[Echognome]

This is kind of a weird question. Suppose you have only agreed "standard lebensohl" with "slow shows". Partner opens a strong NT and RHO overcalls 2♥ showing both majors.

What would you assume 3NT meant?

[655321]

In the absence of a specific agreement, I would assume opener is expected to pass without looking at his hand.

[jdonn]

655321, on Sep 30 2008, 07:59 PM, said:

In the absence of a specific agreement, I would assume opener is expected to pass without looking at his hand.

You have a specific agreement. "Slow shows". So this denies stoppers in either major.

[Lobowolf]

The agreement, though, doesn't specificy whether slow shows one or both.

[fred]

655321, on Oct 1 2008, 12:59 AM, said:

In the absence of a specific agreement, I would assume opener is expected to pass without looking at his hand.

This is a very smart answer IMO. In fact, in my regular partnerships I make this specific agreement.

It is important to get to 3NT without giving the 4th hand a chance to say what major he wants led.

Also, sometimes by going slowly you give the opponents room to find out that they should be bidding 4 of a major over your 3NT.

I hate when that happens

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[SoTired]

if you have a major stopper, you q-bid that stopper and bid 3N... if you have both stoppers you bid 2N and then 3N... so if you have neither major stopper you bid 3N

you can't consider the 3N without considering the other possible bids. this seems obvious to me... maybe others will see it differently

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Sep 30 2008, 08:10 PM, said:

The agreement, though, doesn't specificy whether slow shows one or both.

Sorry, but that's as ridiculous as saying it doesn't specify whether slow shows a stopper in their suit or in clubs. It shows a stopper in what they have shown.

[jdonn]

fred, on Sep 30 2008, 08:11 PM, said:

655321, on Oct 1 2008, 12:59 AM, said:

In the absence of a specific agreement, I would assume opener is expected to pass without looking at his hand.

This is a very smart answer IMO. In fact, in my regular partnerships I make this specific agreement.

It is important to get to 3NT without giving the 4th hand a chance to say what major he wants led.

Also, sometimes by going slowly you give the opponents room to find out that they should be bidding 4 of a major over your 3NT.

I hate when that happens

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Oh it's a far better agreement. But it's not the agreement made .

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Sep 30 2008, 08:12 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Sep 30 2008, 08:10 PM, said:

The agreement, though, doesn't specificy whether slow shows one or both.

Sorry, but that's as ridiculous as saying it doesn't specify whether slow shows a stopper in their suit or in clubs. It shows a stopper in what they have shown.

If it shows a stopper in what they have shown, then I'd assume that 3NT denies a stopper in what they have shown. They've shown "both majors," which would imply that a direct 3NT says, "I don't have 'both majors' stopped," but leaves open the possibility that responder has one major stopped.

The point being that at some point, you have to go outside the parameters of the agreement. If direct 3NT = no major stopper and 2NT/3NT = both major stoppers, then you go outside the parameters of the agreement when you have only one major stopped. You can do that in the way that SoTired has suggested, and assume that that treatment is common enough to be considered standard by your partner, but you're still stepping outside of "Lebensohl - slow shows."

[TimG]

Do most people play that lebensohl applies when the overcall shows two known suits? (Or, more specifically the slow/fast agreements.)

[fred]

jdonn, on Oct 1 2008, 01:13 AM, said:

fred, on Sep 30 2008, 08:11 PM, said:

655321, on Oct 1 2008, 12:59 AM, said:

In the absence of a specific agreement, I would assume opener is expected to pass without looking at his hand.

This is a very smart answer IMO. In fact, in my regular partnerships I make this specific agreement.

It is important to get to 3NT without giving the 4th hand a chance to say what major he wants led.

Also, sometimes by going slowly you give the opponents room to find out that they should be bidding 4 of a major over your 3NT.

I hate when that happens

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Oh it's a far better agreement. But it's not the agreement made .

Perhaps I did not answer the question that was asked.

If I was playing with you or 655321 with the agreement of "standard Lebensohl" I would take my chances - I would expect he (she?) or you to figure out (quickly!) that ascribing any specific meaning to 3NT is losing bridge. The same goes for extending conventions on the fly especially when there is no obvious way to do it.

If I was playing with a significantly lesser player then I don't think there is any good answer. The right answer would depend on figuring out how partner would interpret 3NT. I would try not to put myself in a position of having to think about this - instead I suspect I would never bid 3NT with such a partner unless I was prepared for him/her to pull when lacking a major suit stopper.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Sep 30 2008, 07:05 PM, said:

655321, on Sep 30 2008, 07:59 PM, said:

In the absence of a specific agreement, I would assume opener is expected to pass without looking at his hand.

You have a specific agreement. "Slow shows". So this denies stoppers in either major.

Well, this agreement was only made for natural overcalls, not for an overcall showing 2 suits. Since it doesn't make sense to me to play a direct 3N as denying stoppers I would assume that it doesn't make sense to partner either, and that we don't assume this agreement applies here.

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Sep 30 2008, 05:05 PM, said:

655321, on Sep 30 2008, 07:59 PM, said:

In the absence of a specific agreement, I would assume opener is expected to pass without looking at his hand.

You have a specific agreement. "Slow shows". So this denies stoppers in either major.

Right. pretend LHO overcalled two sparts. So pard has no spart stopper.

[cherdano]

Josh, if I bid 3N in this situation, playing with you on BBO, you would have played me for no stopper?

[Lobowolf]

From a strictly logical standpoint, this is analogous to making a negative double of a 1S overcall. If a free 2H bid shows close to 10 points and at least 5 hearts, the negative double doesn't say "I have less than 10 points and I have fewer than 5 hearts." It might show a hand with more than 10 points and only 4 hearts, or it might show a hand with long hearts, but few points. Not (A+X) doesn't = Not A & Not X. Not (A+X) = Not A OR Not X.

So even if it's true that 2NT then 3NT shows both hearts and spades, it shouldn't follow that a direct 3NT denies hearts and denies spades; it just denies (hearts and spades).

[SoTired]

So.... under Fred's principle (pure 4-handed bidding), if the 3N bid is undefined in this situation, then it remains undefined. Opener should pass regardless of major suit holding. Keep the opps guessing and don't give them a chance to make a lead-directing dbl or an anti-lead directing pass.

Under my principle, opener should pass with two stoppers and probably one stopper hoping they lead the wrong suit. But with no stoppers, it makes sense to pull.

Under Lobowolf's principle, what? When should opener pull?

[Lobowolf]

My post was just intended to point out that the logical extension of "relay then 3NT would show stoppers in both suits" is not "direct 3NT denies stopper in either suit."

From a "What should I do?" standpoint, on the given info, I like Fred's approach.

[P_Marlowe]

TimG, on Sep 30 2008, 08:28 PM, said:

Do most people play that lebensohl applies when the overcall shows two known suits? (Or, more specifically the slow/fast agreements.)

Lebensohl is off.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Codo]

I am with Josh, so maybe he is wrong.

The agreement was: Slow shows. It was not: Slow shows if they show an one-suiter.

I won't discuss if this is a better or worse agreement, it is just our agreement in this partnership.

And w/o any further discussion, Lebensohl is still on. And even when it is discussed, it is still on. Why shouldn't it be? Any other useful meaning for 2 NT?

[Echognome]

Thanks all for your replies. I asked this question because of an article in the current acbl magazine. You can see the discussion about it here:

http://forums.bridge...?showtopic=3958

I personally do not see why we would assume lebensohl applies to 2-suited overcalls in the same way that it applies to 1-suited overcalls. Would we apply the same defense to a natural 2♥ as we would to an Ekren 2♥? I certainly wouldn't! I might apply the same defense to a Lucas 2♥, but not an Ekren 2♥. So I don't think it's clear at all that I would assume the same agreement.

Let's take it to the extreme. Suppose the opponents played 2♥ as 3-suited short diamonds. Would one assume that 3NT denied stoppers in ♠, ♥, and ♣?? If that sounds ridiculous, where is it clear to draw the line?