[paulg]

Like many there are a number of situations where we play Lebensohl in some form. Probably like a fair number of partnerships we have not fully discussed all the continuations and we discovered one of these yesterday.

In the following auctions we play 2NT is Lebensohl showing a competitive hand (denying reasonable values), what is the initial doubler showing by these sequences:

(1♠) Dbl (2♠) 2NT
Pass 3♥

(1♠) Dbl (2♠) 2NT
Pass 3♠ Pass 4♣
Pass 4♥

(1♠) Dbl (2♠) 2NT
Pass 4♥

Thoughts and discussion welcome.

Paul

[whereagles]

I never had any of those happening, but here goes what I'd make of it:

1. Good 1 suiter hand, usually 18-20 (GOSH)
2. GF with 5 hearts and likely tolerance for diamonds/clubs
3. GOSH with self-sufficient suit and some extras

[mikeh]

1. A typical hand for double then a suit: for me, would be good 6+ suit and great 16+...

2. A try for 3N: running hearts, expectation of 9 tricks if you stop spades, when you don't, then hope that your cards, not being in spades, make 4♥ playable

3. Great hand, can't stand the risk of you passing 3♥

A lot depends on your agreements about (1). If it is forcing, then (3) becomes problematic... it has to be different than 3♥ in some manner: perhaps 3♥ shows flexibility while 4♥ shows no doubt about trump. But I prefer to allow the 2N to be on really marginal values with a 6+ card suit... I hate defending 2♠ with 3=1=3=6 with KJ10xxx in clubs and out, as an example. So I wouldn't play (1) as forcing.

[han]

Without the 2NT call I would play 3H as NF but now that advancer has shown some values(I would not bid a free 2NT on a 0-count) I play it as forcing. Hence 4H does not show a better hand but a less flexible hand (or a less strong hand) and 3S followed by 4H can't show hearts.

Without 2NT it would have been what mikeh said: 3H = NF, 3S followed by 4H = natural, trying for 3NT, 4H directly = to play.

EDIT: more generally, double followed by a new suit is forcing only when advancer has shown values.

[paulg]

My partner and I agree with these replies, but natch we agree with different ones. We both knew that (1) would be a forcing 3♥.

My partner agrees with Justin and this is what we'll be doing in the future. I was more for swapping (1) and (2) around in his scheme.

I held the strong hand with

♠AJ
♥AKxxx
♦KQx
♣Kxx

and partner held three small hearts and ♣AQxxx. Luckily it made little difference as all game contracts failed when both our suits broke 4-1.

[csdenmark]

cardsharp, on Feb 11 2008, 08:41 PM, said:

Like many there are a number of situations where we play Lebensohl in some form. Probably like a fair number of partnerships we have not fully discussed all the continuations and we discovered one of these yesterday.

In the following auctions we play 2NT is Lebensohl showing a competitive hand (denying reasonable values), what is the initial doubler showing by these sequences:

(1♠) Dbl (2♠) 2NT
Pass 3♥

(1♠) Dbl (2♠) 2NT
Pass 3♠ Pass 4♣
Pass 4♥

(1♠) Dbl (2♠) 2NT
Pass 4♥

Thoughts and discussion welcome.

Paul

I doubt very much you use Lebensohl here. Lebensohl is a tool to be used over preemptive features. In these auctions you will be in deep trouble using Lebensohl looking for fit at 3-4 level.

DBL shows a good hand with no good place to stand. Something like 10-20HcP and 2-3-4-4/1-3-4-5.

It is rarely wise to use a major suit as a relay after 2NT. It is not wise to ask partner for a suggestion without intensions to listen.

[whereagles]

csdenmark, on Feb 12 2008, 02:04 PM, said:

I doubt very much you use Lebensohl here. Lebensohl is a tool to be used over preemptive features. In these auctions you will be in deep trouble using Lebensohl looking for fit at 3-4 level.

If opps were to open on 12 hcp and respond on 5 all the time, you could use 2NT as something else. Nowadays people open light and respond light, which creates a need to distinguish between a good 3m bid and a bad one. In fact,

1M dbl 2M ??

isn't much different from

2M dbl pass ??

[csdenmark]

whereagles, on Feb 12 2008, 04:19 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Feb 12 2008, 02:04 PM, said:

I doubt very much you use Lebensohl here. Lebensohl is a tool to be used over preemptive features. In these auctions you will be in deep trouble using Lebensohl looking for fit at 3-4 level.

If opps were to open on 12 hcp and respond on 5 all the time, you could use 2NT as something else. Nowadays people open light and respond light, which creates a need to distinguish between a good 3m bid and a bad one. In fact,

1M dbl 2M ??

isn't much different from

2M dbl pass ??

Aha

1M dbl 2M ?? -This is beginner bridge - taking out partners options for game for 7. 3M might make sense but not 2M.

2M dbl pass ?? - This is sensible for both parties and Lebensohl is right here.

[whereagles]

what the hell are you talking about???

[csdenmark]

whereagles, on Feb 12 2008, 06:30 PM, said:

what the hell are you talking about???

Not so difficult.

I say 1M-DBL is unlikely to be Lebensohl. Normally it is Sputnik but can of course be something else.

I say 2M-DBL is perfect for Lebensohl. All ought to play such - but it is rather difficult.

I say 1M-DBL-2M is rubbish.

[han]

cardsharp, on Feb 12 2008, 03:47 AM, said:

I was more for swapping (1) and (2) around in his scheme.

When you bid 3S you hide the heart suit, partner will be deciding whether to bid 3NT not knowing what you have. So you should only do that if you are very sure that if partner has a spade stopper then you want to be in 3NT. With this hand that doesn't see to be the case. If you have 9 top tricks that seems to be a safer bet.

EDIT: I was confused when I posted this, less confused now.

[awm]

A hand that really wants to be in 3NT if only partner has a spade stop might bid 3S over 1S? So I don't think 3S is "asking for a stopper because I have a running suit." Instead, I'd take 3S as "I have a very strong takeout double and want to be in game opposite your hand" -- something like 18+ points. After this action, I agree with Justin that 4♣ basically sets the suit and 4♥ is a cue.

To csdenmark's comment, there are a number of different meanings you can assign to the auction 1♠-X-2♠-2NT. To some degree it depends on what meaning you assign to advancer's double of 2♠. Basically:

(1) You could play 2NT as natural. But this caters to a pretty narrow range of hands some of which might be better off passing (and defending) or making a responsive double. And if opponents have their bids, you're unlikely to have 3NT on power.

(2) You could play 2NT as offering multiple places to play. But double seems to also have this meaning. In some partnerships I distinguish by saying that double always shows 4♥ and a minor (trying to reach hearts when takeout double has four but not when it has three) and that 2NT specifically shows both minors.

(3) You could play 2NT as distinguishing good and bad 3-level bids. It seems like give partner's takeout double you will usually be right to bid a five-card suit at the three level, since you have at least an 8-card fit and often a 9-card fit in that suit. It seems unreasonable to force a pass with (say) six points and a five-card suit, since the points are probably fairly evenly divided and each side will have an eight or nine card fit -- this is a way to lose a lot of boards at MP and a large number of 5-imp swings at IMPs. On the other hand, if opponents could be bidding on air with a bit of shape, you also need a bid with ten points and a suit. Obviously when you have ten points in this auction there is a "joker" at the table, but it's normal for partner to double with 1444 ten-counts (perfect shape) or for people to open with 6331 ten-counts (for example) or to raise with less than six points if holding compensating shape (I'm sure we all raise with 3541 and an ace for example).

(4) You could "mix and match" a bit, for example playing 2NT as either of both minors or a bad hand with hearts, whereas 3♥ direct shows at least mild game interest (i.e. 9-11 or so). Or you could assign some more complex meaning to double, etc. This is probably the "best" of the options, but requires a lot of agreements since different things seem to happen in different auctions (i.e. compare 1♥-Dbl-2♥ to 1♠-Dbl-2♠).

It's not obvious that any of these ideas are "wrong" or "beginner bridge" -- it may depend on how light your opponents tend to bid/respond and how sound partner's takeout doubles are.

[csdenmark]

Lebensohl is starting here: 1M-DBL, but that makes no sense. Here you play something else than assuming 1M to be a preemptive opening. You normally play Sputnik. What you define 2NT to, I dont care, but it is not Sputnik.

1♥-Dbl-2♥ to 1♠-Dbl-2♠, Maybe you dont understand why this is silly. It is that silly that it ought to be time for you to leave the table instead of wasting your time for incompetent players.

Take a look into scoring table and you will see why I am right.

1♥♠-Dbl, for 8 tricks won........................: 470/670

1♥-Dbl-2♥ or 1♠-Dbl-2♠, for 8 tricks won: 260/360

Low level contracts doubled/redoubled are the most profitable contracts in bridge. Therefore you always need to bid tactically according to scoring table.

There is no way to aquire better score for 13 tricks than 1nt RDBL. This is 3160. If you bid 7nt RDBL you will gain 2980.

[Apollo81]

csdenmark, on Feb 12 2008, 04:09 PM, said:

Take a look into scoring table and you will see why I am right.
1♥♠-Dbl, for 8 tricks won........................: 470/670
1♥-Dbl-2♥ or 1♠-Dbl-2♠, for 8 tricks won: 260/360

First of all, you have this backwards. 2♥/♠X making 8 tricks is 470/670, and 1♥/♠X making 8 tricks is the lesser score.

Second of all, are you really arguing that responder should never raise because you might play in 1MX? That's what it looks like to me, though I have a hard time understanding your posts.

[csdenmark]

Apollo81, on Feb 12 2008, 11:28 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Feb 12 2008, 04:09 PM, said:

Take a look into scoring table and you will see why I am right.
1♥♠-Dbl, for 8 tricks won........................: 470/670
1♥-Dbl-2♥ or 1♠-Dbl-2♠, for 8 tricks won: 260/360

First of all, you have this backwards. 2♥/♠X making 8 tricks is 470/670, and 1♥/♠X making 8 tricks is the lesser score.

Second of all, are you really arguing that responder should never raise because you might play in 1MX? That's what it looks like to me, though I have a hard time understanding your posts.

Pity you have problems to understand. It is all very simple.

I say 1M-DBL-2M is silly and forbidden. After 1M-DBL you wait for opps. It is not for you to take them out of the fryin pan.

I say 1M-DBL-3M/4M might be sensible for preempt.

Please note you bid game score here: 1M-DBL-RDBL, that make sense too because it still put pressure on opps.

[dburn]

cardsharp, on Feb 11 2008, 01:41 PM, said:

Like many there are a number of situations where we play Lebensohl in some form. Probably like a fair number of partnerships we have not fully discussed all the continuations and we discovered one of these yesterday.

In the following auctions we play 2NT is Lebensohl showing a competitive hand (denying reasonable values), what is the initial doubler showing by these sequences:

(1♠) Dbl (2♠) 2NT
Pass 3♥

(1♠) Dbl (2♠) 2NT
Pass 3♠ Pass 4♣
Pass 4♥

(1♠) Dbl (2♠) 2NT
Pass 4♥

Thoughts and discussion welcome.

Paul

I am not quite sure what is meant by "showing a competitive hand (denying reasonable values)". Is the notion that with:

♠xx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣QJxxxx

one bids 2NT, hoping to pass partner's (presumably almost forced) 3♣? If so, I don't see why partner's 3♥ instead of 3♣ should create a force. Of course, with three small hearts and ♣AQxxx I would have raised it to four and gone minus, but I would have attributed this to bad luck.

I should say, however, that I am not the right person to answer questions on methods such as these. I would not bid 2NT with the hand above (nor would I bid 3♣ with it). Instead, I would bid 2NT - as I did today at TGRs - with:

♠AQxx ♥Jxx ♦Qxx ♣xxx.

Partner, who would not have acted again over 2♠, was pleased to see me take eight tricks; he would have been less pleased to see me get a minus score (which would have happened one way or the other had I not been able to bid a natural 2NT).

Since it has always seemed to me that playing 2NT as lebensohl in this kind of position is a bad idea, but since my partners (from beginner to expert) think it a good one, I have been keeping track for a couple of years now of the gains and losses from auctions in my partnerships where lebensohl has been a factor.

So far, over an admittedly modest sample of 14 deals, lebensohl is averaging 30.34% at matchpoints and minus 0.3 IMPs per deal at IMP scoring. In this respect, it is not the worst convention I have played (that distinction belongs to five-card Stayman over 2NT), but it is far from the best (splinters, as one might expect, are loyal servants).

[skjaeran]

csdenmark, on Feb 12 2008, 10:36 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Feb 12 2008, 11:28 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Feb 12 2008, 04:09 PM, said:

Take a look into scoring table and you will see why I am right.
1♥♠-Dbl, for 8 tricks won........................: 470/670
1♥-Dbl-2♥ or 1♠-Dbl-2♠, for 8 tricks won: 260/360

First of all, you have this backwards. 2♥/♠X making 8 tricks is 470/670, and 1♥/♠X making 8 tricks is the lesser score.

Second of all, are you really arguing that responder should never raise because you might play in 1MX? That's what it looks like to me, though I have a hard time understanding your posts.

Pity you have problems to understand. It is all very simple.

I say 1M-DBL-2M is silly and forbidden. After 1M-DBL you wait for opps. It is not for you to take them out of the fryin pan.

Huh??

Surely you raise your partners opeing to the 2-level if that's what your hand is worth. Get it off your chest and help partner. Besides, it's harder for opps to compete for the partscore if their fit is in a minor suit (or hearts when we've got spades).

I really don't understand what you're talking about here.

[awm]

1♠-X is takeout. Admittedly this is a "convention" but it's almost universally played.

Obviously if 1♠-X was usually going to be passed out (i.e. double says "let's beat 1♠") then it would be silly to bid 2♠. But in reality, 1♠-X-Pass will almost never be passed out. The double "asks advancer to bid." Especially when opener's partner holds a bunch of spades, the chances of 1♠-X-All Pass are virtually nil. This is why it makes sense to raise partner with a fit. The raise helps partner figure out how high to compete, and blocks advancer from bidding. Basically: (1) Advancer may not be able to show his suit any more, since the 2♠ bid takes the two level away from him; this may help you buy the contract for 2♠ whereas if you had passed opponents find their suit (2) the 2♠ bid may help partner when advancer bids 4♥ (for example); now partner knows there is a spade fit and we have some values and may be able to bid 4♠ or double, whereas after 1♠-X-Pass-4♥ he has no idea what we have (3) you're probably going to have to bid 2♠ anyway -- almost always advancer bids two-something and it comes back around, you may as well bid 2♠ now instead of later.

Sputnik is, to the best of my knowledge, the original name given to what is now called a "negative double." It refer to the use of a double when partner opens and RHO overcalls as value showing and/or takeout instead of saying "we have them beat, let's defend." The modern approach is that this double emphasizes the unbid major(s). In any case, I don't see Sputnik as having much to do with this discussion, which involves the double of an opening bid.