[kenberg]

The $ sign in the title was intended to be a ?. I cannot explain this. Anyway:

The following arose during a game in the Intermediate/Advanced Club and led to some discussion.

---

At the table, a natural 2NT was selected. Kibbing, I commented that many would play 2NT as Lebensohl here. It became clear that many play Leb in this situation much as they do after an overcall of 1NT, so fast 3NT denies a stopper, slow shows a stopper. My practice is different. An immediate 3NT is pretty much to play unless doubler has an exceptional hand, and a slow 3NT (2NT as a relay to clubs then 3NT) shows a stopper but some doubt as to whether 3NT is the right choice. Doubler, with a stiff heart and decent minors, should probably pull.

Anyway, this is a multi-part question.
a. Not playing Leb, 2NT sounds right? You have to show your strength somehow.
b. Playing Leb, how do you handle this? The choices are, I assume, 3♦ which shows some values (since 2NT->3♣->3♦ is weak) or else getting to either a fast or slow 3NT. The hand is a bit weak for such a unilateral game bid, is it not? But then you would bid 3♦ if the Ace of clubs were the Queen, right? That woould seem to be about minimum for 3♦?

I'll show the hands later for whatever interest they have, but the given hand seems to me to be a situation that arises uncomfortably often when playing Leb.

[ahydra]

If I'm playing IMPs I'll just bid 3NT, I think. Playing Leb, you could bid 3D but partner may well pass with a flattish 14.

ahydra

[CamHenry]

ahydra, on 2013-March-07, 07:59, said:

If I'm playing IMPs I'll just bid 3NT, I think. Playing Leb, you could bid 3D but partner may well pass with a flattish 14.

ahydra

Let's see about that last statement. You have
K85
QJT
J9754
A2

Partner could have QJTx/xx/AK/KJxx, and 3NT is shaky (if they duck the first heart), while 3D makes. Now let's give partner a better flattish 14:
Axx/Kxx/AKxx/xxx
Here, he's got enough in diamonds that (a) he'll probably bid again and (b) 3NT has a lot of play except on a club lead.
Let's try another hand:
AJxx/Kx/xx/KQJxx
we're missing 4 top tricks, and the SQ is probably offside, but 3NT has play since you can probably knock out the HA early (if they go after diamonds, they're setting up your suit). Partner's likely to correct 3D to 3S (playing equal-level conversion) so I'm happy with it.

All in all, I think the hands where an immediate 3D (playing Lebensohl) gets us to a better contract are numerous enough that I'm bidding it.

[WellSpyder]

kenberg, on 2013-March-07, 07:53, said:

many play Leb in this situation much as they do after an overcall of 1NT, so fast 3NT denies a stopper, slow shows a stopper.

Whenever I agree to play Leb in response to a TOx of a weak 2 as a way of distinguishing hands with and without reasonable values, my partners seem to assume this distinction between showing and denying a stop as well. I try to convince them that this is nonsensical since the situation really isn't like using Leb when oppo overcall our 1NT. In the latter case, it is reasonable to assume opener will have a stop a fair amount of the time, so may well still be able to play in 3N when responder does not have a stop. But how likely is this when the corresponding hand has already made a TOx of oppo's suit? So I agree 3N should be kept for a hand that is pretty comfortable with the idea of playing 3N, rather than one without a stop.

[ArtK78]

WellSpyder, on 2013-March-07, 09:11, said:

Whenever I agree to play Leb in response to a TOx of a weak 2 as a way of distinguishing hands with and without reasonable values, my partners seem to assume this distinction between showing and denying a stop as well. I try to convince them that this is nonsensical since the situation really isn't like using Leb when oppo overcall our 1NT. In the latter case, it is reasonable to assume opener will have a stop a fair amount of the time, so may well still be able to play in 3N when responder does not have a stop. But how likely is this when the corresponding hand has already made a TOx of oppo's suit? So I agree 3N should be kept for a hand that is pretty comfortable with the idea of playing 3N, rather than one without a stop.

Agree. I, like many other players, play Lebensohl in this situation, but the 3NT bid over the double means that I want to play 3NT. Bidding 3NT to show game forcing values without a stopper in this situation makes little sense. The situation is much different from the situation in which partner opens 1NT and there is an intervening bid.

EDIT: With the given hand, I would bid 3NT. It is likely to be the best contract, and since my (and hopefully my partner's) style is that direct actions over preempts promise sound hands, I expect that 3NT will be the right contract. 3♦ is not unreasonable, as it promises values and a dimaond suit. Partner can then bid 3♥ if he is looking for game and I can bid 3NT. Still, I think I have enough to bid 3NT directly.

[ahydra]

CamHenry, on 2013-March-07, 08:22, said:

Let's see about that last statement. You have
K85
QJT
J9754
A2

Partner could have QJTx/xx/AK/KJxx, and 3NT is shaky (if they duck the first heart), while 3D makes. Now let's give partner a better flattish 14:
Axx/Kxx/AKxx/xxx
Here, he's got enough in diamonds that (a) he'll probably bid again and (b) 3NT has a lot of play except on a club lead.
Let's try another hand:
AJxx/Kx/xx/KQJxx
we're missing 4 top tricks, and the SQ is probably offside, but 3NT has play since you can probably knock out the HA early (if they go after diamonds, they're setting up your suit). Partner's likely to correct 3D to 3S (playing equal-level conversion) so I'm happy with it.

All in all, I think the hands where an immediate 3D (playing Lebensohl) gets us to a better contract are numerous enough that I'm bidding it.

My impression is that experts want to be in game 100% of the game with combined 25 HCP, no? Perhaps even 24 (or if you're Meckwell, 22). Partner shouldn't (well, mine won't at least) double 2H on a crappy 12.

Your first example hand has only 12 cards And I'm not sure I would go to 3NT opposite what could be Qxx/Qx/xxxxx/AJx with your second example.

Perhaps this exposes a minor hole in the "2NT = 0-7" style. We need some way of showing INV hands.

ahydra

[mikeh]

CamHenry, on 2013-March-07, 08:22, said:

Let's see about that last statement. You have
K85
QJT
J9754
A2

Partner could have QJTx/xx/AK/KJxx, and 3NT is shaky (if they duck the first heart), while 3D makes. Now let's give partner a better flattish 14:
Axx/Kxx/AKxx/xxx
Here, he's got enough in diamonds that (a) he'll probably bid again and (b) 3NT has a lot of play except on a club lead.
Let's try another hand:
AJxx/Kx/xx/KQJxx
we're missing 4 top tricks, and the SQ is probably offside, but 3NT has play since you can probably knock out the HA early (if they go after diamonds, they're setting up your suit). Partner's likely to correct 3D to 3S (playing equal-level conversion) so I'm happy with it.

All in all, I think the hands where an immediate 3D (playing Lebensohl) gets us to a better contract are numerous enough that I'm bidding it.

I don't disagree with your conclusion that driving to 3N is probably a bad idea, but I don't think that making up example hands is a good way to try to analzye this problem. Partner rarely has the hands you create, plus it is almost impossible to act as a true random hand generator. We almost always end up creating hands that, on balance, justify the way we want to bid.

There is, however, one way to look at possible hands. Partner will usually NOT hold a heart stopper for his double. After all, the prototypical double is an opening hand with 4=1=4=4 shape. It's not that we're going to assume that he holds that: only that a significant majority of takeout doubles, with which he will pass a constructive 3♦ will look something like that or some 4432 with two hearts.

This means that the opps have a significant chance of having hearts established at trick 2.

This hand we hold offers limited prospects for running 8 consecutive tricks after winning the first (or 2nd) heart trick. Thus this hand, while it might make 3N, will usually fail.

There was one other point where I strongly disagree with your post.

You suggest that over 3♦ partner can and will bid 3♠ on a 4 card suit with 4=2=2=5 14 count, on the basis of ELC.

I suggest you do a little more reading on ELC. It doesn't apply to this situation. ELC is usually (always, in my experience) a situation in which the doubler has 4 cards in the unbid major and 5+ diamonds. The idea is that one can escape partner's bid in clubs by bidding diamonds without showing extras.

I have never seen it suggested that one can do it with long clubs and short diamonds, and that one makes the 'ELC' into a 4 card major.

Imo, the standard meaning of double followed, over a 3♦ advance, by 3 of the unbid major is 'extra values, 5+ suit'.

[mikeh]

ahydra, on 2013-March-07, 10:06, said:

My impression is that experts want to be in game 100% of the game with combined 25 HCP, no? Perhaps even 24 (or if you're Meckwell, 22). Partner shouldn't (well, mine won't at least) double 2H on a crappy 12.

ahydra

This is not my experience. Perhaps more accurately, my experience is that 'absent other factors, experts want to be in game on the vast majority of hands with a combined 25 HCP'.

The point being that on this hand, there are other factors that militate against this.

Experts (and others) will look at the quality and location of their cards in the context of the auction.

When an opp has announced a long, decent suit and partner has suggested weak shortness in that suit, by way of a takeout double, and our holding is QJ10, we have good reason to become a little cautious.

Had partner opened 1♣, 11-14, and rebid 1N over our 1♦ response, I would be ok with making an invitation to 3N with this hand. But that would be an entirely different auction.

Were my hand xx QJ10 KJ9xx Axx, I would be much more optimistic about game on the given auction because my diamond suit is good enough that opposite as little as Axx I am probably favoured to take 7 tricks using only partner's diamond A and he has more to offer than that. It would not be that I assume he has the diamond Ace, but that hoping for it, and that we can run the suit, seems to be a reasonable gamble.

J9xxx is an entirely different story. Yes, the compensating side K I hold offsets that to some degree, but the point is that I am now far less likely to be able to run diamonds (or any other source of tricks) without losing the lead.

In short, with the OP hand, I think 3♦ is a reasonable call, while if we made the hand xx QJ10 KJ9xx Ax, I'd prefer a slow route to 3N.

On another point raised by other posters, imo those who think that a fast 3N denies a stopper are simply confused. They learned that it does so as part of the lebensohl convention dealing with interference over our 1N, and somebody told them that they should play lebensohl after a t.o. double of a weak 2 and either stopped there or didn't go much further in the explanation. They went on to assume that each call meant the same in the 2 situations, without spending any thought on why this is a silly idea.

[kenberg]

I agree with the skeptics about 3NT. At the table, 2NT (natural) was raised to 3NT. Not surprisingly, it was one of those hands where 3NT could be beaten but wasn't. Here they are:

---

Probably if my four clones were sitting at the table the auction would have gone
Pass 1♦-Pass-2NT
All Pass

Anyway, a heart was led to the stiff King. It's true that it's not too late, a diamond to the ace and a club through will beat it, but that's not the way it went. Perhaps understandably East tried a club at trick 2.

I doubt I would have opened the West hand, and I am far from sure that I would have doubled 2♥ with the North hand. But bridge is less deterministic than is sometimes imagined.

There were two main reasons for posting. I have often encountered this idea that Leb after 2M-X-P is played so that 3NT slow/fast denies/shows (or vice versa) a stopper. It seemed like a public service to put that to rest.
The other reason is that I do think, playing Leb, we sometimes get hands where we would like to make a passable 2NT bid. We can't. So I was interested in what people would do with something like the hand I gave.

Feel free to comment further on this general theme.

[mikeh]

kenberg, on 2013-March-07, 14:44, said:

The other reason is that I do think, playing Leb, we sometimes get hands where we would like to make a passable 2NT bid. We can't. So I was interested in what people would do with something like the hand I gave.

Feel free to comment further on this general theme.

This sort of situation happens in innumerable sequences. We have to assign a meaning to every call in every sequence and, in all that I can think of, one can argue in favour of at least two and often multiple choices. Do we play a natural weak 2 bid in diamonds, or some form of multi, or acol, or flannery or.....etc.

We decide on meaning depending on wide range of factors, including partner's preferences. If all else is equal (eg memory load), we would do a cost benefit analysis. We'd look at the hands we can no longer bid well (here, the passable, natural 2N) and weigh the cost of losing that meaning in favour of the ability to distinguish between a wide range of advancing hand types.

For me, and presumably many others, the choice is easy to make. Using 2N as artificial will come up, either through using it or through not using it, many more times than will a natural 2N.

In addition, when we have a natural 2N, we can decide whether to upgrade into a 3N bid or not, and we will sometimes end up scrambling into a perhaps lucky but still nice-to-have good result and/or end up where we would have been anyway.

As a general theme, the notion that every meaning assigned to a call eliminates using that call for other purposes is a good one and one that everyone who is tinkering with their methods has to bear in mind.

[mikeh]

kenberg, on 2013-March-07, 14:44, said:

The other reason is that I do think, playing Leb, we sometimes get hands where we would like to make a passable 2NT bid. We can't. So I was interested in what people would do with something like the hand I gave.

Feel free to comment further on this general theme.

This sort of situation happens in innumerable sequences. We have to assign a meaning to every call in every sequence and, in all that I can think of, one can argue in favour of at least two and often multiple choices. Do we play a natural weak 2 bid in diamonds, or some form of multi, or acol, or flannery or.....etc.

We decide on meaning depending on wide range of factors, including partner's preferences. If all else is equal (eg memory load), we would do a cost benefit analysis. We'd look at the hands we can no longer bid well (here, the passable, natural 2N) and weigh the cost of losing that meaning in favour of the ability to distinguish between a wide range of advancing hand types.

For me, and presumably many others, the choice is easy to make. Using 2N as artificial will come up, either through using it or through not using it, many more times than will a natural 2N.

In addition, when we have a natural 2N, we can decide whether to upgrade into a 3N bid or not, and we will sometimes end up scrambling into a perhaps lucky but still nice-to-have good result and/or end up where we would have been anyway.

As a general theme, the notion that every meaning assigned to a call eliminates using that call for other purposes is a good one and one that everyone who is tinkering with their methods has to bear in mind.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

There were two main reasons for posting. I have often encountered this idea that Leb after 2M-X-P is played so that 3NT slow/fast denies/shows (or vice versa) a stopper. It seemed like a public service to put that to rest.

I agree that 3nt = denies stopper is pretty silly. What I'd really like to see though is the consensus views of:

1. what is direct 3s vs. delayed 3s? (after 2 red opener)
I've seen 5cd s inv vs. 4 cd s inv, inv vs. gf (direct 3s usu inv, but if partner is one of those "it's the same as over 1nt opener" you may find this is switched). BWS poll is totally unclear, I don't think they worded the questions well.

2. what is delayed 3nt?
I've seen both "shows doubt" and "choice of games with stopper + 4oM", among other stuff. Which is best?

3. what is direct cue vs. delayed cue?
One should probably be ask for stopper while the other looking for 4cd OM confirmation, but which is which?

Seems there are lots of possible sensible schemes, each possible scheme may make possible to differentiate some hand subsets at the expense of not being able to differentiate others, from my experience there simply isn't a consensus, and even with good player opposite these bids are guessing games if you never got around to discussing them which is fairly likely absent a long-term partnership. Luckily most of the time you just want to bid 3nt or 4M or signoff in a partial and don't feel the need to do something super-scientific, but I wish there were stronger defaults.

[FM75]

kenberg, on 2013-March-07, 07:53, said:

The following arose during a game in the Intermediate/Advanced Club and led to some discussion.

---

My partner and I play against weak two's as follows.

Intervener is expected to have opening strength hand, for us 11-15. Advancer's options are:

• With < 9 hcp, signoff with a transfer 2N -> 3♣, 3♣ -> 3♦, etc.
• 9-12, invite by going through 2N (lebensohl)
  
• 13+, Transfer as in 1) but bid on. Game forcing.
  

A fast transfer into opener's major suit is a GF cue bid, showing 4+ cards in the other major, but no stop in opener's suit.
A slow transfer into opener's major suit shows a stop.
A transfer into opener's minor suit shows no interest in a major (would have transferred to the major).
A slow 3NT promises a stop. A fast 3N is pretty much unnecessary - I suppose it could be given some artificial meaning, perhaps some sort of 55?

Bidding this way, intervener has a fairly well defined picture of advancer's strength and can make a reasonable informed decision of prospects for the hand. With some unusual hand, intervener might elect not to complete a transfer. I can't remember that happening, but it is a possibility.

On the hand shown, we have invitational strength, so 2N-3♣-3♦ shows diamond suit and 9-12. With diamonds this weak, and hearts under opener I would also consider just a direct transfer.

[kenberg]

It would be nice to have some sort of reasonably satisfactory default. Leb is one of those things that everyone likes to play, but when it comes to weak 2's, you get, as noted above, a lot of possibilities about agreements. Here are some suggestions:

After 2♥-X-Pass-
Fourth hand's bids have the following meanings:

Looking for 4♠:
3♥ GF with exactly four spades and no heart stop.

2NT-Pass-3♣-Pass-3♥ GF with exactly four spades plus a heart stop.

3♠ invitational with five spades (with gf and five spades, just bid it), with an ivit and four spades you go through 2NT.

No doubt better schemes are possible, but this should keep the partnership from playing 4♠ in a 4-3 fit (Sometimes doubler has three spades, too good a hand to pass 2♥, this uncovers it).

Same idea applies after a weak 2♠ opening. There is a little less room, but still enough room usually. After 2♠-X-Pass the slow 3♥ has to be the weak bid, so the immediate 3♥ is invit but cannot also be showing five.



Looking for NT:
2♥-X-Pass-3NT: Leave me alone, I want to pay 3NT.

2♥-X-Pass-2NT
Pass-3♣--Pass-3NT : I have a stop plus values, but partner, I value your opinion. Especially with a stiff H in doubler's hand, , 5m may play better.


This is sort of a starter set. I think it is pretty much what is in Washington Standard (probably not exactly, I didn't look it up), but I also think it is a pretty widespread approach. Absolutely there can be other approaches. But having some sort of default is definitely better than each doing his own thing.

[JLOGIC]

I play:

2N then 3N=heart stopper and 4 spades, COG
2N then 3S=5+ spades, slam interest
2N then 3H=exactly 4 spades, GF, no heart stopper
2N then 3m=weak
2N then 4m=forcing

Direct cuebid = not 4 spades, no heart stopper
Direct 3S= invite
Direct 3N=to play (stopper and not 4 spades)
Direct 4m= stronger than 3m but not forcing, usually distributional

Of course you can play many things, including 2N then 3S vs 3S direct both being invite, one with 5 one with 4, direct 4m being forcing and 2N then 4m being 4 spades and longer minor, direct 3N vs 2N 3N as doubt about stopper vs double stopper, etc.

[JLOGIC]

On this hand I would bid 3N playing leb. I might be overboard obviously but it feels like a good hand, esp if partner doesn't have a stiff heart (which is made more likely by the non raise, but this inference is overrated imo). I think 3D is a very reasonable alternative though and would not criticize it, either could work.

[Fluffy]

QJ10 in their suit and 11 HCP... I am never stopping sort of game, giving partner hands when you don't have a fit doesn't really work, fitless balanced hands are good for milton work.

[Free]

I'd just bid 3NT when playing leb.

Btw it's all over after the H lead. A D switch followed by a C through doesn't defeat the contract. Declarer can play SA and run ST dropping West's S9. 4D, 4S and CA gives us 9 tricks. Although it's a DD line of play, it's not impossible to find since LHO has already shown 2 Aces and CJ.

[kenberg]

True enough. But at least it gets tougher to make.

[kenberg]

JLOGIC, on 2013-March-07, 22:45, said:

I play:

2N then 3N=heart stopper and 4 spades, COG
2N then 3S=5+ spades, slam interest
2N then 3H=exactly 4 spades, GF, no heart stopper
2N then 3m=weak
2N then 4m=forcing

Direct cuebid = not 4 spades, no heart stopper
Direct 3S= invite
Direct 3N=to play (stopper and not 4 spades)
Direct 4m= stronger than 3m but not forcing, usually distributional

Of course you can play many things, including 2N then 3S vs 3S direct both being invite, one with 5 one with 4, direct 4m being forcing and 2N then 4m being 4 spades and longer minor, direct 3N vs 2N 3N as doubt about stopper vs double stopper, etc.

This thought out structure could well serve as a default. Bids have to mean something, and both must know what that is.
A note:
When the opening is 2♠ there must be a modification (in this or any scheme) since 2NT->3♣->3♥ is needed for the weak hand. So I assume the above scheme over 2♥, making "2N then 3S=5+ spades, slam interest", does not travel well. Perhaps over an opening 2♠ and a double, 2N then 4H=5+ hearts, slam interest?

Anyway, I think "Leb over weak 2s, pard?"--"ok" is a common conversation in pickup games on bbo, and having some sort of reference for what this actually means is badly needed. I know there have been such things as Rubensohl and yet-another-sohl so I suppose this could be called Justinsohl, but I will try to restrain myself.

The following amused me: http://web.inter.nl..../M.A.F/sohl.htm
Admittedly, I am sometimes amused by weird things.I am not at all recommending this sohlfood.