT auction, I'll worry about (i) only. Take 1NT (2H) as in your example. If you play double of 2H as we do, namely: take-out, usually a doubleton heart or very defensive with a singleton heart, then there's no need for an auction to show 4 spades and no heart stopper, because that would have doubled the first round. Also, you may as well double on virtually all balanced hands, even including a heart stop, in case partner is going to pass. It doesn't prevent you finding your spade fit. So for some of these specific auctions, we play

1NT - (2♥) - 3♥: singleton or void heart, usually a 3-suiter
1NT - (2♥)-2NT-3♣-3♥: game forcing with 5-5 minors

You don't have to take that second meaning (you have an alternative way of showing that hand type), but the point is to work out what handtypes go into the double, and remove them from the lebensohl sequences.

[Echognome]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 27 2007, 08:30 AM, said:

We had a rethink about these auctions recently, and came to two conclusions:

i) the negative inferences from not doubleing the overcall have an impact on methods
ii) Whatever you play after 1NT (2suit), there's no reason to play the same after, say, (weak 2) x or (multi) x (2M) because the inferences and possible hand types are totally different.

As your original post implied you are starting with a 1NT auction, I'll worry about (i) only. Take 1NT (2H) as in your example. If you play double of 2H as we do, namely: take-out, usually a doubleton heart or very defensive with a singleton heart, then there's no need for an auction to show 4 spades and no heart stopper, because that would have doubled the first round. Also, you may as well double on virtually all balanced hands, even including a heart stop, in case partner is going to pass. It doesn't prevent you finding your spade fit. So for some of these specific auctions, we play

1NT - (2♥) - 3♥: singleton or void heart, usually a 3-suiter
1NT - (2♥)-2NT-3♣-3♥: game forcing with 5-5 minors

You don't have to take that second meaning (you have an alternative way of showing that hand type), but the point is to work out what handtypes go into the double, and remove them from the lebensohl sequences.

Thanks for bringing up these points Frances. I didn't even think through the implications of the double. It might make it clearer that this scheme was devised with double being penalty.

Playing double for takeout may mean a variant is better. I'll have to give it some thought. Or maybe others have some.

[nielsfoged]

I play a more classical version of Lebensohl, but I think your version has many nice features, not at least due to the direct transfers, which allow you to show invitational as well as GF 5+c suits.

As you indicate, your system is somewhat complicated to remember, but IMO it is acceptable.

However, you do not mention, how you play, if 2Y shows an unknown major suit (e.g. a defensive 2♦ Multi over 1NT), or if 2Y shows both majors (e.g. a conventional 2♣). This is not easy to handle by gut feeling at the table, and I strongly advise to make a "Lebensohl"-like agreement.

My suggestion after 1NT-(2♦=Multi) is:
Dbl= either penalty of their 2Ma (typically with both majors), or 5+c in any suit, GF
2Ma=weak, nat
2NT=Leb to 3C
----pass=weak with ♣
----3♦=weak, nat
----3Ma=4c in other Major + stopper in the bid Ma, GF*
----3NT=No major suit, but in principle(!) with stopper in both, GF
3Mi=5+c, nat, invitational, NF
3Ma=4c in other Major, no stopper in the bid Ma, GF*
3NT=No major suit, in principle(!) without any major stopper, GF
*The rule is:"Lebensohl cue-bid as if you knew their major"!

After 1NT-(2♦=Multi)-Dbl-(2♥), there are basically two options:
pass=2-3♥s
Dbl=4(5)♥s

After 1NT-(2♦=Multi)-Dbl-(2♥), pass-(pass/2♠):
Dbl=penalty
2NT=unknown 5+c suit, and stopper in opp's major, GF!
3New=5+c suit, GF, no stopper in opp's major
3Opps=splinter w. 5+c other Major and slaminterest
3NT=same as 2NT, but NF

There is even more to discuss, and obviously other ways to handle this type of interference. However, similar principles can be used against, e.g. 2♣=both majors.

Niels

[Echognome]

Niels - Over a multi bid, I kick-in a separate meta defense. Over a 2-suited bid, I also kick-in a separate defense. Bids showing the major are definitely some of the more difficult. But it does bring up a good point.

[pclayton]

I've been toying around with this too. The original Rubensohl idea used a direct 3♠ as a generic stopper ask in the overcalled suit. This is a pretty worthless idea IMO. The other sequences which can use some updating is the simple 1N - (2♥) - 3♣, which is usually defined as "invitational plus".

Here's what I would propose:

1N - (2♥) - ?

(Note: 2♥ is either a single suited hand with hearts, or hearts and an unknown minor)

Pass - Either a weak hand or a trap.

Double - Negative, but denying 4♠. Sort of a 2-3 double. Values are at least equivalent to an invite to 2N.

2♠ - competitive, 4+ to play.

2N - transfer to ♣'s, either showing a ♣ bust, an invitational hand with ♦'s or spades, or 4 spades with a heart stopper

3♣ - transfer to ♦'s. Either weak or GF

3♦ - transfer to their suit. Stayman for spades without a stopper.

3♥ - transfer to spades - GF

3♠ - transfer to clubs - GF

3N - To play

___________

The other overcall that seems to be a quandary on how to defend is a 2♦ multi-landy or Woolsey call showing a single suited major. There's probably an optimal method, since responder can pass initially and show different hand types later, but I don't know what that is. In general, I think that its correct to let them sort out their suit, and then have Rubensohl kick in.

[awm]

Here's what Sam and I play. A few observations beforehand:

(1) I have observed some horrendous results from bidding 2♠ on "4+ cards, competitive" over a 2♥ overcall. I have really no interest in playing this style which seems to lead to frequent 4-2 fits.

(2) I like to show my suit right away with a distributional hand. Opposite a strong notrump (Sam and I play 14-16 but still more or less strong) the strength will often be fairly evenly divided, and I'd like partner to have the option of competing to the four level holding four-card support for my long suit.

(3) We play negative doubles over 1NT-(bid) which more or less eliminates the need for a stayman sequence.

(4) We're not very addicted to inviting over our notrump bids, and are willing to sacrifice the "invite" after interference in many sequences.

We play:

X = negative/takeout
2M = natural NF
2NT = transfer to ♣, always 5+♣, any strength (usually 6+♣ if weak)
3♣ = transfer to ♦, always 5+♦, any strength (usually 6+♦ if weak)
Transfer to their suit = ask for stopper, accept shows a half stopper, 3NT shows full stop
Transfer to major biddable at 2-level = 5+ in suit transferred to, inv+
3NT = shows a stopper, natural to play
4-level = south african transfers still on, 4M to play

[mikeh]

pclayton, on Aug 27 2007, 12:37 PM, said:

I've been toying around with this too. The original Rubensohl idea used a direct 3♠ as a generic stopper ask in the overcalled suit. This is a pretty worthless idea IMO. The other sequences which can use some updating is the simple 1N - (2♥) - 3♣, which is usually defined as "invitational plus".

Here's what I would propose:

1N - (2♥) - ?

(Note: 2♥ is either a single suited hand with hearts, or hearts and an unknown minor)

Pass - Either a weak hand or a trap.

Double - Negative, but denying 4♠. Sort of a 2-3 double. Values are at least equivalent to an invite to 2N.

2♠ - competitive, 4+ to play.

2N - transfer to ♣'s, either showing a ♣ bust, an invitational hand with ♦'s or spades, or 4 spades with a heart stopper

3♣ - transfer to ♦'s. Either weak or GF

3♦ - transfer to their suit. Stayman for spades without a stopper.

3♥ - transfer to spades - GF

3♠ - transfer to clubs - GF

3N - To play

___________

The other overcall that seems to be a quandary on how to defend is a 2♦ multi-landy or Woolsey call showing a single suited major. There's probably an optimal method, since responder can pass initially and show different hand types later, but I don't know what that is. In general, I think that its correct to let them sort out their suit, and then have Rubensohl kick in.

I am with Adam in that I really dislike the 2♠ as 4+. Just when is opener supposed to guess right? There will be many hands on which 2♠ is the best place on a 5=2 fit, but a disaster on a 4=2.

I don't think that this is survivable in the long run.. you will create a lot of -6 swings against you...especially when vulnerable.

I kind of like the multi-purpose bids, but have you considered how well they work if 4th seat bumps the overcall? The one that worries me is 2N: either a bust in clubs or invitational with either diamonds or precisely 4♠s. That one scares me: if I were the opps at favourable, I'd strain to bid 3♥. Opener usually has to pass, regardless of his hand, and now it's back to you. Whatever you do is blind.

I think, to some degree, you could resolve this by using the negative double in more of a standard manner: 4♠s. Now the 2N is either a club bust or a diamond invite, and you will often be able to reopen with a double if LHO peeps 3♥... opener now makes a decision based on knowing of long diamonds and invitational values. This won't work all the time, but it has to be better than your current suggestion.... I think

[cherdano]

awm, on Aug 27 2007, 01:50 PM, said:

X = negative/takeout
2M = natural NF
2NT = transfer to ♣, always 5+♣, any strength (usually 6+♣ if weak)
3♣ = transfer to ♦, always 5+♦, any strength (usually 6+♦ if weak)
Transfer to their suit = ask for stopper, accept shows a half stopper, 3NT shows full stop
Transfer to major biddable at 2-level = 5+ in suit transferred to, inv+
3NT = shows a stopper, natural to play
4-level = south african transfers still on, 4M to play

I like this. What do you use 3S for?

[awm]

cherdano, on Aug 27 2007, 03:23 PM, said:

I like this. What do you use 3S for?

Sorry, 3♠ shows a game-going three-suited hand (4441 or 5440) short in the opponent's suit, unsuitable to making a negative double because defending at the two-level could be a disaster.

[pclayton]

My use of a 2 level call as "4+" may be vestigial from the dinosaur days of using penalty doubles and now that I think about it, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, although the double of 2♥ should guarantee 4♠.

[Free]

I really prefer Rubensohl with takeout doubles:

Dbl = takeout, can be competitive
2X = signoff
2NT = 5+♣*
3♣ = 5+♦*
3♦ = 5+♥*
3♥ = 5+♠*
3♠ = no stop, no 4 card (other) Major
3NT = stopper, no interest in any other contract

(*) Transfering to opponent's suit is a replacement of GF stayman.

A transfer in a suit higher than opps suit is GF, transfer to a suit lower than opps suit can be just competitive. Dbl followed by a suit is invitational (unless it's a scrambling situation, like 1NT-2♠-Dbl-p;2NT*-3m, but note that bidding 3♥ is invitational!). Note that this way, 1NT-2♠-3♦ is GF, not like the transfers to minor suits!

This solves most of the problems, you can still search for slams and minor suit contracts when 3NT is in danger,...

[keylime]

I play 3S as both minors G/F with xfers; xferring into their suit and then 3NT rebid denies a stop; 3NT direct shows a stop and is the play.

Over a call that shows both majors, unusual versus unusual with some modifications. Over a multi 2D call, different scheme.

[benlessard]

my style is fast denies trqansfer leb in all case except a balancing X (weak 2) by a passed hand (game isnt likely and scrambling 2nt is much more important)


1nt----(2♥)

X = 100% business (not playing business X with today crazy overcall is dementia, you should at least play that a double show 3)

2♠ to play (i think a 4cd suit once in a while is acceptable)

2nt-----relay to 3 clubs, clubs or inv values.

3♣ diamonds to play or GF

3♦ stayman no stopp.

3♥ spades gf

3♠ to play 3nt or slammish in both minors

3nt both minors no stoppers.


2nt --- 3♣ forced followed by ...

3♦ = diamonds inv with or without stoppers.
3♥ = stayman with stoppers
3♠ = inv spades with or without.
3nt = clubs no stopper.
4♣ = keyc in clubs.

what we cannot show is
inv with clubs.
inv stayman.

[cherdano]

benlessard, on Aug 30 2007, 07:11 PM, said:

my style is fast denies trqansfer leb in all case except a balancing X (weak 2) by a passed hand (game isnt likely and scrambling 2nt is much more important)


1nt----(2♥)

X = 100% business (not playing business X with today crazy overcall is dementia, you should at least play that a double show 3)

Ben, sometimes making strong statements makes a discussion more interesting -- but when you write something like that, accusing probably way more than half of all world class players (64% of all the expert voters in the last BWS poll to be precise) of dementia, do you really think anyone is going to take the rest of your posts seriously (or even continue reading it)? You risk looking like a fool yourself instead...

[Free]

Yes it's quite a silly statement to say that you NEED double for business.

More and more people realize that DONT is not the way to go against a strong NT, because the strong NT's become weaker by the day. People play 14+-17, or 14-16, which doesn't mean we can't make a game in a Major suit. So the reason why you would play business doubles is obviously wrong, unless you play in a very low league where people struggle after a 2♣ overcall...

When playing takeout Doubles, you expect opener to Double when he's short in the overcaller's suit. This way, you'll rarely miss a penalty situation, and it helps your constructive bidding A LOT. Ofcourse, sometimes when you have 4 and opener has 3 you won't be able to penalize them, but that's rather rare.

[benlessard]

In my experience the most common expert practice is to play (over natural bids)

(2C)--- X = stayman or system on
over (2♦,2♥,2♠) = business
at 3 level X= showcards.

I really doubt that the majority of expert that play lebensohl (or a variation) use the X as primary neg.

If you don`t use lebensohl then maybe X as neg is more popular but i doubt its better.

PS The strenght of the opener doesnt really matter... Most weak NT players will tell you that you collect more good penalty playing weak NT instead of strong NT despite the fact that usually over a weak nt a 2 level bids shows an opening hands.



Modern trend is to overcall and compete light...Why would you give up fairly safe and lucrative penalty X ?

I would really like to see the BSW poll your talking about.

Quote

When playing takeout Doubles, you expect opener to Double when he's short in the overcaller's suit. This way, you'll rarely miss a penalty situation, and it helps your constructive bidding A LOT. Ofcourse, sometimes when you have 4 and opener has 3 you won't be able to penalize them, but that's rather rare.

IMHO this is false.

The 1nt opener rarely reopen by a X and rarely passed the neg X since his trumps are in front of the opener.

It would be fun to check what are the world top pairs do over.

1nt (2♥) X = ???

[jdonn]

benlessard, on Sep 5 2007, 02:10 AM, said:

I really doubt that the majority of expert that play lebensohl (or a variation) use the X as primary neg.

You would be wrong. And for good reason, takeout is a far superior treatment. You still get a lot of penalties (sometimes opener reopens, sometimes opener passes the takeout double), and even if they escape unpenalized you will be fine setting them undoubled. On the other hand if you play penalty doubles there are just tons of hands you can't compete on. Takeout is also more frequent. It's really not even close.

Here is the BWS poll that proves you wrong
http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=b...f=bwspolls.html
Go down to 818. A clear majority of experts vote against the penalty double.

[skjaeran]

Jlall, on Sep 5 2007, 09:51 AM, said:

Sorry if this has been suggested already I didn't read everyones. I play that...

over 2H

X=t/o
2S=nat NF

2N=relay to 3C then
3D=to play
3H=4S, longer clubs, GF
3S=minors
3N=3N bid with a stopper

3C=inv+ diamonds
3D=inv+ spades
3H=stayman with shortness
3S=clubs GF
3N=3N bid no stopper

over 2S

X=t/o
2N=relay to 3C then
3D=to play
3H=to play
3S=minors
3N=3N bid with a stopper

3C=inv+ diamonds
3D=inv+ hearts
3H=clubs GF
3S=stayman with shortness
3N=3N bid no stopper

I think it is important to have a stayman bid even if you have a t/o X available because there are lots of stayman hands where you dont want partner to pass the X.

I like this scheme.