[jkdood]

Reverse Drury also sounds catchy (might catch on?)

[onoway]

no wonder newbies give up on playing bridge, saying it's just too complicated to bother with

[hanp]

jkdood, on Aug 25 2010, 12:07 PM, said:

There must be a flaw, since I have never heard of it, but what about REVERSE LEBENSOL?
(Of course there is Reverse Capp and Reverse Jordan already.)

Bid directly (to 3 level) with the weaker competitive hands, and start with 2N with game invitational or better values.

This is common here.

[aguahombre]

jkdood, on Aug 25 2010, 11:07 AM, said:

Bid directly (to 3 level) with the weaker competitive hands, and start with 2N with game invitational or better values.

In general, with more values, you don't mind the opps competing further, as you are better placed to punish them.

I don't think we are much better placed to punish them when we haven't shown what suit we are coming in...even though we have established extra values. Any further action by the opponents has negatively affected our strain search.

In the weaker case, we probably didn't want to be above the level to which they are competing anyway; we still might lose a little in knowing how to defend, but the player opposite the G/B or Leben bidder probably has a clue what partner was going to show, anyway.

How many times have we sucessfully stopped on a dime profitably at the four-level in a minor over 3 of their major because we had REVERSE Leben as a tool? Compare it to the number of times we couldn't get our suit bid at a convenient level and got to the wrong game or missed game entirely with extra strength using 2NT as the stronger bid.

If the frequency of occurrence is close, what about the IMP odds?

[awm]

The problem with reverse lebensohl over weak two bids is the club bid with values. If this goes through 2NT, then partner has to bid past 3♣ any time he wants to be in game opposite a club bid with values, but this creates some issues sorting out exactly what advancer has.

I've played reverse lebensohl over 1NT-(bid) and it works okay there, basically because the "good" hands are forcing so with clubs you can bid 2N...cue.

[gnasher]

awm, on Aug 25 2010, 09:47 PM, said:

The problem with reverse lebensohl over weak two bids is the club bid with values. If this goes through 2NT, then partner has to bid past 3♣ any time he wants to be in game opposite a club bid with values, but this creates some issues sorting out exactly what advancer has.

You can play it 3/4 reversed: 2NT is weak with clubs or good with another suit.

[Ant590]

I dislike reverse Lebensohl because the game bonus means I want to bid the stronger hands more accurately.

Of course, the flip-side is that weaker hands are more common, so perhaps it's a MP/IMP issue.

Transfer Lebensohl is favoured by some, so at least the strain is always known, but partner has to assume you have the weaker hand in competition for obvious reasons.

[ONEferBRID]

Leb can be confusing.
Does everyone know that Leb1 and Leb2 are not the same...at least in the manuals.
-- Leb1 = Lebensohl over opps' overcall of our 1NT ....
-- Leb2 = Lebensohl over our DBL of their weak2.....

In each case you may want to show 4 cards in the other Major(Stayman )...or not.
And you can show it with or without a stop in their Major.

Take Karen Walker's treatment for example.

Leb1 : A cuebid, 3M ( fast or slow ) ALWAYS is Stayman.
        Bidding a fast ( direct ) 3M denies a stop.
        Bidding a slow 3M shows a stop.

Bidding 3NT means NO 4 cards in the other Major ( No Stayman ).
--direct-denies a stop in their Major.
--slow-shows a stop.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
But it is different with Leb2:
       3NT ( direct or slow ) ALWAYS indicates a STOP in opp's Major;
       direct-denies Stayman whereas slow-shows Stayman.

Bidding a cuebid, 3M ( direct or slow ) says NO stop;
-- direct-denies Stayman and
-- slow-shows Stayman.

( 2H ) - DBL - ( P ) - 3H! = no Stayman and no stop ( but have game values )

whereas:
( 2H ) - DBL - ( p ) - 2NT!
( p ) - 3C! - ( p ) - 3H! = Stayman and no stop.

[bucky]

gurgistan, on Aug 24 2010, 04:02 PM, said:

I am thinking of giving up using Lebensohl over opponents' weak twos.

I have two reasons for this:

1. Aggressive opponents mean that partner may not get to respond to the Lebensohl double as his RHO has intervened.

2. There is a lot to remember which may or may not add to the existing methods.

I intend to go back to playing the existing methods: making whatever bid I think is appropriate over the Weak Two; eg 2any with a 5 card suit and 12hcp+.

Does anyone else feel the same way about Lebensohl over weak twos?

What is a "Lebensohl Double"? I know only one way of double over weak 2...

In RESPONSE to partner's double of weak 2, 2NT is a relay to 3C, that is called "Lebensohl". So the first point is irrelevant. If opponents interfere and the advancer doesn't have 2NT available, it is pointless to discuss what's the best use of 2NT in that situation, since 2NT would have been an insufficient bid anyway. The second point is also irrelevant since Lebenshol has nothing to do with OVERCALLER's initial action.

[ONEferBRID]

FWIW there is a Leb2 treatment by Eugene Hung and our own Justin Lall at:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/sear...n&ct=clnk&gl=us

[ONEferBRID]

Again, FWIW, I think Leb2 should be made to look more like Leb1.... for memory purposes.

For example, everytime you see a cuebid ( 3M! ) of opps' suit, isn't it be easier on the little gray cells if that would be Stayman all the time ! ( for Leb1 and Leb2 ) ?
Thus :

----- Cuebid ( 3M! ) is ALWAYS Stayman ( have 4oM )

----- 3NT is NEVER Stayman

----- Slow-Shows a stop whereas direct (fast)-denies a stop in opps' Maj

But to help allieviate the problem in Leb2 of a direct 3NT showing NO Stayman and NO stop, I think you could sacrifice the direct 3C! for that:
( 2M ) - DBL - ( p ) - 3C! = no-stop and no Stayman but have game values.
That way partner can make an informed decision at a lower level about whether
to pass, invite or bid game.

The "Advancer 3NT" bid is more of an issue for our side with Leb2 because the Doubler is less likely to have a stop; whereas with Leb1, our 1NT bidder is more likely to have a stop .
So for Leb1 the direct 3NT retains the original meaning:
1NT - ( 2M ) - 3NT = no-stop and no Stayman but have game values

Sooo, what can we use the following auction for in Leb2 ?
Perhaps:
( 2M ) - DBL - ( p ) - 3NT! = no Stayman and no-stop but long, solid Clubs.

[JanM]

Of course it's easier to remember when bids have the same meaning despite the context, but you can't do that if you want to get good results here. There's such a HUGE difference between Leb1 and Leb2, both in terms of what opener (doubler) can have and because in one situation responder doesn't have to bid and in the other one advancer does have to bid.

Plus, after 1NT-(2X), you'd prefer to have opener play the hand most of the time, whereas after (2X)-DBL-(P), you'd like to choose who plays the hand based on who has a stopper. So it's reasonable for 1NT-(2M)-3M to be Stayman and it doesn't really matter whether it shows or denies a stopper (opener is going to play the hand either way, since opener already bid NT), but after (2M)-DBL-(P), advancer doesn't want to bid 2NT without a stopper, since that will wrong-side NT. So an immediate 3M denies a stopper, a delayed 3M shows one (whether 3♥ & 3♠ show the same hand depends on how much you're willing to remember - obviously, they should be different, since you had an immediate jump to 3♠ available over 2♥, but didn't have a jump to 3♥ over 2♠, but if you don't want to remember different meanings, they don't have to be different - it just means you have an undefined bid.

But if you play that the fast auction shows the stopper after 1NT-(2M), you really shouldn't also play that way over (2M)-DBL. That's true for most of the other areas where there's a difference between meanings in the two different Lebensohl sequences.

[ONEferBRID]

JanM ... thx for your comments.

But let me just outline the 4 cases for Leb2 ... comparing Karen Walker's treament to my proposal.
Declarer of the final contract (if 3NT or 4oM ) is the same in all cases.

1) Stayman AND Stop
Karen's way:
( 2S ) - DBL - ( p ) - 2NT!
( p ) - 3C! - ( p ) - 3NT

My proposal:
( 2S ) - DBL - ( p ) - 2NT!
( p ) - 3C! - ( p ) - 3S! [ Cuebid always Stayman; slow-shows stop ].

In both cases:
Advancer will still declare if in 3NT;
or
Partner ( the doubler ) will declare if in 4H.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2) Stayman and NO Stop
Karen :
( 2S ) - DBL - ( p ) - 2NT!
( p ) - 3C! - ( p ) - 3S!

Mine :
( 2S ) - DBL - ( p ) - 3S! [ Cuebid always Stayman; direct-denies stop ].

Also in both cases:
Advancer declares if in 3NT;
or
Partner declares if in 4H.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

3) Stop but NO Stayman

Karen:
( 2S ) - DBL - ( p ) - 3NT

Mine:
( 2S ) - DBL - ( p ) - 2NT!
( p ) - 3C! - ( p ) - 3NT [ 3NT never Stayman; slow-shows stop ].

In both cases:
Advancer declares if contract remains in 3NT.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4) No Stop and No Stayman

Karen: ( 2S ) - DBL - ( p ) - 3S!

Mine: ( 2S ) - DBL - ( p ) - 3C! [ No stop and no Stayman ]

In both cases:
Partner ( the doubler ) will declare if in 3NT.

[FrancesHinden]

As Jan has already said, if you take partnership agreements seriously, "Leb1" and "Leb2" are totally different auctions, and need very different agreements. It's not just a matter of showing or denying a stop in their suit, or bidding "Stayman".

- After 1NT (2♠) responder is not forced to bid, and so any action shows at least some values or some shape .

- After (2♠) X (Pass) responder must bid (unless passing for penalties) and so needs to distinguish between weak, invitational and game forcing i.e. has the 3=3=4=3 2-count to fit into the possible bids

- A 1NT opening gives a much better idea of HCP and range than a 2-level take-out double when the doubler can have anything from a 2=4=3=4 13-count to a 0=3=4=6 25-count.

- After a 1NT opening the declarership in 3NT is fixed, after a take-out double it isn't.

- After 1NT (2♠) responder has a take-out double available. This means that boring balanced hands with 4 hearts e.g. 2=4=3=4 can start with a double (opener might be about to pass) and the cue bid can be used for something else. After 2♠ x P 4th hand needs some way to offer choice of 4M and 3NT.

I could keep going on longer, but I won't. Suffice it to say that in my partnerships Leb1 and Leb2 are treated very differently.

Quote

But if you play that the fast auction shows the stopper after 1NT-(2M), you really shouldn't also play that way over (2M)-DBL. That's true for most of the other areas where there's a difference between meanings in the two different Lebensohl sequences.

I don't get this. This is one of the auctions I do play exactly the same in both cases: a jump to 3NT is to play. I'm not sure why this should be wrong.

(or do you mean the cue bid auction, which will get the declarership the wrong way up?)

[ONEferBRID]

Quote

It's not just a matter of showing or denying a stop in their suit, or bidding "Stayman".

I agree, but those are the only sequences in which I wanted "Leb2" to look like "Leb1"... for memory puposes, since they don't change the outcome of who is Declarer in a final game bid.

I understand ( hopefully ) the ramifications of the other bids involved in the 1NT vs weak-2 auctions.

However, concerning your following treatment:

Quote

- After 1NT (2♠) responder has a take-out double available. This means that boring balanced hands with 4 hearts e.g. 2=4=3=4 can start with a double (opener might be about to pass) and the cue bid can be used for something else.

That is new to me.
In "classic Lebensohl1", Responder's DBL ( of 2S ) is Penalty.

[peachy]

ONEferBRID, on Aug 25 2010, 07:13 PM, said:

Leb can be confusing.
Does everyone know that Leb1 and Leb2 are not the same...at least in the manuals.
-- Leb1 = Lebensohl over opps' overcall of our 1NT ....
-- Leb2 = Lebensohl over our DBL of their weak2.....

Not to mention that there is also Leb3 when 1-level opener has reversed.
Of course they all differ from each other. It is not a surprise because the situations are not the same in Leb1, Leb2 and Leb3.

Don't confuse it more by saying there are "manuals". There really are not, although some generally understood principles apply.

[ONEferBRID]

peachy, on Aug 28 2010, 01:04 PM, said:

ONEferBRID, on Aug 25 2010, 07:13 PM, said:

Leb can be confusing.
Does everyone know that Leb1 and Leb2 are not the same...at least in the manuals.
-- Leb1 = Lebensohl over opps' overcall of our 1NT ....
-- Leb2 = Lebensohl over our DBL of their weak2.....

Not to mention that there is also Leb3 when 1-level opener has reversed.
Of course they all differ from each other. It is not a surprise because the situations are not the same in Leb1, Leb2 and Leb3.

Don't confuse it more by saying there are "manuals". There really are not, although some generally understood principles apply.

Yesss, I'm familiar with Leb3, but I've noticed not many here are.... at least when it comes to the special 1C open >> 2D reverse ( as evidenced in a recent thread ).

Anyway, I didn't like using the term "manual" either unless of course one is referring to the famous nine chapter booklet on Lebensohl by Ron Anderson.

[gurgistan]

I went back to my notes.

Clearly, I have been confused about just what Lebensohl is.

Over a weak two, I make the most appropriate bid.

This may be a takeout double.

Partner then finds an appropriate bid, which may be the Lebensohl 2N.

[JanM]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 28 2010, 09:52 AM, said:

Quote

But if you play that the fast auction shows the stopper after 1NT-(2M), you really shouldn't also play that way over (2M)-DBL. That's true for most of the other areas where there's a difference between meanings in the two different Lebensohl sequences.

I don't get this. This is one of the auctions I do play exactly the same in both cases: a jump to 3NT is to play. I'm not sure why this should be wrong.

(or do you mean the cue bid auction, which will get the declarership the wrong way up?)

I meant the cue bid auction, but I see that I didn't say it very articulately (that's what I get for posting in a hurry!)

[bucky]

In leb1, responder knows that opener has limited hand with 2+ support for any suit, while in leb2 situation, opener has 3+ support for all unbid suits (often 4 in OM), in the meantime the strength is undefined except for the minimum end. That makes leb1 and leb2 fundamentally different, There is no reason why their bid structures have to be the same. In addition, when partner opened 1NT, you don't have a choice of who's going to declarer NT contract; in (wk2) X, you have a choice, and can/should design the structure such that the one with stopper declares NT.

Consider one particular auction: (2M) X (P) 3NT. It doesn't make much sense to use this sequence to mean: I don't have a stopper, and I don't have 4-card in OM. Intuitively, this should just mean: I want to play in 3NT if partner has a normal takeout double. The design of leb2 is very much based on the principle of right-siding NT. The 2 ways of reaching 3NT (going through 2NT or not) are NOT used to show whether responder has a stopper. Rather, going through 2NT shows possibly alternative strain. The same is for 2 ways of cuebidding, both DENY stopper, but again going through 2NT shows alternative strain. I realize this particular sequence is not totally satisfying (since advancer without stopper would have to bid 2NT first with 4-card OM), but in many such occurrences 4OM will be playable (and might well be the best contract) anyway.

In terms of memory aid, leb2 still uses "slow shows", but instead of showing stopper, it shows alternative strain (4-card OM) along the way.