[32519]

Which is better, Scrambling 2NT or Lebensohl, and why is it better?

[Free]

That depends on the situation. In general:
- in part score battles scrambling is better because you already know that game is impossible, so you want to find a sure fit
- in a constructive auction lebensohl (or even good-bad) is better because it's more important to figure out if game is likely, rather than finding the best fit

Simple examples to compare:
1. 1NT-(2♠)-p-(p);Dbl-(p)-2NT?
2. (2♠)-Dbl-(p)-2NT?
3. p-(2♠)-Dbl-(p)-2NT?

1. should be scrambling. If responder has an invite, he would've done something the first round. Now you just want to scramble into a 4-4 fit, being sure you don't bid a 4-3 fit (opener 2-4-4-3, responder 2-3-4-4, how can responder know to bid 3♦ instead of 3♣ when not playing scrambling?). Playing lebensohl is ridiculous here.
2. should be lebensohl. The partnership doesn't know if game is possible yet, so a general idea of strength is more important. Playing scrambling here makes decisions very difficult for both players. Somehow they need to show extras, but by doing so they run the risk of getting too high because their partner is very weak.
3. we enter a gray zone. Some prefer scrambling, some prefer lebensohl. It's not clear cut, because one partner already limited his hand to roughly 0-10HCP, lebensohl splits it up into 0-7/8-10, while scrambling lets us play our sure fit.

[aguahombre]

Free's coverage is right on.

FWIW, we choose the Leben option in his #3. It further narrows our passed-hand range, opposite an unlimited partner.

[P_Marlowe]

Important is, to know, what is on when.

In general Lebensohl will allow you to bid your games constructivly, scrambling will
make sure, you reach the right fit.
Hence in general, if partner denied inv. values Scrambling will be better, if he could hold
inv. values Lebensohl will be better.

[rhm]

Free, on 2012-November-02, 01:30, said:

That depends on the situation. In general:
- in part score battles scrambling is better because you already know that game is impossible, so you want to find a sure fit
- in a constructive auction lebensohl (or even good-bad) is better because it's more important to figure out if game is likely, rather than finding the best fit

Simple examples to compare:
1. 1NT-(2♠)-p-(p);Dbl-(p)-2NT?
2. (2♠)-Dbl-(p)-2NT?
3. p-(2♠)-Dbl-(p)-2NT?

1. should be scrambling. If responder has an invite, he would've done something the first round. Now you just want to scramble into a 4-4 fit, being sure you don't bid a 4-3 fit (opener 2-4-4-3, responder 2-3-4-4, how can responder know to bid 3♦ instead of 3♣ when not playing scrambling?). Playing lebensohl is ridiculous here.
2. should be lebensohl. The partnership doesn't know if game is possible yet, so a general idea of strength is more important. Playing scrambling here makes decisions very difficult for both players. Somehow they need to show extras, but by doing so they run the risk of getting too high because their partner is very weak.
3. we enter a gray zone. Some prefer scrambling, some prefer lebensohl. It's not clear cut, because one partner already limited his hand to roughly 0-10HCP, lebensohl splits it up into 0-7/8-10, while scrambling lets us play our sure fit.

I agree as far as it goes.
But in fact there is a strong third contender not mentioned in the question called transfer advances or in some bidding scenarios Rubensohl.

In my opinion

1.) Scrambling is best when both sides are limited and game is out of question. Typical scenarios are partscore battles or when you balance.
2.) Lebensohl is best when both partners are unlimited. The typical scenario is after a takeout double over a weak two.
3.) Transfer advances are superior when one partner is limited. (Bids from a certain point onwards (often 2NT) are transfers). The typical scenario is when opponents interfere over a 1NT opening. But transfer advances are also excellent in competitive scenarios, whenever partner has limited his hand with a non-forcing bid.

The popularity of Lebensohl in comparison to transfer advances escapes me. Transfer advances need further discussion, but so does Lebensohl.
They are not more complex. Rubens has tried to popularize them in the BW.

Rainer Herrmann

[Codo]

What is better:

5 card major or 4 card major?

Apples or bananas?

Fredom or safety?

Mercedes or BMW?

Superman or Mr. Fantastic?

Shades of grey or Twilight?

It depends...

Free did well to geive a serious answer, but it is much more complicated then this.

[gwnn]

Codo, on 2012-November-02, 03:26, said:

What is better:

5 card major or 4 card major?

Apples or bananas?

Fredom or safety?

Mercedes or BMW?

Superman or Mr. Fantastic?

Shades of grey or Twilight?

It depends...

Free did well to geive a serious answer, but it is much more complicated then this.

5 card majors, bananas, abstain, BMW, Superman, and neither.

As for the bridge question, I think rhm has summarised it very well. Transfers do not work particularly well if both hands are unlimited (but they do otherwise).

[Trinidad]

gwnn, on 2012-November-02, 03:42, said:

bananas

I strongly disagree. I can live with the other choices.

Rik

[Free]

Codo, on 2012-November-02, 03:26, said:

What is better:

5 card major or 4 card major?
Apples or bananas?
Fredom or safety?
Mercedes or BMW?
Superman or Mr. Fantastic?
Shades of grey or Twilight?

It depends...

Free did well to geive a serious answer, but it is much more complicated then this.

I disagree with this list. Scrambling vs Lebensohl is not a matter of preference like the choices above.

A better comparison would be a Formula 1 car and a dragster. For drag racing the dragster will do better, for racing on a circuit the Formula 1 car will perform better... So which one is better? None and both.

Definitely BMW.

[Phil]

Free, on 2012-November-02, 01:30, said:

That depends on the situation. In general:
- in part score battles scrambling is better because you already know that game is impossible, so you want to find a sure fit
- in a constructive auction lebensohl (or even good-bad) is better because it's more important to figure out if game is likely, rather than finding the best fit

Simple examples to compare:
1. 1NT-(2♠)-p-(p);Dbl-(p)-2NT?
2. (2♠)-Dbl-(p)-2NT?
3. p-(2♠)-Dbl-(p)-2NT?

1. should be scrambling. If responder has an invite, he would've done something the first round. Now you just want to scramble into a 4-4 fit, being sure you don't bid a 4-3 fit (opener 2-4-4-3, responder 2-3-4-4, how can responder know to bid 3♦ instead of 3♣ when not playing scrambling?). Playing lebensohl is ridiculous here.
2. should be lebensohl. The partnership doesn't know if game is possible yet, so a general idea of strength is more important. Playing scrambling here makes decisions very difficult for both players. Somehow they need to show extras, but by doing so they run the risk of getting too high because their partner is very weak.
3. we enter a gray zone. Some prefer scrambling, some prefer lebensohl. It's not clear cut, because one partner already limited his hand to roughly 0-10HCP, lebensohl splits it up into 0-7/8-10, while scrambling lets us play our sure fit.

Agree with the premises, but I disagree on the conclusion on #1 (subject auction). Game is very possible. Our RHO has preempted and LHO has passed! On a good day we can have 30 points between us or something. Its very important that we be able to differentiate between drek and good hands that couldn't take a call over 2♠.

[Raff90]

why not play both? GUCCI

[FrancesHinden]

I think it's more like Chablis or Crozes Hermitage: it depends what it is accompanying

[fromageGB]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-November-03, 13:37, said:

I think it's more like Chablis or Crozes Hermitage: it depends what it is accompanying

Brilliant, Frances !
I think the answer is that one needs both in one's cellar.

[MickyB]

rhm, on 2012-November-02, 03:11, said:

2.) Lebensohl is best when both partners are unlimited. The typical scenario is after a takeout double over a weak two.
3.) Transfer advances are superior when one partner is limited. (Bids from a certain point onwards (often 2NT) are transfers). The typical scenario is when opponents interfere over a 1NT opening. But transfer advances are also excellent in competitive scenarios, whenever partner has limited his hand with a non-forcing bid.

I agree that transfer advances are superior when the partner of the bidder is limited, but not that leb is always better when neither partner is limited.

1.) Leb can be used to allow you to distinguish weak from invitational; Transfers can only be used to distinguish forcing from NF.
2.) Transfers allow you to show your suit immediately to prepare for further competition.

So, 2S-X-P-2N is leb [point 1 applies and point 2 is basically irrelevant] and 1N-2S-2N is a transfer [we distinguish between competitive and GF opposite a 1NT bid, giving up on invites; and the next hand may well be about to raise spades]. However, we also use transfers on auctions like 1H (2S), where neither hand is limited, but "NF" and "GF" is a better split than "weak" and "invitational", and fourth seat will often raise spades.

[PhilKing]

MickyB, on 2012-November-04, 05:09, said:

However, we also use transfers on auctions like 1H (2S), where neither hand is limited, but "NF" and "GF" is a better split than "weak" and "invitational", and fourth seat will often raise spades.

Transfers work fine there (much better than lebensohl), but I prefer 2NT as a good heart raise.

It's our most frequent and important hand type, and I don't want to have to bid 3♦ to show it.

[Lord Molyb]

Trinidad, on 2012-November-02, 05:33, said:

I strongly disagree. I can live with the other choices.

Rik

what, someone didn't pick apples.
ANYWAY.. I would use scrambling 2NT whenever when it isn't lebensohl, over a weak 2 takeout double, or opposite of a reverse.

[fromageGB]

PhilKing, on 2012-November-04, 06:26, said:

Transfers work fine there (much better than lebensohl), but I prefer 2NT as a good heart raise.
It's our most frequent and important hand type, and I don't want to have to bid 3♦ to show it.

I don't understand this. Let's say it is after 1♥ (2♠). Why not bid 3♦? If you have diamonds, you bid 3♣ as a transfer, thus distinguishing between NF and GF flavours of diamonds, which you cannot do by bidding 3♦ naturally. So in place of using 2NT as a good heart raise, use it as a transfer to clubs, and again that has the benefit of being two-way.

Why prefer 2NT=♥?

[PhilKing]

fromageGB, on 2012-November-18, 12:09, said:

I don't understand this. Let's say it is after 1♥ (2♠). Why not bid 3♦? If you have diamonds, you bid 3♣ as a transfer, thus distinguishing between NF and GF flavours of diamonds, which you cannot do by bidding 3♦ naturally. So in place of using 2NT as a good heart raise, use it as a transfer to clubs, and again that has the benefit of being two-way.

Why prefer 2NT=♥?

At a rough guess, for every 10 times you hold a decent heart raise, you will hold an intermediate minor one-suiter once.

After 1H-2S-2NT (hearts, 9+ if 4+ 10+ if 3), you have more room to deal with your game and slam tries. These are you bread and butter hands. It's not just about handling you invitational heart raises more effectively, it helps the whole spectrum of raises.

Name one occasion ever where anyone has won imps by bidding 2NT as a transfer to clubs, stopped in 3C and gained imps. I have never seen it. Don't get me wrong - I hope to see it happen, because I play a lot of weird transfers, but transfer to minors are simply less frequent or important than raising the major.

[aguahombre]

PhilKing, on 2012-November-18, 19:24, said:

At a rough guess, for every 10 times you hold a decent heart raise, you will hold an intermediate minor one-suiter once.

After 1H-2S-2NT (hearts, 9+ if 4+ 10+ if 3), you have more room to deal with your game and slam tries. These are you bread and butter hands. It's not just about handling you invitational heart raises more effectively, it helps the whole spectrum of raises.

Name one occasion ever where anyone has won imps by bidding 2NT as a transfer to clubs, stopped in 3C and gained imps. I have never seen it. Don't get me wrong - I hope to see it happen, because I play a lot of weird transfers, but transfer to minors are simply less frequent or important than raising the major.

Since FromageGB's suggestions and question still allow for the invitational heart raise via 3D, the "frequency of occurrence" argument has more calculations than that.

How often has the space made available with the 2NT heart raise been necessary and utilized? Is it often enough so that we really want to give up the admittedly less frequent ability to distinguish strengths of one-suiters in either clubs or diamonds?

How often has the extra room allowed by 2NT been utilized by the opponents instead, or their raise of the spade overcall knocked off any advantage regardless?

We have been over this same ground when discussing the 14 or 15 ways of showing M support via Bergen, J2N, mini splinters, and regular splinters in other threads, at the expense of the occasions when we would like to show minor suiters of more than one strength ---so the questions are nothing new. The answers will probably not be anything new from regular posters, either.