Leb over a weak 2.

[kenberg]

I made an error yesterday. Alert the media! Joking. Of course I often err, but in this case I thought a few words might be of interest. First, and there is no way around this, I am going to disagree with something Larry Cohen says. See
https://www.larryco.com/bridge-articles/versus-opponents-preempts

I quote:
"When used after a weak-two is doubled, a pull to 2NT is artificial and shows weakness. It requests the doubler to bid 3 and  then the partner of the doubler can pass to play in 3 or remove to 3 of a new suit to play there."

Our auction began (2 )-X-(Pass). Surely the weak response when i have four spades is 2 .  This not only makes sense, I have never known anyone to play it otherwise. After (2 )-X-(Pass)  there are fewer options and so I agree that Leb followed by 3 is the weak sequence.  Possibly LC simply thought it was so obvious that the direct 2 was the weak call that he didn't include that in his discussion.

Back to the auction that we had. (2 )-X-(Pass)

My hand was

  K732
  6
  A8732
  Q64

This is a slightly peculiar hand in that partner made a take-out double of 2 , I have only one , and Rho still did not raise hearts. But anyway, I have to decide what to bid. 2 , my choice, was clearly wrong, at least when Leb is available. The sequence (I'll omit their passes) (2 ) - X - 2 is weaker than the sequence (2 ) - X - 2NT (Leb)  - 3 (as requested by Leb) - 3 .

Partner has a strongish hand so we have:

  AT84
  A4
  K6
  AJ532


  K732
  6
  A8732
  Q64


As you can see there should be a good play for 4 but 6 would require a fair amount of luck. What I want is to be able to do is show partner I have a good hand without getting him overly excited, and Leb is the way to do that.

I regard this interpretation as standard, so if we have agreed to play Leb, we had, and agreed to play it over weak twos, we had, then the Leb route of 2NT followed by 3 is what I should have done.  Partner rescued me by raising 2 to 3 , I bid 4, I am not totally nuts,  so all is well that ends well.

There is a companion piece of a couple of weeks back where i mention the maximal double. The same caution applies in both cases. It just isn't enough to agree to play a convention by naming it. You have to agree on what it means.

The KW site is not the one I was earlier trying to track down but I think it does the job.  if partner's were to agree to pay Leb over weak 2 bids and play it in the KW way, I think they would find it takes care of a good many hands. Or they can do trf leb if they are up for it.

[Masse24]

I agree, Ken, weak is standard if leb is played, and should be if not as well.
1. (2 ) – X – (P) – 2 is always weak, “to play”—or it should be.

But I have seen different treatments for:
2. (2 ) – X – (P) – 2NT
   (P) - 3 – (P) – 3
and
3. (2 ) – X – (P) – 3

Going through the leb 2NT first indicates an invitational hand, whereas the direct 3 is a game-force. But I have also seen the “leb-first 2NT” route treated as four cards invite and the direct 3 as 5+ invite.

I am no leb expert, so I am not sure which is best. Either, I suppose, works, as long as you and partner have the same understanding. As you stated, Ken, “It just isn't enough to agree to play a convention by naming it. You have to agree on what it means.”

By the way, I think just LC oversimplified a potentially complex principle by the omission of the “weak” 2 advance. It’s poor wording. Larry Cohen will make changes if better wording is called for. I sent him a message about his reverse blurb several years ago. I thought it potentially confusing. He agreed, thanking me, and reworded it.

[kenberg]

I was thinking of sending something to him, I imagine I can figure out how. It seemed pretty clear that this was just not phrased as clearly as it coould have been.


Long ago I saw something that was very clear but I can't find it. The fundamental issue is that after (2M) - X - (Pass) you (obviously) have more room when M= then when M= . It makes a big difference. If you can get out with, say, 0-7 after 2 -X -Pass with 2 then the various ways of getting to 3S can pretty well separate various possibilities. When you must go to the 3 level with zilch, as you do after 2 - X, then it gets a lot more cramped.

I had put in, then edited out, something about 2 - X - Pass -3 showing five. I am pretty sure Steve Robinson recommends this in his Washington Standard. So Leb and then 3 was invit with exactly four spades. He has some other ideas also. As you (and  I) are saying, there are several options so, on second thought,  I figured I would settle for just noting the part  that I think is standard enough so that if partners agree to play Leb over weak 2 bids they will probably be on approximately the same page with the most likely holdings.

I still hope to find that Leb summary somewhere. It covered quite a bit and was very well organized. Even if others do it differently than they recommended, and no doubt someone somewhere does, I remember it as something where a pair could agree and it would handle most all of what actually comes up.

[Curls77]

OliverC, teacher of OCP, somewhere near the end of his year course, gives couple of lessons on Leb, and always makes clear that assisting to those specific lessons, can benefit any member, not just precision players.
You can find notes, and examples at: http://ocp.pigpen.org.uk/Leb.php

[kenberg]

Probably Oliver is right that transfer Leb has advantages.  I have never played it, at least partly because I have never had a partner willing to go through it all to get it right.  I stumbled across a summary of regular Leb by Karen Walker (she writes a regular column for the ACBL Bulletin) that I think is pretty standard, although even here some discussion might prevent misunderstandings.

http://kwbridge.com/leb.htm


In particular she has a comment that applies to the hand that I held: 


  K732
  6
  A8732
  Q64


The auction was (2 ) - X - (PASS) -? to me

As mentioned I bid 2 which was a clear error, the hand is way to good for that. We landed on our feet anyway, but it was an error.  But now we ask what I should do. Here is the relevant comment from KW's site:

"Jump below game (2H-DBL-P-3S) = One-suited invitation, promising 5+ cards in your suit. To show an invitational hand with only a 4-card suit, you can go through the Lebensohl 2NT sequence (2H-DBL-P-2NT / P-3C-P-3S)."

Although I think this agreement is widely played I would not say that it is so widely played that you can expect it to be understood in a pick-up partnership.

So, if we agree that my had is invitational in strength,  the correct (well, correct with this agreement)  choice is to bid 2NT and follow that with 3 . I have four spades, not five.

Strengthen my hand a little bit, say to

  K732
  6
  A8732
  A64

Now I want to force to game (or add a little more if you think this is still just an invit). I still have only four spades.  Leb, followed by 3 shows a gf with four spades and no stop.

So I agree that Transfer Leb probably does more, but standard Leb does quite a bit providing that the partners are on the same page.  Unhappily, sometimes they are not, which is why I thought this thread could be useful.  Absolutely nothing against Trf Leb, just so both pards are doing the same thing


Added: While I am at it, this is an opportunity to illustrate why it gets a little tougher when the opening bid is 2 rather than 2
Suppose the bidding begins 2 - X - (PASS) and I hold

  6
  K732
  A8732
  Q64

Playing standard Leb, if I bid 2NT and then 3 that no longer is invitational since I need this sequence to show a weak, perhaps very weak, hand. So I just have to give up distinguishing five card holdings from four card holdings. The bid with this hand is 3 .  Playing Transfer Leb I could bid 3 , a trf to , when I have the weak hand so this opens up more opportunity when I hold the stronger hand. I'm not a Trf Leb player so I don't know the details.

Bottom line: Leb is useful over the double by partner of a weak 2, but it can get a little tricky so discussion with partner of just what means what would be a very good idea.

[infidel]

This issue is apparently controversial: Anderson's Lebensohl book uses the relay, followed by 3S, as the signoff. He says the direct 2S is forcing, and explicitly states that you "can't get out in 2S." This strikes me as pretty silly: I prefer to use responses analogous to those used after a natural 2H overcall of our 1N: 2S is a signoff, 2N, followed by 3S, is invitational, and a direct 3S is GF. Very logical, IMHO, but the Anderson book means we have to discuss this specific auction when agreeing to play Leb. <sigh>

[kenberg]

This issue is apparently controversial: Anderson's Lebensohl book uses the relay, followed by 3S, as the signoff. He says the direct 2S is forcing, and explicitly states that you "can't get out in 2S." This strikes me as pretty silly: I prefer to use responses analogous to those used after a natural 2H overcall of our 1N: 2S is a signoff, 2N, followed by 3S, is invitational, and a direct 3S is GF. Very logical, IMHO, but the Anderson book means we have to discuss this specific auction when agreeing to play Leb. <sigh>

Not in my copy. You are speaking of "The Lebensohl Convention Complete" by Ron Anderson? I have the 1987 edition, things change, but:

On page 66 he gives the following auction:

2      X     Pass    2NT(Leb->3 )
Pass  3    Pass        3

He then says:

"Obviously partner is not trying to sign off in three spades. He could have done that with a bid of  two spades over your take-out double".

He does, however, play it differently than Karen Walker describes in her article. He treats this sequence as showing five spades, not four, and showing a heart stopper!

If nothing else, this supports the warning that it doesn't suffice to just agree via the conversation "Leb, pard" -- "OK". There is Leb over NT interference, Leb over weak 2s, Leb over reverses, that's just for starters. And then after that there are different versions of each.

But playing the 3 level as a sign-off and the 2 level as strong strikes me as seriously weird.  And in my edition he doesn't do that. At least not on page 66.

It seems liie a case where an expanded number of options leads to maybe too many choices. After 2 - X - Pass there are a limited number of options since bidding 2 is not allowed. After 2 - X - Pass now there is the 2 call available (and you, I and I think most everyone agrees this is the weakest option) and then two other possibilities for inviting game in , a direct jump to  3 and a slow 3 via Leb. Added:Possibly Andersen is saying that the slow version is game-forcing. He says  "he is promising five spades and offering a choice of games  -- three notrump or four spades." He doesn't say whether this is an offer you can't refuse. 

Clearly different people have different ideas about how to make use of such riches.


Added: It occurred to me that maybe 2 - X - Pass - 2 was being used, in the reference you cite, in some transfer way thus forcing advancer to go to the 3 level when he is weak with spades. The OCP version of transfer Leb cited by Curls does not do this, nor do I think it is common, but I am simply trying to come up with some possible reason why anyone would play 2 - X - Pass - 2 to have a meaning other than "I think we should play this in 2 and no more than 2 unless you have a very strong hand for your X". I just don't get it.   If you have a moment, could you say which edition of Anderson you found this in? Does he explain his thinking? I'm not a great bridge theorist, I am inclined to keep things simple, but I suppose he has his reasons for playing 2 as a strong bid. I would like to hear what they are. Browsing around the web, I cannot find any other source that agrees with playing 2 as strong, and Lebbing to 3 as weak.

[infidel]

Hmmm...my copy of the Anderson book is in Texas, and I'm in Idaho for the forseeable future, but I remember being really irate at that statement; don't believe I'd mis-remember it. Maybe I have an older version, and he changed his mind on reflection? In any case, I certainly agree with you that 2S SHOULD be the signoff bid. If I ever get back home I'll look it up.  If I'm wrong I owe Anderson a profound apology: I have ranted about that inconsistency to anyone who would listen for many years.

[kenberg]

Hmmm...my copy of the Anderson book is in Texas, and I'm in Idaho for the foreseeable future, but I remember being really irate at that statement; don't believe I'd mis-remember it. Maybe I have an older version, and he changed his mind on reflection? In any case, I certainly agree with you that 2S SHOULD be the signoff bid. If I ever get back home I'll look it up.  If I'm wrong I owe Anderson a profound apology: I have ranted about that inconsistency to anyone who would listen for many years.

At times I have seem things in bridge and elsewhere that clearly the author could not possibly have meant. I am a retied math prof. There was a time when I went into class on, say, a Wednesday, and said something like "Some of you might believe that on Monday I said such and such. You may even have it in your notes that I said such and such. Clearly that was a mass hallucination, I could not possibly had said that." On another occasion there was a very good text by a very good author on advanced mathematics that had a sentence in it that was totally nuts.I am sure he would have happily given Superbowl tickets on the 50 yard line  to any proofreader who would have spared him this embarrassment. In this Leb case, who knows just what the situation is but surely we often have hands where we are looking for the nearest exit.

[OliverC]

Hi All,


I'm not sure I'd claim to be an "expert" on Lebensohl, but I've been playing, teaching and championing it since the early 1980's and OCP (the system I built and that I teach) uses it in a wide variety of situations. Clearly there are enough variations of the Lebensohl concept to keep us going for a long time, but several things are (or should be) absolutely fairly fundamental:

• Lebensohl was never designed to be a suicide pact, from which it follows that (2 ) - X - (No) - 2 is always a weak sign-off. To play it any other way is utter lunacy.
• I had to laugh at the idea that (2 ) - X - (No) - 2NT - (No) - 3 - (No) - 3 shows Spades and a Heart stop. In the lessons I give each year someone almost always gets confused between Slow and Fast cue-bids of their suit and Slow and Fast bids of 3NT, all of which are either promising or denying a stop in Opps' suit, and Slow or Fast bids of a new suit, which are never saying anything about your ability to stop Opps' suit (certainly not in any mainstream version of Lebensohl that I've ever seen).
• In "Standard" Lebensohl, a slow bid of a new suit that could not have been bid at the 2-level competitively is normally merely competitive. If the suit could have been bid competitively at the 2-level (ie: the suit is higher-ranking than Opps' suit), then the slow introduction of it at the next level is invitational.
• I seem to remember that one of the differences between "Transfer Lebensohl" and "Rubensohl" is that Transfer Leb adheres to (4) above, but Rubensohl does not. I've never been a big fan of Rubensohl for a number of reasons, that being one of them.

Transfer Lebensohl (and Rubensohl, for that matter) does have some significant advantages over "Standard" Leb in sequences such as 1NT - (2x) - ?? and (2x) - X - (No) - ??. The main one is that you can always invite in any suit. That includes in Clubs, but you do have to go past 3NT to do it. In Standard Leb, you can only issue an invitation is a suit that is higher-ranking than Opps' suit. In Transfer Lebensohl, you even have the luxury of being able to distinguish between a mild invitation and a strong invitation if your suit is higher than theirs.

[kenberg]

With regard to your second bulleted point, my understanding of the idea is this: The auction goes (2 ) - X -(Pass)-?

Suppose you have four spades and enough to venture game.

It happens, sometimes, that partner doubles 2 without four spades. You could agree that he would never do this, but with a decent hand a stiff and three decent I could imagine I would want to X.

This agreement is meant to cater to that. Bidding 3 shows the strong hand and asks partner to bid his four card suit if he has it. But if doubler has only three ? Then his next call depends on whether his partner bid 3 on the first round, or if if he bid 2NT and then 3 . One of these is a willingness to play in 3NT if the doubler has only three spades, the other is an unwillingness to play in 3NT, or rather it tells the doubler that he is on his own if he chooses to do so.

I have never, myself, played this so I don't know the details. It seems likely that the 2NT followed bu 3 should be the stopper sequence, since then if it s to be played in NT the lead will come from the hand and fourth hand has the stopper. Kx could be enough. If fourth hand does not have a stopper then occasionally the doubler will and he can bid 3NT if he likes. If not, they will probably end in a minor although I suppose a strong 4-3 fit might, on occasion, be the way to go. With AQx and a stiff , 4 may be just the right contract if fourth had is a big hand with KJxx. The point is that they will know they are playing in a 4-3 and, if this does not seem right, they won't do it. Hopefully.

As mentioned, I have not played this. But unless second hand is absolutely forbidden to double 2 unless he holds four spades, it seems like it could be useful. Not frequent, but useful when the case arises.

Mostly my conclusion is that there is a lot of inventiveness out there and so discussion is needed. This is certainly not something a person hauls out undiscussed if he wishes to be understood.

[OliverC]

One of the main points about Leb (and this applies as much to Transfer Leb as "Normal" Leb) is that the slow and fast cue-bids of Opps' suit show 4-card interest in any unbid Major (slow promising a stop in their suit a fast denying it. Similarly, the slow and fast bids of 3NT shown or deny a stop in Opps' suit but DENY 4-card interest in any unbid Major.

The above applies as much after (2 ) - X - (No) - ?? as it does over 1NT - (2 ) - ??. The only issue is that you need to have a hand worth a game-force in order to use those. So...

Standard Lebensohl
(2 ) - X - (No) - 3 shows game values, no Stop and 4-card Spades
(2 ) - X - (No) - 2NT - 3 - 3 shows a stop, 4-card Spades and game values.
(2 ) - X - (No) - 3NT shows game values, no stop and no 4-card Spades
(2 ) - X - (No) - 3NT - 3 - 3NT shows game values, a stop, but no 4-card Spades.

Transfer Lebensohl
(2 ) - X - (No) - 3 shows game values, no Stop and 4-card Spades
(2 ) - X - (No) - 2NT - 3 - 3 shows a stop, 4-card Spades and game values.
(2 ) - X - (No) - 3NT shows game values, no stop and no 4-card Spades
(2 ) - X - (No) - 3NT - 3 - 3NT shows game values, a stop, but no 4-card Spades.

In both types of Lebensohl, the fast 3NT is most often based on a long Minor.

So only one of the above is different in Transfer Lebensohl. One additional advantage of Transfer Lebensohl is that after (2 ) - X - (No) - 3 , the Doubler can bid 3 to show exactly a half stop in Hearts (eg: Jxx or Qx) and deny 4-card Spades, inviting Partner to bid 3NT with a half stop themselves.

Alternatively, you can play that (2 ) - X - (No) - 3 - 3 shows no 4-card Spades but 4-4 in the Minors, whereas (2 ) - X - (No) - 3 - 4m shows a 5-card suit. Of the two methods I prefer the first.