[straube]

Many folks play that 2M dbl P 2N is Lebeonsohl. Space is tight and 2N not often the best available contract. Has anyone considered playing Lebensohl after 1M dbl P ?

From my recollection, Mike Lawrence suggests that 1N would be very wide-ranging...from maybe 5 to 11 hcps. 1N is certainly more attractive than 2N as a landing spot, but what about sacrificing it for clarity when responder wants to name a suit at the 2-level? This would eliminate the need to jump to the 3-level in order to invite. Especially after 1S dbl P we gain strength distinctions for bids of three-suits. After 1H dbl P it would be more of a toss-up and after 1D dbl I would think 1N as natural would be absolutely clear.

What do others think?

[CSGibson]

I think there are several factors that make this a trade-off I would not be willing to make.

First, the benefits: You can describe invitational hands in lower ranking suits one level lower. You can possibly use this as a way to distinguish between 4 + 5+ card invites in higher ranking suits. Some other smaller benefits that come from having a relay step to differentiate between hand types.

These benefits are useful. We have seen the advantage of using lebensohl in a variety of situations when we have 2 level bids. On the other hand, those benefits grow substantially as the amount of bidding space we have gets compressed, and automatically becomes less useful here because we have a different way to differentiate between hands with values and hands without values - one of the primary benefits of 'sohl.

What do we give up: the ability to bid 1N

This is different than giving up the ability to bid 2N; 1N covers a wider range of values, and is often a bid we want to make. When an auction goes 2A - X - P -, then because of the 6 card expectation for A, you tend to be in a lot of situations where partner has alternative bids. Even if you have nowhere else to go, chances are that dummy doesn't have enough entries/trumps to finnese you out of everything. By contrast, 1A - X - P - 1N is frequently going to be an auction where we cant stand a penalty pass at the 1 level, and don't want to call a 3 card suit - especially in the situation you deem 1N as lebensohl to be the most useful, over 1S-X-P.

My estimate is that both the benefit of 1 level lebensohl is vastly reduced, and the trade-off much more expensive than 2 level lebensohl, making the convention a net loss in my own mind.

[straube]

Thanks Chris. So I just tried this idea out for 1S dbl (which is the auction where I would expect the biggest win) using a BBO generator and ran maybe 30 hands. I restricted the doubling hand to two or fewer spades which seems pretty reasonable. I found that advancer hardly ever had a hand with a strong preference for bidding 1N. I mean, there were hands where 1N would be useful, but some sort of fit was always available. I'm sure in practice that KJxxx xxx Ax xxx comes up, but I think these are rare.

I think if the idea fails it's not because we give up 1N. It has more to do with the doubling hand not knowing immediately which suit advancer favors. This might hurt if the opponents further contest the auction. OTOH, opener does know immediately whether responder has anything or not. I think also, it saves responder jumping to the 3-level in a 4-cd suit. One could agree that jumps to the 3-level promise 5-cd suits while bidding a suit at the 2-level shows a constructive hand with a 4+ suit or a GI hand with a 4-cd suit.
One could fine tune this.

If others have the interest, maybe they can look at hands and tell us what they're seeing.

[PhilKing]

I actually play it after 1M-x-p.

But because you are lower, you can get away with playing it as two way - either 6-9 bal or 0-6 any. Two level responses show 7-10.

In response to 1NT, doubler passes if he would have passed a natural 1NT. With a raise to 2NT he usually bids 2♣. Higher bids are what you would do if you knew partner had a weak hand with clubs:

2D nat, usually extras
2M nat, extras
2cue 19+ distributional
2NT 20-22

[straube]

 PhilKing, on 2012-November-04, 20:33, said:

I actually play it after 1M-x-p.

But because you are lower, you can get away with playing it as two way - either 6-9 bal or 0-6 any. Two level responses show 7-10.

In response to 1NT, doubler passes if he would have passed a natural 1NT. With a raise to 2NT he usually bids 2♣. Higher bids are what you would do if you knew partner had a weak hand with clubs:

2D nat, usually extras
2M nat, extras
2cue 19+ distributional
2NT 20-22

Glad to see someone trying it, but I don't think passing 1N is right. If I'm responder and hold xxx Axxxx xx xxx I want to get to 2H and I need partner to remove 1N.

Still interested to see if someone else has looked at generated hands and if they are seeing what I'm seeing.

[straube]

You know, another idea would be to invert things so that 1N promises a constructive+ hand while bidding at the 2-level immediately shows a weak hand. For example...

1S (dbl) P

.....1N
........2C-rejects constructive hand with clubs
............2D-constructive diamonds
............2H-constructive hearts
............3H-GI hearts, only 4
.....2C-weak
.....2D-weak
.....2H-weak
.....3C-GI, 5+
.....3D-GI, 5+
.....3H-GI, 5+

The memorization may not be worth it.

[dake50]

Why restrict Leb-ish 1NT to only over a T/O Dbl?
Won't it also help refine "how much fit for an overcall?"
even "how much stuff toward game?"
Always able to quit at 2-level on skinny overcalls.
Often able to find double fits.

[Siegmund]

Question is, is it better or worse than full transfers. Seems the pendulum has swung away from straight lebensohl toward transfer methods in a lot of other auctions... but I've only ever seen transfers, not leb, here.

Straube's 1NT idea is quite interesting. Has a lot in common with the transfer idea of simple completion to reject anything further unless partner has extras.

[straube]

 dake50, on 2012-November-04, 21:55, said:

Why restrict Leb-ish 1NT to only over a T/O Dbl?
Won't it also help refine "how much fit for an overcall?"
even "how much stuff toward game?"
Always able to quit at 2-level on skinny overcalls.
Often able to find double fits.

I think this would be a different thread. After an overcall, advancer can always pass. After a double, it's much more difficult to pass and (in effect) we have less space to work with. So 1S (dbl) P 1N usage is a lot different situation than 1C (1S) P.

That said, I've seen some that use a forcing NT after partner's overcall, but I don't see the merit to it. Our system uses a semi-forcing NT anyway (uncontested auction now) because we want opener's rebids to be more meaningful.

[straube]

 Siegmund, on 2012-November-04, 22:01, said:

Question is, is it better or worse than full transfers. Seems the pendulum has swung away from straight lebensohl toward transfer methods in a lot of other auctions... but I've only ever seen transfers, not leb, here.

Straube's 1NT idea is quite interesting. Has a lot in common with the transfer idea of simple completion to reject anything further unless partner has extras.

You're thinking of something like Transfer Lebensohl or Rubensohl? Transfers would get responder a rebid which would be convenient when holding something like 2425, but I think it would be nice to be able to show constructive clubs vs weak clubs (that's 1 of 3 suits available) which transfers wouldn't accomplish, plus it makes a little more sense for advancer to declare most often; this forces opener to be on lead.

[straube]

I've looked now at some 1H dbl hands and I'm not nearly as thrilled with the result. After 1H dbl the focus naturally is on spades and advancer has an easy 1S or 2S bid. Clearing up whether advancer has values for his 2m advance isn't nearly as important. I think one would have to look at a lot of hands to really know for sure. I'm still hoping someone will look at 1S dbl P hands and report their findings.

[mattias]

We play something similar over 1-level opening bids and over 2♣/3♣. Step 1 is either negative or game forcing. Over this the doubler rebids the cheapest suit with a normal takeout double. See this very comprehensive post on rec.games.bridge by Daniel Auby.

[Zelandakh]

I played it as a junior but gave it up, basically to fit in with partners. On the point of playing it over a 1♥ opening, it is worth pointing out that here going via 1NT to 2♠ should show 4 cards and values while a direct 2♠ advance promises 5 cards and values. This is one of the nicer parts of using 1NT like this.

To be honest, I found the idea of using 1NT like this so obvious that I simply assumed that it must be fundamentally flawed somehow for no experts to be playing it. Therefore I never went back to testing it in more detail. Would be interesting to me if you found out what the flaw is.

[gnasher]

 PhilKing, on 2012-November-04, 20:33, said:

I actually play it after 1M-x-p.

But because you are lower, you can get away with playing it as two way - either 6-9 bal or 0-6 any. Two level responses show 7-10.

In response to 1NT, doubler passes if he would have passed a natural 1NT.

Doesn't this lead to rather a lot of poor 1NT contracts when you should be in a suit contract?

[PhilKing]

 straube, on 2012-November-04, 21:30, said:

Glad to see someone trying it, but I don't think passing 1N is right. If I'm responder and hold xxx Axxxx xx xxx I want to get to 2H and I need partner to remove 1N.

Still interested to see if someone else has looked at generated hands and if they are seeing what I'm seeing.

The hand you quote is an illusion. When we have the combination of a weak takeout and a minimum double, the opponents generally bid.

Look at this this way - we have a minimum take-out double with, say, two spades. Partner has a bad hand and a five card suit, bids 1NT and the opponents say nothing?

Same answer to Gnasher's post.

[gnasher]

 PhilKing, on 2012-November-05, 05:21, said:

The hand you quote is an illusion. When we have the combination of a weak takeout and a minimum double, the opponents generally bid.

Look at this this way - we have a minimum take-out double with, say, two spades. Partner has a bad hand and a five card suit, bids 1NT and the opponents say nothing?

Same answer to Gnasher's post.

If the opponent knew about your methods in advance, they might be more inclined to let you play in 1NT, especially if you're vulnerable. Can you give me a list of the people you play these methods with?

The set of hands that would pass a 1NT advance includes some quite good ones. For example, presumably you risk playing in 1NT with Kx AQxx KJx Kxxx opposite Qxxx xx Qxxxx xx? But I can see that you gain on a lot of ordinary hands by knowing whether to compete or invite game opposite a new-suit response.

[PhilKing]

 gnasher, on 2012-November-05, 05:43, said:

If the opponent knew about your methods in advance, they might be more inclined to let you play in 1NT, especially if you're vulnerable. Can you give me a list of the people you play these methods with?

The set of hands that would pass a 1NT advance includes some quite good ones. For example, presumably you risk playing in 1NT with Kx AQxx KJx Kxxx opposite Qxxx xx Qxxxx xx? But I can see that you gain on a lot of ordinary hands by knowing whether to compete or invite game opposite a new-suit response.

Well I developed it with Gold, and he played it with Tom. With Forrester, he plays only Forrester's toys though ...

The whole system does tend to rely on opponents actually supporting to 2♠ or doubling 1NT when possible, but good luck with the passive approach!

The hand you quote ♠Kx ♥AQxx ♦KJx ♣Kxxx is an almost an advert for the method. We double, partner bids 2♦ and we bid 2NT encouraging but non-forcing.

Opposite the weak hand you quote (which I agree is not a raise to 2NT via 2♣), 1NT should make if the diamond ace is doubleton, which is not so unlikely. Also, although in standard you have a clear pass of 2♦, that can easily miss a cold 3NT.

[PhilKing]

 Siegmund, on 2012-November-04, 22:01, said:

Question is, is it better or worse than full transfers. Seems the pendulum has swung away from straight lebensohl toward transfer methods in a lot of other auctions... but I've only ever seen transfers, not leb, here.

Straube's 1NT idea is quite interesting. Has a lot in common with the transfer idea of simple completion to reject anything further unless partner has extras.

Transfers are generally not well suited to auctions where you force partner to bid, the most common example being 2M-x-p-?, where transfers enjoyed a brief popularity until people realised you could not distinguish between weak and constructive hands.

This sequence has the same properties.

[straube]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-November-05, 03:02, said:

I played it as a junior but gave it up, basically to fit in with partners. On the point of playing it over a 1♥ opening, it is worth pointing out that here going via 1NT to 2♠ should show 4 cards and values while a direct 2♠ advance promises 5 cards and values. This is one of the nicer parts of using 1NT like this.

To be honest, I found the idea of using 1NT like this so obvious that I simply assumed that it must be fundamentally flawed somehow for no experts to be playing it. Therefore I never went back to testing it in more detail. Would be interesting to me if you found out what the flaw is.

I think we often value too much what we're giving up vs what we're gaining. I see this reaction a lot. Certainly 1N natural is useful, but especially after 1S dbl P we just need better ways of showing values. We're almost better placed if responder bids 1N so we can show values now by taking a free bid.

[PhilKing]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-November-05, 03:02, said:

Would be interesting to me if you found out what the flaw is.

3 reasons:

1) Advancer has a higher average number of spades after 1♠-x-p than after 2♠-x-p (where everyone plays lebensohl), so is more likely to have a natural NT type.

2) Playing in 1NT as opposed to 2 of a suit is less likely to be critical than 2NT v 3 of a suit.

3) Utility is lower. After 2M, you need to sort out responders range immediately. At the one level there is still space to explore.

Just rereading the comments I see that CSGIbson has covered most of this ground.