[MrAce]

What do you guys think of playing 2♦ (over partners double vs precision 2♣) or 3♦ response over double of 3♣ preempt, as lebensohl relay?

---

---

Obviously you can not play 2 or 3 ♦ in these auctions (you can play 1 level higher) but is it a big loss?

[steve2005]

Yes, good. Especially if 2♣ promises 6.

[The_Badger]

Another natural minor suit response bites the dust for a puppet bid but...there are far more hands where this bid will elicit specific information and be useful in the auction so I would go with it definitely. (And it will open up more bids beyond the Lebensohl 2♦/3♦ as constructive bids as opposed to bog standard responses.)

[gwnn]

I guess the plan is to bid it also on hands like xxx xxx xxxx xxx? My problem is, will partner have to bid (after 3C-x-p) 3M as a lowest major, NF, then maybe they will wanna jump to 4M on a good hand with 5? Or not?

[Fluffy]

I think those lebensohl relays are winners, but I haven't got my partner to accept them yet.

[Winstonm]

The decision concerning bidding theory should be based on give-ups verses gains and frequency. The only loss here that I see is a natural 2D? If this is so, the gains surely outweigh this fairly insignificant loss and the frequency of utilizing the relay should be higher than the need for a natural 2D.

One thing I think any partnership should factor in, though, is memory work involved. It is quite fine to play a thoroughly artificial system as long as the taxation on the memory does not affect other areas of the game. This, I believe, is important when considering frequency. If it doesn't come up very often, is it worth trying to remember?

[gszes]

there is plenty of room over 2cx to allow advancer the opportunity to express their power so it seems unnecessary to adopt the relay there. Over 3c we are very crowded and giving up a nebulous 3d seems ok as long as we use it to show WEAK hands that want to almost always try and sign off in 3h/s or 4d. This allows advancer to show positive responses with greater clarity of strain in what little space we have left to explore.

[awm]

Seems less clear to me whether this is actually good method. You basically have the following cases:

1. Original double is fairly minimum. Now you will reach the same contract except when advancer has diamonds, in which case you have to play 4♦ (which is also more likely to be doubled).
2. Original double has a lot of extras. Here you are probably in the same place. You might do a little better when advancer has some values with a major, and a little worse when advancer has diamonds or a weak hand.
3. Original double has moderate extras with a "normal" shape. Probably you are bidding game here opposite a wide-ranging advance, so this method will win when advancer is very weak with a major and is otherwise neutral.
4. Original double has moderate extras and mildly off-shape, like say 3532 18-count. You are actually pretty stuck with this hand -- say advancer bids 3♦. If he has a really bad hand with spades you want to get out in three of a major. But a really bad hand with 4-5 hearts just might make game, and he probably also bids 3♦ with a moderate hand with diamonds (say 3352 7-count?) where game could be easy. So what do you do? This is not as bad when doubler's major is spades (3♠ over 3♦ presumably shows this hand).

So it seems like you win big in two cases (doubler moderate extras, advancer very weak with each major) and lose big in two cases (doubler minimum and advancer with diamonds, doubler extras with a flexible hand and hearts and responder weak or diamonds), with the other cases seeming pretty neutral. However, it bothers me less to be in an occasional 4M with like 2 opposite 18 and a fit (which will often fail, but will occasionally make and might be hard to double) rather than being in a 4♦X disaster on even lesser values (say 2 opposite 13) or having an expensive accident with a "normal" off-shape double like 3541 or 3532 and a big hand.

[cherdano]

In the first auction, I am pretty sure I'd rank

• 2♦ = natural
  
• 2♦ = equal length in the majors, any strength
  
• 2♦ = Lebensohl.

With useful values, you are usually jumping to 3M.

[benlessard]

Ive tried a version of it and it wasnt a success.

Our 3D was showing values and forcing with paradox responses. 3M/4D direct was weak.

overcaller responses after 3D.

3H = i refuse a H invite
3S = i accept a H invite but refuse a S inv.
3NT = no 4M but ive got a stopper. 3352 type of hands
4C&4D i dont remember exactly but one bid was 44 in both M.

This allow agressive inv hands with 44 in the majors to get to the best game without being forced to the 4 level. It also allow 4M+ stopper to do a kind of stayman.

The losses are when overcaller is very strong, he know advancer got values but doesnt know advancer suit, so some follow up auction are a bit messy.


Anyway for single suiter.
You always play one level higher when you have diamonds but sometimes play one level lower when advancer got an inv and overcaller is minimum.
This look about even until you realized that in close call advancer can simply bid game if you have to be one level too high that what you would prefer, if its at least a game its way less costly than if its a partscore contract.

Also we got a couple of 4Dx. In the end I was fairly convinced its was poor method.



I think the same idea at the one level got way more sense especially if you double very light (pre balancing).

[Zelandakh]

If giving up a natural 2♦ in auction 1 it is surely much better to play transfers. For example: 2♦ = ♥ (weak or GF); 2♥ = ♠ (weak or GF); 2♠ = cue; 2NT = nat; 3♣ = ♦, weak or GF; 3♦♥♠ = nat; INV. Another option to consider in this auction is giving up 2NT for Lebensohl instead of 2♦. 2♦ as the relay looks dubious to me on a theoretical level though.

The second auction is much trickier as you would expect losing a whole level of bidding space. Now being able to differentiate between hands more finely starts to gain some real value and the transfer idea does not really work any more. So perhaps 3♦ = "any weak, or GF with 4-4/5-4 majors; or GF without a ♣ stopper" is reasonable. If the opps do not bid again, there is space to unwind this at least and I think it gives a few more win scenarios than Adam's analysis, so it is probably slightly positive overall. Needs practical testing though for sure.

[benlessard]

"If giving up a natural 2♦ in auction 1 it is surely much better to play transfers"

I disagree, its much better to be able to invite and stop in 2M than a transfer that put responder on lead.

I would just play

2D = any inv, or GF without 5M
.....2H= i refuse a H inv
.....2S= I accept a H inv but refuse a !S inv
.....2NT i like both Majors but my hand is not good enough to GF
.....rest is GF


2M/3D = to play
2NT/3C = GF

Transfer are usually best when slam on your side is possible & you put opener/overcaller on lead.

[Zelandakh]

 benlessard, on 2017-May-29, 22:09, said:

I disagree, its much better to be able to invite and stop in 2M than a transfer that put responder on lead.

Gaining a level on refused invites by losing a level on GF hands strikes me as false economy but if that is what you prefer then using 2♦ for a specific range would be better. Whether to make the direct 2M calls weak or invitational then becomes a matter of preference. I suspect most would prefer the logic behind invitational (constructive) with a (primarily) negative 2♦, roughly as suggested over 3♣.

[benlessard]

a multi inv 2D allow agressive inv with both M or inv with 4M+5D or 4M+!C stopper(s), if overcaller pick the right major you can be in 4M otherwise you will bid 2Nt/3D and maybe he can bid again.it also IMO "rightside" 2H when advancer is weak.

GF hands with 5M are easy to bid, losing a level on those hand dont bother me that much.

I see a the odds our slam make side after
(2C)--X--(P)--??

being significantly inferior to

1Nt---(2D)---??

but in the 2nd auction we still agree that being able to stop in 2H is worth more than being able to xfer with 2H.

[Zelandakh]

 benlessard, on 2017-May-30, 09:14, said:

I see a the odds our slam make side after
(2C)--X--(P)--??

being significantly inferior to

1Nt---(2D)---??

but in the 2nd auction we still agree that being able to stop in 2H is worth more than being able to xfer with 2H.

In the second auction we also have a double available for handling takeout hands. I do not know about you but I certainly use transfers in the second auction too, just that the transfer showing hearts is 3♦ in this case. That is fully consistent with the 2♣ auction, being willing to commit to the 3 level with an invitational hand and use the 2 level for something more useful.

[MrAce]

Thanks to all who replied.

[Phil]

Over an intermediate 2, finding our best home has to trump using a possible strain as artificial. Additionally, partner is less apt to be offshape here versus a weak 2.

[dokoko]

We recently implemented a Lebensohl-type 2♦ response into a structure by Eric Kokish:

(2♣) dbl:

2♦ Puppet to 2♥:
a) 0-7 pts (→ pass/2♠/3♦)
b) ≥4er♦, 8-10 pts (→ 3♣)
c) bal with ♣-stop, 11-12 pts (→ 2NT)

2♥♠ ≥4♥♠, 7⁺-10 pts

2NT Puppet to 3♣:
a) inv+ both majors (→ 3♦)
b) gf with ♣-stop (→ 3♥♠NT, 3NT shows ♦)
c) gf, ≥64/55 in ♦+major (→ 4♣=x46x, 4♦=4x6x, 4♥♠=5M+5♦)

3♣♦♥ inv+ Transfer; no ♣-stop when gf
3♠ Transfer to 3NT; gf, no ♣-stop
3NT to play (with ♣-stop)

4♣ 4♥+≥6♦, inv
4♦ 4♠+≥6♦, inv
4♥♠ to play

seems to work well so far...

Edit: Of course doubler may refuse to bid 2♥/3♣ over the puppet bids with a strong hand.

[chasetb]

I know this is a little late, but from Kokish-Kraft Weak NT system notes I have from 2008, Kokish actually listed this -> (2♣) X (P) 2♦ = lebensohl (0-7: scramble technique follows)

2M shows 7-10 and 2NT is a puppet to 3C showing different kinds of invitational or GF hands.

[dokoko]

 chasetb, on 2017-July-19, 05:46, said:

I know this is a little late, but from Kokish-Kraft Weak NT system notes I have from 2008, Kokish actually listed this -> (2♣) X (P) 2♦ = lebensohl (0-7: scramble technique follows)

2M shows 7-10 and 2NT is a puppet to 3C showing different kinds of invitational or GF hands.

See my previous reply for details of the Kokish-Kraft methods.