Robinson has a table that takes a page and a half to give the various responses to the various conventional overcalls.
For a Landy 2
:
X Balanced, 8+ hcps
1
, 4-7 hcps
2
, 8+ hcps
2
, 8+ hcps
2NT Natural, 7-8 hcps
3
, 4-7 hcps
3
, 4-7 hcps
3
, 8+ hcps
!3
, 8+ hcps
3NT Balanced, 9+ hcps
Now this is a bit weird since X and 3NT both show balanced hands, one with 8+, the other with 9+. Presumably with 9+ the X is more penalty oriented, the 3NT more of a "Let's just play 3NT".
Also the 3
call as 8+ showing hearts. As in heart stopper, or as in maybe we should play in hearts? I suppose either is possible but surely heart stopper w/o spade stopper is the more useful meaning.
It's just a fact that I have never played the entire table of meanings with anyone. There was a time on my life when I had more regular partnernerships and we had more extensive agreements than I do today, but never that extensive. My usual agreement wit a partner today is that if I open 1NT and they bid 2
then double is Stayman unless the 2
shows both majors, if it does show both majors then X is penalty oriented. If the overall 1NT with2
or 2
or 2
then 2NT is Lebensohl IF the bid shows that suit with or without a known or unknown other suit and stoppers refer to that suit. So 1NT - 2
(DONT) - 3NT denies a
stopper and says nothing about a stopper in either major. It's not great but it's simple. And even with Steve's table I think more has to be said about follow-ups.
Maybe some pairs playing on IAC have extensive agreements but most of us don't. It helps 9or it helped me) to have in person discussions with partners. We could sit around drinking beer and reading Bergen or whatever and get the various conventions straight. Playing online it seems we are lucky if we get the most common situations straight. The other day my Rho opened 1
, I overcalled 1
, my Lho passed, partner bid 3
, passed out making 5. Ok, I have an 11 count, pard has a 9 count, but I have a stiff
and he has a stiff
. He meant the 3
as a limit raise, and maybe I bid 4
if I think it's a limit raise.
Donna's sessions are useful for highlighting places where players interpret bids differently so I find it both interesting and useful. It does not completely solve the problem, that requires that the partners discuss what the meaning will be for them. Often there is no choice that is clearly the right choice of meaning. I do think that playing a jump raise of an overall as preemptive is pretty standard these days. i the case I posted above, playing the 3
as to play makes a lot of sense, but w/o discussion who knows?