[BillHiggin]

A friend asserts that:
1) (2♦) x (p) 3♦
is different from
2) !N (2♦) 3♦

His claim is that 1) denies a 4 card major and denies a ♦ stopper while 2) shows at least one 4 card major and denies a ♦ stopper.

Do actual top level players play those sequences with such a difference?

[helene_t]

Never heard that 1) denies a 4-card major.

[mikeh]

Kokish, for one, has a very complex lebensohl scheme for use after a double of an opp's weak two bid.... he described it during some training sessions I took with him in the late 1990's but we, as a team, all decided that it was too complex for us

It revolved around the uses to which one put an immediate cue as opposed to 2N then a cue.

But I think the more run-of-the-mill expert usage (discounting agreements made by long-term serious partnerships) is that 2N then 3♦ or an immediate 3♦ differ only in terms of ability to play notrump if no major suit fit is found... 2N would show a stopper, then 3♦ forcing, usually looking for a 4 card major, while an immediate 3♦ would disclaim interest in 3N (unless doubler has a huge notrump hand... presumably too big for 2N)

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

... ignore the follwoing, if you are interested in top level
players agreement.

#2 This is usually played as stayman, depending on agreement
promising / denying a stopper.

#1 The 3D is asking for a stopper, and since the X promised both
majors, it is reasonable to assume that 3D denies a 4 card major.
The promise of a 4 card major does not exist in auction #2.
But of course, if the responder believes that 3NT is a superior contract
for whatever reason, he may hide a major.
If the partner does not have a stopper, he still can bid a 4 card major
suggesting a major suit game with a 4-3 fit.
And no harm is done, if the 4-3 happens to be a 4-4 fit.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[whereagles]

mikeh, on May 13 2008, 09:17 PM, said:

Kokish, for one, has a very complex lebensohl scheme for use after a double of an opp's weak two bid.... he described it during some training sessions I took with him in the late 1990's but we, as a team, all decided that it was too complex for us

Was that a sort of trans-lebenshol?

(2x) dbl (pass) ??

2NT = forces 3♣. Either weak clubs, inv in another suit or cue #1.
3♣...3x-2 = transfer: either weakish or GF in next suit.
3x-1 = cue #2.
3x = cue #3.

There: 3 ways to cue for meanings grabs. Ken, the floor is yours

[FrancesHinden]

OK, here are two contradictory statements for you

1. Most "run-of-the-mill expert usage" as mikeh puts it treats these sequences as effectively the same, people just agree to play lebensohl (with subsequent agreements as to whether 'fast shows' or 'fast denies') and just assume it works the same after a 1NT opening as after a weak two opening.

2. In fact when you get down to thinking the sequences through in detail, the two auctions are fundamentally different, because
i) after 1NT and an overcall you have a double available to mean something, which isn't available after (weak 2) x
ii) after 1NT and an overcall it's normal to play a new suit at the 3-level below the overcaller's suit as game forcing (1NT 2H 3C) but after a weak two this is only constructive (2H x P 3C)
iii) {related point to ii} After 1NT and an overcall third hand can pass with no interest in bidding so all actions show at least some values; after a weak two and a double 4th hand has to act so needs some way to distinguish bad, intermediate and good hands
iv) After a 1NT opening the NT declarership is already decided. After a weak two it's not, so any use of 2NT artificially needs to take account of who the eventual declarer will be in 3NT

and another couple of things

3. You have an additional point of complexity after a 2D overcall or opening, because some partnerships still play lebensohl here and some don't.

4. Your friends assertions are a possible agreement, but they aren't necessarily standard. My detailed agreements after 2M are that

1NT (2M) 3M shows a singleton or void in their suit and a 3-suiter with 4-cards in the other major but
1NT (2M) 2NT....3M shows a 3-suiter without 4 cards in the other major
(more balanced hands can start by doubling 2M for takeout)

However (2M) x (P) 3M.. has to include all game forces that aren't covered by other specific bids, and
(2M) x (P) 2NT....3M is specifically a choice between 4 OM and 3NT with the 2NT bidder promising a stop.

Funnily enough, even my well-established partnerships who have discussed all these lebensohl sequences after 2M haven't discussed 1NT (2D) sequences in such detail, not least because we rarely play people who play 2D here as natural.

[gnasher]

As others have said, this is a matter for agreement.

Your friend is correct that this is a sensible way to play it. When you don't have either a four-card major or a stopper, it's likely that you want partner to play 3NT, so this hand-type should not go via 2NT.