[mich-b]

I am curious how others play the following sequences (within a Lebensohl context):


1. 2♥ - DBL - P - 3♠

2.
2♥ - DBL - P - 2NT
P - 3♣ -P - 3♠

The second is normally played as invitational.
So is the first one forcing (like with Lebensohl when we opened 1NT)?
Or just a stronger invitation? or an invitation without a ♥ stopper? or something else?

[gnasher]

I play the slower route as forcing with five cards, to allow room for slam tries. It probably makes no difference which way around you play these sequences, but it feels more natural to play 2♥ dbl pass 3♠ as non-forcing.

[xx1943]

If you have 3 possible answers the 2 level is to play, the 3-level is game force and the Lebensohl sequence is inviting. If you have only 2 possible answers the invite is omitted. This is the standard Lebensohl after 1NT and should be the same after 2suit X:

2♥ X pass 2♠ to play
2♥ X pass 2NT pass 3♣ pass 3♠ invite
2♥ X pass 3♠ GF

2♠ X pass 2NT pass 3♣ pass 3♥ not forcing maybe very weak
2♠ X pass 3♥ forcing

btw. It is not possible to bid 100% scientific after a preempt. There is a lot of space for good judgement. Most players go for the motto: "when in doubt, bid one more".

My experience is that opponents tend to overbid after after a preempt. I got more oftenbenefit from preempts, when opponents went overboard than that the preempt prevented them finding their game.

[mich-b]

Quote

If you have 3 possible answers the 2 level is to play, the 3-level is game force and the Lebensohl sequence is inviting. If you have only 2 possible answers the invite is omitted. This is the standard Lebensohl after 1NT and should be the same after 2suit X:

This is surely standard in Lebensohl when we opened 1NT.
But ,

Quote

2♠ X pass 3♥ forcing

Is surely non-standard (I think most play this as about 9-11).

Looks like we have to accept there is a difference between Lebensohl after opening 1NT , and Lebensohl after a weak 2 , right?
And since we don't have a GF ♥ bid, when they opened 2♠, maybe we dont need a GF ♠ bid when they opened 2♥?

[whereagles]

If you follow the original idea of Lebenshol, then

Direct 3♠ = forcing
2NT + 3♠ = invitational

I would advise against changing the meanings because you'd change the Lebenshol mnemonics and that is a quick and painful way to mess up stuff

Note also that these bids usually only show 4 spades.

[OleBerg]

gnasher, on Mar 26 2009, 10:55 AM, said:

I play the slower route as forcing with five cards, to allow room for slam tries. It probably makes no difference which way around you play these sequences, but it feels more natural to play 2♥ dbl pass 3♠ as non-forcing.

I actually play it opposite. I do agree though, that it doesn't matter much.

The argument for going the other way around, is when dobler has a strong hand. You are less likely to get in the way with an inconvenient jump, when you have game-forcing values.

This is more importent when you want to force with a minor.

Anyway, this is all so low-frequent, that it is possibly best to go with what is easy to remember.

[aguahombre]

mich-b, on Mar 26 2009, 04:19 AM, said:

Quote

If you have 3 possible answers the 2 level is to play, the 3-level is game force and the Lebensohl sequence is inviting. If you have only 2 possible answers the invite is omitted. This is the standard Lebensohl after 1NT and should be the same after 2suit X:

This is surely standard in Lebensohl when we opened 1NT.
But ,

Quote

2♠ X pass 3♥ forcing

Is surely non-standard (I think most play this as about 9-11).

Looks like we have to accept there is a difference between Lebensohl after opening 1NT , and Lebensohl after a weak 2 , right?
And since we don't have a GF ♥ bid, when they opened 2♠, maybe we dont need a GF ♠ bid when they opened 2♥?

3 hearts forcing, instead of 9-11 is interesting, though. It allows for the doubler to have other big hands, without hearts yet states the power of the advancer's hand without cramping the space of the auction.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

I would advise against changing the meanings because you'd change the Lebenshol mnemonics and that is a quick and painful way to mess up stuff

Well, I'd strongly advise playing it your way (direct jump forcing) because few consider the direct 3S to be forcing. Of the latest Bridge World poll, only 11% of the expert panel and 26% of readers voted for the forcing treatment. You are fighting standard practice.

Your way is more consistent with the usage of bids over 1nt, but there's no particular reason to use that as the std for the bid. Another way to look at it is that 1nt-(2h)-3S has always been forcing, with or without lebensohl, so 3S is still forcing, arguably lebensohl didn't have an effect. While w/o lebensohl, (2h)-x-(p)-3S has always been considered invitational only, no particular reason lebensohl should change this.

BTW another use of the delayed 3S is to distinguish between 4 cd spades and 5 cd spades.

[barmar]

One reason for the difference in treatments between Lebensohl over 1NT and over a takeout double is that partner's hand is more narrowly defined when he opens 1NT. Responder can pretty easily judge whether they should be in game. But a takeout double has a pretty wide range, so it's important to be able to invite and allow partner to pass it.

I also agree with Stephen's last point, about using one sequence to show 4 and another to show 5. This is also something you typically don't need over 1NT, because there's usually some way to bid Stayman (e.g. Lebensohl followed by a cue bid).

[Vilgan]

we play the jump as stronger and the 2NT 3c 3s as invitational. Pure partnership thing tho, as I've played the reverse with a different partner.

[whereagles]

Stephen Tu, on Mar 27 2009, 06:26 PM, said:

Quote

I would advise against changing the meanings because you'd change the Lebenshol mnemonics and that is a quick and painful way to mess up stuff

Well, I'd strongly advise playing it your way (direct jump forcing) because few consider the direct 3S to be forcing. Of the latest Bridge World poll, only 11% of the expert panel and 26% of readers voted for the forcing treatment. You are fighting standard practice.

Your way is more consistent with the usage of bids over 1nt, but there's no particular reason to use that as the std for the bid. Another way to look at it is that 1nt-(2h)-3S has always been forcing, with or without lebensohl, so 3S is still forcing, arguably lebensohl didn't have an effect. While w/o lebensohl, (2h)-x-(p)-3S has always been considered invitational only, no particular reason lebensohl should change this.

BTW another use of the delayed 3S is to distinguish between 4 cd spades and 5 cd spades.

Well, I can't say I'm surprised by the BW survey, but I if you don't use the direct jump as forcing, you're gonna have to dump each and every forcing bid into the cue :/

[OleBerg]

whereagles, on Mar 28 2009, 03:23 PM, said:

Well, I can't say I'm surprised by the BW survey, but I if you don't use the direct jump as forcing, you're gonna have to dump each and every forcing bid into the cue :/

Not really. You can let the one-suited forcing hands go via 2NT.

[rbforster]

I'm surprised at all the non-standard responses people are giving (showing 4 vs 5 card major suits, direct jumps as invitational, etc). To me what xx1943 gave below was absolutely what I'd expect if someone told me they played Lebensohl over weak two's. The only expert disagreements/style differences I'd expect are things like what meaning you assign to direct and indirect cue bids.

xx1943, on Mar 26 2009, 03:55 AM, said:

If you have 3 possible answers the 2 level is to play, the 3-level is game force and the Lebensohl sequence is inviting. If you have only 2 possible answers the invite is omitted. This is the standard Lebensohl after 1NT and should be the same after 2suit X:

2♥ X pass 2♠ to play
2♥ X pass 2NT pass 3♣ pass 3♠ invite
2♥ X pass 3♠ GF

2♠ X pass 2NT pass 3♣ pass 3♥ not forcing maybe very weak
2♠ X pass 3♥ forcing

btw. It is not possible to bid 100% scientific after a preempt. There is a lot of space for good judgement. Most players go for the motto: "when in doubt, bid one more".

My experience is that opponents tend to overbid after after a preempt. I got more oftenbenefit from preempts, when opponents went overboard than that the preempt prevented them finding their game.

[awm]

I was pretty sure that the standard after a weak two was:

If there are two ways to show the suit (2NT or bid at three level) then going via 2NT is weak and bidding at the three-level is invitational.

If there are there ways to show the suit (bid at two level or 2NT or bid at three level) then the two-level bid is weak, going via 2NT is invitational, and jump to the three-level is forcing.

This is slightly different from over a 1NT opening and interference, because the double has a wider range. It's extremely important to distinguish between 0-7 and 8-11 or so high card points.

So I agree with xx1943 and rbforster about the 2♥-X sequences but not about the 2♠-X sequences.

[JLOL]

gnasher, on Mar 26 2009, 03:55 AM, said:

I play the slower route as forcing with five cards, to allow room for slam tries. It probably makes no difference which way around you play these sequences, but it feels more natural to play 2♥ dbl pass 3♠ as non-forcing.

Yeah agree.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

I'm surprised at all the non-standard responses people are giving (showing 4 vs 5 card major suits, direct jumps as invitational, etc)

Non-standard based on what? I'd like to know which sources say 2h-x-3s should be forcing.

My sources for claiming 2h-x-3s is std non-forcing:
Bridge World Std poll result
Andersen & Zenkel _Preempts from A to Z_
Hardy's 2/1 book
Karen Walker's site

I was disappointed that many of my books which cover leb/wk 2 omit discussion of this.

[barmar]

Annoyingly, Ron Anderson's "Lebensohl Convention Complete" only gives examples after a 2♠ bid in the chapter on weak 2. Not exactly my definition of "complete".