[jillybean]

Hi, I'm sure I've asked this before but can't find the thread.

I learned Lebensohl playing a 15-17 nt, I don't think it changes but are there any tweaks required to play it with a 12-14 nt?

Thanks.

[DavidKok]

Other than the obvious one (shift all your ranges by 3 points) I don't think so. There are some secondary inferences - it is not as vital to rightside games anymore, the opponents are less likely to have bid purely for the lead (which should change responder's hand evaluation a bit) and I think it is slightly more common to allow a 5cM in a weak notrump than it is to allow it in a strong one. As far as I know none of these require an overhaul of Lebensohl.

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2023-January-09, 16:09, said:

Other than the obvious one (shift all your ranges by 3 points) I don't think so. There are some secondary inferences - it is not as vital to rightside games anymore, the opponents are less likely to have bid purely for the lead (which should change responder's hand evaluation a bit) and I think it is slightly more common to allow a 5cM in a weak notrump than it is to allow it in a strong one. As far as I know none of these require an overhaul of Lebensohl.

With the exception of the reference to 5 card majors (where my understanding and definitely my practice has been the opposite), I agree with this.

[Douglas43]

Have played weak NT and leb for years. Works ok

[jillybean]

How do you handle interference showing two suits.
Two known suits and a bid showing one suit + an unknown other?

[DavidKok]

With two known I play Unusual over Unusual. There are better defences for this particular scenario (for example, if they show both majors you may want to be able to show or ask for a stopper).
If they show 1 suit with an unknown second suit just treat it as an overcall in the known suit. If they hit you with methods where they show, say, a known 4-card major and an unknown 5-card minor this agreement won't do very well, but treatments like that aren't too common. And at least it avoids confusion.

[helene_t]

As a passed hand you probably don't want the 3x bids to be f1. 2nt could then be natural, or show a 2suited hand

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2023-January-10, 16:50, said:

How do you handle interference showing two suits.
Two known suits and a bid showing one suit + an unknown other?

If they bid 2C for the majors, which is a common treatment amongst many different schemes, we play

X ownership of the hand, invites opener to double for penalty with Kxx or better in any major to which they run. Creates a ‘almost’ force to 2N, but isn’t game forcing. In fact, if responder has an ugly minimum he can choose to pass after say 1N (2C) x (2M) P (P), since game is unlikely and we’re not assured of a fit. Responder will not be stiff or void in either major.

2D. Natural, less than invitational

2M. Shortness. Often 3154/3145. Constructive values or better. Sort of a negative double for the minors.

2N transfer to 3C. Could be to play or could be forcing, depending on what responder does next

3C transfer to 3D. See 2N


If they bid showing two suits, one unknown. (A common version of this is 2M showing that major and a minor) we ignore the minor and treat it as a natural 2M overcall. We play transfer lebensohl, which has significant advantages over basic lebensohl but requires extra memory.

[AL78]

jillybean, on 2023-January-10, 16:50, said:

How do you handle interference showing two suits.
Two known suits and a bid showing one suit + an unknown other?

If it is something like Astro use the major as the anchor suit and play Lebensohl as if they overcalled in the major.

[mycroft]

We're lazy and simple (yeah, right, but simple enough).

• Rescue system over X (whatever it means - won't be the first time the "single-suit" double catches a "oh thanks, pd" pass. However, note that our rescue system includes both "down 1 for -100 looks like a great score, let's play for it" and "12+12+11 means you're endplayed at trick 1, GL. Maybe next time don't play 'equal or better' doubles.")
  
• System on over 2♣, whatever it means. Yeah, frequently that will be inefficient especially against Landy, but the number of pairs that play Landy/weak NT and can remember it are wildly overshadowed by the number of pairs that don't play different systems/weak NT; and frankly, seriously overshadowed by the number of pairs that play Landy/Weak NT and (one or both) forget. And even if it's not, we sometimes get to a 4-4 major suit game, knowing it's a 4-1 break against, and are happy.
  
• SA Texas on if it's a jump.
  
• Leb/higher 2-level interference, double is takeout (*).
  
• In situations where we'll almost always get a second chance to act and/or there's no "known suit", we can choose to pass and when they clarify, leb around what they've shown.

* Lebensohl and artificial:

• if they show two known suits, we leb around the cheaper one. Yeah, could be an issue, we pay attention to "high-suit" stoppers, too.
  
• If they show "this suit and another", leb around the known suit.
  
• If they show "a suit, but not this one", double shows the suit and bidding their known suit is for takeout. Passing and doubling the known suit is for fun (exception to above :-).

Lebensohl is, if anything, more important over a weak NT than a strong one, because they *will* get in. And frequently, they'll get in with hands they shouldn't because "we can't get stolen from". So you have to prepare for a fair number of "game is still on" situations.

Now, there's a key difference between me and Mike. We work on our system, but we're not as competitive. We have other things to do (like direct). So, adding an exception, worthwhile as it is, for a situation that may come up twice a year, is more dangerous than it's worth. And Mike admits he tailors his system to high-level IMP matches. Which means things like "the opponents bid on hands they shouldn't" and "the opponents forget their weak NT system more often than they remember it" (and "double shows equal or better", for that matter) are arguments that do not apply when he's building his system, and he uses his skill to handle when it comes up anyway in the Penticton bunny-bash Open Pairs.

[helene_t]

I discussed it with one of the weak NT gurus at the club yesterday.

He plays that fast shows an invitational hand while slow (as in normal Leb) shows a weak hand.

So in
1NT-(2♠)-?
there's no way to show a forcing hand with hearts other than double. Maybe he plays that the cuebid shows five hearts as strong hands with four hearts can double, but I doubt it. Probably he just pretends to have either 4 or 6 hearts, depending on the quality of his five hearts.

This is weird but of course makes more sense in a weak NT context than in a strong NT context.

[mikeh]

helene_t, on 2023-January-11, 11:13, said:

I discussed it with one of the weak NT gurus at the club yesterday.

He plays that fast shows an invitational hand while slow (as in normal Leb) shows a weak hand.

So in
1NT-(2♠)-?
there's no way to show a forcing hand with hearts other than double. Maybe he plays that the cuebid shows five hearts as strong hands with four hearts can double, but I doubt it. Probably he just pretends to have either 4 or 6 hearts, depending on the quality of his five hearts.

This is weird but of course makes more sense in a weak NT context than in a strong NT context.

Over 1N (2S) transfer lebensohl allows for 3D to show an invitational or better hand in hearts. 3C shows diamonds, 2N shows clubs or a hand about to cuebid or bid 3N

One of the main benefits of any transfer scheme is the ability to use the transfer with a range of hands.

[Frank_lol_]

oh no, it's lebensohl, my nightmare when I frst started to play bridge.
We play a simple (?) version of lb:
1NT (2♣) System on, X=stayman.
Exception: jac. transfer to their known suit at 2 level or cuebid at 3 level asks for that stopper. e.g 1NT 2♣ (club and sth else) 3♣ asks for C stopper; 1NT (2♣) (both Maj) 2♦ asks for ♥ stopper.
1NT (anything else) normal lebensohl with 3 level bids as transfers; transfer to their suit = stayman (like direct cubidding in normal normal lb); 3♠ = 5-5 or better lowest two suits, slam intrests.
A question: we play X as penalty (except 2♣ overcall like I mentioned above), but it doesnt come up often, and when it does, it just reminds the opponments that SOS is a thing. So should we change it to take out double, or stayman, asking for unbid majors, or if both majors are bid, asking for minors? (kinda like a negative double)?

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2023-January-11, 10:15, said:

[*]System on over 2♣, whatever it means. Yeah, frequently that will be inefficient especially against Landy, but the number of pairs that play Landy/weak NT and can remember it are wildly overshadowed by the number of pairs that don't play different systems/weak NT; and frankly, seriously overshadowed by the number of pairs that play Landy/Weak NT and (one or both) forget. And even if it's not, we sometimes get to a 4-4 major suit game, knowing it's a 4-1 break against, and are happy.
...
Now, there's a key difference between me and Mike. We work on our system, but we're not as competitive. We have other things to do (like direct). So, adding an exception, worthwhile as it is, for a situation that may come up twice a year, is more dangerous than it's worth. And Mike admits he tailors his system to high-level IMP matches.

I was a bit surprised to hear you say this, as you have been rather conservative/natural in approach to interference in other contexts. With strong NT I have played Systems on over 2♣ for years and found it unsatisfactory, although I can imagine things are different with weak NT.
But even though I direct and stuff I am intrigued by Mike's scheme, which for those of us who play Rubensohl is more or less Systems off plus the neat twirk of 2M as shortage with minors rather than (the useless here) natural weak.

[akwoo]

Ditto, except we play unusual vs unusual against 2 known suits.

And, while I don't think it's optimal, in one partnership we play X=one minor or both majors against weak NTs, with the caveat that the X promises a constructive hand so that partner can (and often does) pass for penalty. (Actually, without further discussion, you should play any action against the opps' weak NT is constructive - without additional tools finding your game is more important than disrupting them.)

mycroft, on 2023-January-11, 10:15, said:

We're lazy and simple (yeah, right, but simple enough).

• Rescue system over X (whatever it means - won't be the first time the "single-suit" double catches a "oh thanks, pd" pass. However, note that our rescue system includes both "down 1 for -100 looks like a great score, let's play for it" and "12+12+11 means you're endplayed at trick 1, GL. Maybe next time don't play 'equal or better' doubles.")
  
• System on over 2♣, whatever it means. Yeah, frequently that will be inefficient especially against Landy, but the number of pairs that play Landy/weak NT and can remember it are wildly overshadowed by the number of pairs that don't play different systems/weak NT; and frankly, seriously overshadowed by the number of pairs that play Landy/Weak NT and (one or both) forget. And even if it's not, we sometimes get to a 4-4 major suit game, knowing it's a 4-1 break against, and are happy.
  
• SA Texas on if it's a jump.
  
• Leb/higher 2-level interference, double is takeout (*).
  
• In situations where we'll almost always get a second chance to act and/or there's no "known suit", we can choose to pass and when they clarify, leb around what they've shown.

* Lebensohl and artificial:

• if they show two known suits, we leb around the cheaper one. Yeah, could be an issue, we pay attention to "high-suit" stoppers, too.
  
• If they show "this suit and another", leb around the known suit.
  
• If they show "a suit, but not this one", double shows the suit and bidding their known suit is for takeout. Passing and doubling the known suit is for fun (exception to above :-).

Lebensohl is, if anything, more important over a weak NT than a strong one, because they *will* get in. And frequently, they'll get in with hands they shouldn't because "we can't get stolen from". So you have to prepare for a fair number of "game is still on" situations.

Now, there's a key difference between me and Mike. We work on our system, but we're not as competitive. We have other things to do (like direct). So, adding an exception, worthwhile as it is, for a situation that may come up twice a year, is more dangerous than it's worth. And Mike admits he tailors his system to high-level IMP matches. Which means things like "the opponents bid on hands they shouldn't" and "the opponents forget their weak NT system more often than they remember it" (and "double shows equal or better", for that matter) are arguments that do not apply when he's building his system, and he uses his skill to handle when it comes up anyway in the Penticton bunny-bash Open Pairs.

[mycroft]

• Well, we play Keri - which changes things somewhat over a Stayman system, especially a Stayman system against 2♣ Landy or "clubs and a major" (or even "clubs and a higher").
  
• Is it worth it to figure out how to "Stayman with a stopper" over 2♣ showing clubs? We decided not.
  
• If 2♣ doesn't show clubs, we have the option to let it come around again and leb over the known hand. Or we can decide to bid our hand right away and stop the opponents from working out "the known hand".
  
• In my experience (and in Anderson's, when he wrote the Lebensohl book), a 2♣ bid by pairs who play Landy (not Multi-Landy) is a club suit almost half the time.
  
• We have switched to takeout doubles in general; given we can transfer into any suit at the 2 level with Keri (okay we get to 3♣, but 2♦), and the chance we have a "takeout" double of clubs that doesn't have a good Keri bid, it isn't a big deal. Opener still has the option to "hey partner, did you have a penalty double of 2♣?" balance, just like higher interference.
  
• We agreed the base rule (rescue/X, systems on/2♣, leb/higher) basically as soon as this wasn't going to be a "once or twice" partnership - when partner agreed to be my Saturday night spare, in fact. The move to Keri 4 or 5 years later didn't point out a reason to change. The move to takeout doubles didn't prompt a need to change.
• And yeah we've still forgotten it once or twice. In 13 years :-). I would expect it to be more if we decided "rescue/X, unless X is..." or "Keri/2♣ if 2♣ means..."

Per AKWoo: I can see us doing "UvU" over two suits; We even have a good pattern for that. But it doesn't tend to involve "looking for 3NT", so it would require some thinking! How often do you miss the 4-4-4-1 major fits (because a *lot* of our interference is "5-4, either way, minimum")?

And with one partner (now, sadly, deceased), I played Brozel. Including over weak NT. But our "one-suit" double was "good suit" in general, and against a weak NT, basically "one-loser and an entry". For exactly the reason you mention.

[jillybean]

Thanks all. I've been reading this, just too busy to reply, back in NZ