[barmar]

Last night in a club matchpoint game we had the following auction:

---

I was West, and partner intended his 2NT as Lebensohl; luckily, he did have a ♥ stopper, and he was able to take 8 tricks when he guessed [C] correctly. But 3♠ is the top spot.

I didn't think Lebensohl should be on when I was a passed hand. He thought that he could use this to distinguish the quality of his ♠: an immediate jump to 3♠ would show 5 (but not good enough for him to overcall on the first round, e.g. Qxxxx), while going through Leb would show the 4 that he actually had.

Is it better for 2NT to be natural or Lebensohl, or something else? Something going through my mind was that if I can balance as light as I did, and partner didn't have enough to make a 2NT overcall, we may be overboard in a natural 2NT, which argues against natural.

[RMB1]

Something else = scrambling = both minors

[ArtK78]

I play Lebensohl on as a passed hand.

Using 2NT as natural is a very narrow target. You have to have sufficient cards in their suit for NT to be right, but you don't want to pass the double for penalties. And, furthermore, you have to have invitational values. There are very few hands that fit into that range.

[FrancesHinden]

Of those pairs who have actually discussed and agreed this position, I've seen about 50:50 for natural and lebensohl.

[bluecalm]

I vote lebensohl because I didn't read the post carefully and didn't notice t/o doubler is passed hand. I don't think it should be lebensohl in that case. I am not sure about what it should be but both natural and minors makes sense.

[Trinidad]

Just my 2 cents:

Lebensohl makes sense, but scrambling makes more sense. Natural doesn't make much sense.

Rik

[CSGibson]

My partner and I would play it as scrambling (minors in this case, 2 places to play over spades)

[wank]

lebensohl is ridiculous here. scramble or natural is fine.

the only reason people normally don't like natural is 2NT's a narrow target opposite a wide-ranging [unpassed] takeout double. here it's not wide ranging so 2NT is a perfectly reasonable target.

[ArtK78]

wank, on 2012-January-25, 15:17, said:

lebensohl is ridiculous here. scramble or natural is fine.

the only reason people normally don't like natural is 2NT's a narrow target opposite a wide-ranging [unpassed] takeout double. here it's not wide ranging so 2NT is a perfectly reasonable target.

No, Lebensohl is not ridiculous here. Look at how strong the hand in direct seat over the preempt is. That is why you need Lebensohl - to differentiate between weak hands and strong hands. Game is not out of the question.

[sasioc]

I'd think it was a scramble without agreement and am certain that it is in my two regular partnerships.

[paulg]

A good position for Gucci ("Give Up Clubs Invitational") Lebensohl - many of the benefits of both scrambling and lebensohl at the cost of invitational hands with clubs.

2NT = pick a minor (either scramble to minor, weak with diamonds, fg hands with four spades, invite with spades)
3♣ = natural; 0-10 HCP
3♦ = natural; 8-10 HCP
3♥ = asks for stopper without four spades
3♠ = natural; f1
3NT = natural without four spades

EDIT: I pasted this from my notes which are in response to a direct double of weak twos, so ranges are wrong but the principle correct. Naturally we adjust ranges appropriate to the auction, hopefully we make the same adjustments.

[blackshoe]

I kind of like paul's solution, but without that, I'd say it's Lebensohl, particularly if you've agreed to play Lebensohl opposite a direct double, and failed to discuss this situation. It's not the only way to play it, of course, and if you don't play Leb after direct doubles, then it's almost certainly not Leb here. Whether it might be scrambling depends, I think, on whether you expect partner has ever heard of that convention. For a lot of the people I know, the answer to that would be "no".

[mgoetze]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-25, 18:22, said:

Whether it might be scrambling depends, I think, on whether you expect partner has ever heard of that convention.

Convention? I thought it's "just bridge".

[Statto]

Got the t-shirt. Convinced partner that it should be Leb, as we still want to differentiate hand strength in this situation.

[Phil]

I play Paul's method with one partner in all seats.

Scrambling > Natural > Lebensohl.

[helene_t]

ArtK78, on 2012-January-25, 15:39, said:

No, Lebensohl is not ridiculous here. Look at how strong the hand in direct seat over the preempt is. That is why you need Lebensohl - to differentiate between weak hands and strong hands. Game is not out of the question.

Yes but doubler's hand is quite limited so partner can either force to game or sign off, he doesn't need to be able to invite.

Lebensohl only makes sense when both partners have a wide range.

Undiscussed I would assume scrambling.

[benlessard]

Gucci is great here but to show D with values you need 13-15 pts vs a passed hand. The hands with 4-4 in the minors seems more frequent than the hands where i would want to bid exactly 2nt natural signoff (I dont think a passed hand partner has the right to raise to 3Nt)

If their suit is S its more complicated but scrambling become more important IMO because you can have a 4333 and not being able to pass, also there is more combination of 4/4.

2NT (2 suiters 4/4m or 4m/4H or even 4M/5m at MP + H soff)
3C to play
3D to play
3H inv

Note that its the same thing after
(2S)--X--(4S)--??
(4S)--X--(P)--??
4Nt is scrambling or signoff in H and 5H is slammish

(2H)--X--(4H)--??
(4H)--X--(P)--??
4Nt is both m and 5D is slammish

its not perfect but its the best way IMO

[barmar]

helene_t, on 2012-January-26, 09:36, said:

Yes but doubler's hand is quite limited so partner can either force to game or sign off, he doesn't need to be able to invite.

Lebensohl only makes sense when both partners have a wide range.

Undiscussed I would assume scrambling.

If he has enough to force to game, he presumably would have taken direct action.

Look at my partner's hand, he has a decent 14 count, close to a max for his pass. He needs to know whether I stretched to balance with a quacky 9 (as I did) or was max for my original pass. Also, he wants to distinguish 4 and 5+ card suits. Lebensohl allows him to do both.

We've decided to go with Lebensohl, just to keep things consistent between passed and unpassed hands.

[Statto]

It's not just about looking for game. Leb will help you know what you're doing in competition. And this could well be a partscore battle. I know South has not raised to 3♥, but perhaps they felt no pressing need to just yet. And I know it's no excuse, and other methods may be better, but playing Leb in all these situations is easier on the hippocampus

[gnasher]

Statto, on 2012-January-27, 21:45, said:

It's not just about looking for game. Leb will help you know what you're doing in competition. And this could well be a partscore battle. I know South has not raised to 3♥, but perhaps they felt no pressing need to just yet.

I don't think that's true. For competitive purposes it's more useful to know about suits than about high-card strength. Suppose that advancer has a hand that doesn't want to invite game but does want to compete over 3♠. It's obviously easier to judge in the sequence

pass 2♠ pass pass
dbl pass 3x 3♠
pass pass dbl

than in

pass 2♠ pass pass
dbl pass 2NT 3♠
pass pass dbl

The only time that Lebensohl gains for competitive purposes is when advancer shows invitational values and then they compete. I think this won't happen very often - if we have the values to consider game, responder will be weak, so if he was going to bid 3♠ he would have dones so immediately.