lebensohl over 1NT

I can’t believe I haven’t yet posted anything about lebensohl. I have a very ambivalent, or at least confused, attitude to this convention. You really have to play it or something equivalent: just relying on natural bidding and common sense doesn’t work well enough in these situations. In principle, the convention is simple and should be easy to use. And yet, when it comes to actually using it at the table, I find that it drives the new user crazy (speaking both as a once-new user myself, and as a teacher who has had the dubious pleasure of trying to teach this thing). Perhaps the real difficulty is that while the problem situations occur often enough for you to need the convention, they don’t occur often enough for you to become comfortable with the different sequences just in at-the-table play. Some dedicated practice with customized deals is in order. Anyway, here is a quick overview.

When the opponents interfere over 1NT, responder may have difficulty describing his hand. Given that he has a suit worth mentioning, there are at least three levels of strength that he may hold: weak, invitational, and strong. And generally, he only has two bids available below 3NT, mentioning his suit at the two-level or jumping to the three-level. The lebensohl convention is a way to give him more flexibility.

The basic idea is that after a 2-level overcall, a natural bid of 2NT is very unlikely to be required. Using lebensohl, a bid of 2NT by responder is a relay, requiring opener to bid 3C. Then if responder passes (showing clubs) or bids a new suit at the 3 level, the bid is competitive or invitational. If the responder could have mentioned his suit at the two level, his three-level bid after the relay is invitational. If responder didn’t have a chance to bid his suit at the two-level, his bid after lebensohl is just competing, and opener is expected to pass. Conversely, if responder doesn’t go through the relay but bids a new suit at the 3 level directly over the overcall, that is strong and forcing. And if responder can get his suit in at the 2-level over the overcall, that is just weak.

So for example, if the bidding goes:

1NT – (2H) – 2S that is natural and weak, just competing

1NT – (2H) – 3S that is natural and strong, responder wants to be in game

1NT – (2H) – 2NT! – (Pass) – 3C! – (Pass) – 3S that is not forcing, invitational

1NT – (2H) – 3D that is forcing with at least invitational strength

1NT – (2H) – 2NT! – (Pass) – 3C! – (Pass) – 3D that is just competing

So far, so good, but there’s more. Another common convention, without a name that I know, is that responder can cue-bid to indicate game-going values and four cards in one or both majors (a way to make up for Stayman being lost). For example:

• 1NT – (2H) – 3H! means I’m strong enough for game, and have four spades
• 1NT – (2H) – 3NT means I want to be in game and I don’t have spades

The lebensohl relay can also be used in both these sequences, and the usual meaning attached is related to whether or not responder has a stopper in the enemy suit. The two possible methods are generally referred to as “fast denies” and “slow denies”. If you play “slow denies”, then the above mentioned two sequences also show a stopper in the enemy suit, hearts in the examples above. Going through the relay denies having a stopper in the enemy suit. So

• 1NT – (2H) – 2NT! – (Pass) – 3C! – (Pass) – 3H game-forcing with four spades, but no heart stopper
• 1NT – (2H) – 2NT! – (Pass) – 3C! – (Pass) – 3NT game-forcing without either spades or a heart stopper

If you play “fast denies”, the meanings are reversed: jumping to 3NT immediately over intervention actually denies having a stopper in the enemy suit. (Opener therefore has to stay awake and bid something if he too lacks a stopper). There may be an advantage to playing “fast denies” if the opposition wants to keep bidding. The immediate jumps tend to shut out advancer, and the times when responder doesn’t have a stopper are perhaps more likely to be the times you really want to do that. So, while it would seem that “slow denies” has the edge in naturalness (if there is such a word), in practice, almost everyone plays fast denies. Just for the hell of it, with Agent 99 I play “slow denies”, and so far we haven’t had any problem.

 

Misadventures In Manhattan

Some random hands from the MBC.

West and East were a teacher and one of her students (not a beginner). My partner was one of my regular partners, but he’s not doing so well these days and this was near the end of the evening. So for multiple reasons (not least of which was I fancied our chances of making), I decided to pull his penalty double.

West was keeping a pretty good poker face and not meeting my eyes when the dummy came down. My assessment was that she thought they were in the running East-West, and she had liked the progress of the auction. Even more, she still expected to beat the contract when I ruffed the opening lead of ♠A.

The bad news is that I have no way to avoid losing the other two aces I’m missing, so I really have to pick up the trumps for just one loser. For a vulnerable jump overcall, I’m inclined to credit East with more than just ♠QJxxxx(x), so give her an ace. I’m sure that means West thinks she has two trump tricks. So, does she have four trumps, or only three? Do you feel lucky?

Like the wuss that I am, I led to the ♦10, and East showed out. If I had run the ♦6, West wasn’t going to be happy. And even worse, she had doubled 5♣ only to panic us into 5♦, and was feeling very pleased with herself that it “worked”! Small details like us preferring to play in the 9-card fit rather than the 7-card fit, and me having a chance to make the contract, seemed to pass her by. Still, the result was dead average, one way or another. 

Rats.

A few posts back I said something about big balanced responding hands being difficult to deal with. This one came up for the opponents.

With the friendly diamond lie, 7♦, 7♠ and 7NT all make. But even with average distributions, you want to be in 6♠. With standard American treatments, it’s not as easy as it looks, and only about half the field got past 4♠. The Jacoby 2NT response usually shows 4-card support, and if you can’t use that, then a sensible auction gets much harder. I think there’s a case for using Jacoby with 3-card support when your hand is so strong.

 

Here’s another slam hand that’s a little awkward, but I applied my usual solution – just punt.

 The ♠A got ruffed on the opening lead, and I wondered what to do next. I decided that the best chance was to hope for trumps 2-1, when I could play to get rid of dummy’s spade losers by ruffing two and throwing two away. So I laid down the ♣A, and the ♣K fell on my right. That made it pretty safe to ruff a diamond, and when both opponents followed suit, I was claiming thirteen tricks.

This would have been a good hand for the special negative 2NT response I’ve described before. I would still be punting the slam, but it would be a much better informed punt.

 

1NT Forcing and Bart

If you play 5-card majors, it is best to play the response of 1NT as forcing for one round. While this prevents you from playing in that most admirable contract, it provides an extra round of bidding to find an accurate part-score. While most people manage without too much further elaboration, there is a case for an additional layer of artificiality. For one thing, opener’s “natural” rebids of 2C and 2D can only promise a 3-card suit at best. And after 1H – 1NT opener may be forced to bid 2C on a doubleton in a 4=5=2=2 hand that isn’t strong enough to reverse. Also, responder’s hand may be balanced and weak to invitational in strength, or it may be unbalanced, and range from weak to just under the strength needed for a 2 over 1 response (and if you play 2/1 GF, “just under” is really not a bad hand). After 1S – 1NT or 1H – 1NT, opener will make a jump rebid with a maximum opening, generally 18+hcp. There is therefore a potential problem when opener is 15-17hcp and/or responder is near his maximum, say 9-11hcp - game needs to be considered in these cases. And yet another situation arises after 1S – 1NT when responder has a 5-card heart suit and a doubleton spade – it can be difficult or impossible to identify the best part-score (two hearts or two spades).

There is more than one way to address some of these issues. Perhaps one of the simpler ideas is a convention called Bart that addresses sequences after 1S – 1NT; 2C. (The situation after 1H – 1NT isn’t quite so bad, but while a similar treatment can be applied, there are differences, and I’ll stick with the spade opening for this description). There’s more than one version of Bart floating around as well, but this version seems fairly straightforward to me.

First, the agreement can be made that opener’s 2H and 2D rebids promise at least 4 cards. The 2C rebid is then redefined as not meeting the requirements for any other bid, making it alertable as not really natural any more. Second, bidding following opener’s 2C rebid is elaborated by making responder’s 2D at this point an artificial relay (also alertable).

We need to consider how opener will bid, and also what hands responder is trying to show. First, opener’s first rebid:

1S – 1NT;

• 2S shows 6+cards, 11-16hcp
• 3S shows 6+cards, 17-18hcp
• 4S shows 6+cards, 19-20hcp
• 2NT shows 18-19hcp
• 3C/3D/3H are natural, 4+cards, 18+hcp, forcing
• 2D/2H are natural, 4+cards, 11-17hcp
• 2C catches everything else, generally either clubs or a balanced hand in the 11-17hcp range

Now consider responder’s hand. Generally, the 1NT response is made on hands that are balanced, or that are unbalanced but not strong enough for an immediate 2 over 1 response. The 2D relay will be used for:

• Balanced 10-12hcp including 4-card club support
• Strong (9-11hcp) with clubs
• Strong (9-11hcp) with diamonds
• 3-card limit raise that includes 4-card club support
• hands with 5 hearts and 2 spades

Direct bids (not using the relay) will then show

• Balanced 10-12hcp without 4-card club support
• Weak (5-8hcp) with clubs
• Weak (5-8hcp) with diamonds
• 3-card limit raise without 4-card club support 

(The exclamation is used to indicate a bid that should be alerted).

After 1S – 1NT; 2C! responder bids

• Pass – obviously weak, should be 5+clubs and at most 1 spade
• 2D! – artificial and forcing, generally 9+hcp but can be weak with 5 hearts and 2 spades
• 2H – natural, weak, 6+cards, opener should not return to spades
• 2S – natural, weak, usually a doubleton
• 2NT – natural, invitational 10-12hcp, denies 4 clubs or 3 spades
• 3C – natural, 5-8hcp, 5+cards, principally a courtesy raise to shut out the opponents
• 3D – natural, 5-8hcp, to play. Weak diamond hands have to play in 3D rather than 2D, the only serious drawback to the convention.
• 3S – limit raise with 3-card spade support, denies 4 clubs
• 3NT – natural, 13-15hcp, denies 4 clubs or 3 spades

After 1S – 1NT; 2C! – 2D! opener defines his hand a little more:

• 3H – 3-card hearts, 15-17hcp
• 2NT – natural, 15-17hcp, less than 3 hearts
• 2S – 11-15hcp, less than 3 hearts
• 2H – 11-15hcp, 3-card hearts

If opener has bid 2NT or 3H, responder should be able to place the contract. Otherwise, responder completes his description:

After 1S – 1NT; 2C! – 2D!; 2H

• Pass – natural, 5-card hearts
• 2S – usually a doubleton honor with 8-10hcp
• 2NT – natural 10-12hcp, but with 4-card club support
• 3C – good club raise, 9-11hcp
• 3D – invitational with good diamonds, 9-11hcp, 6+cards
• 3H – invitational, 8-11hcp, 5+cards
• 3S – limit raise with 3-card spades and 4-card clubs
• 3NT – natural, 13-15hcp, includes 4-card club support
• 4H – natural, distributional

and after that, opener should know where to go.

Laid out like this, it all looks rather intimidating. But actually, it’s quite straightforward and pretty natural, just difficult to describe concisely.

Bermuda Bowl

Well it's all over. Congratulations to USA2, China, and England.

I have to say I was surprised by both the Venice Cup and the Senior Bowl. I really did expect the French and German women to do better, and the English seniors barely squeaked into the competition (they actually were out on a tie-breaker, always a miserable state of affairs, but got in when the Netherlands withdrew). That's not to say that the winners are unworthy, far from it. The Chinese women (and the men in the Bermuda Bowl too, for that matter) were consistently strong and dangerous, and took the final by the scruff of the neck. The English seniors climbed rapidly to the top of the round robin ladder and stayed there, and showed true quality in the final when Poland jumped out to an early lead. Very well done by all.

I read somewhere that Bobby Wolff's assessment of the Bermuda Bowl knock-out was that the best eight teams had qualified, and that there wasn't a weak player to be found anywhere. I often don't agree with him, but in this case I think he was exactly right. It would be easy to glance at the final result and assume that Italy and the USA are just streets better than anybody else. But if you watched some of the competition, you would know that it's much closer than in some prior years. All eight of the teams in the knock-out were very strong indeed, and if Italy and the USA are the strongest, it's not by very much of a margin.

Bermuda Bowl

OK, time for the finals. My picks for the knock-out stages didn't pan out too well (not a surprise, really). But I did name the Open finalists (Italy - USA2) like most people. I did pick Poland to win the Senior Bowl, although I didn't think they'd be playing against England - go team! And I was kind of close for the women - I picked USA1 and China as the losing semi-finalists, but instead they both made it to the final. Oh well.

Bermuda Bowl

Two matches left in the round robin, and eleven teams are fighting for eight spots in the knock-out phase. Japan is one of my original picks, and they are currently 11th, with a lot of work to do, but I'll be cheering them on. Unfortunately, if they get in, they'll be supplanting some other one of my picks (China or Germany or the Netherlands), so I can't win.

England still way ahead in the Senior Bowl. I watched a little of them the other day, and wasn't greatly impressed. But obviously when I'm not looking, they're doing very well. So I better continue to not look.

Oddments

The odd and interesting moments in my games seem to happen most often when I’m playing with Elwood, these days. Here are a few samples (nothing very deep).

Nobody vulnerable, the bidding goes
Pass Pass 1H   Pass
2H   3S   3NT  Pass
Pass Dble Pass Pass
Pass
Sitting in fourth seat, I couldn’t imagine what sort of hand Elwood could have that would pass in second seat and then come to life so violently. Did he find a couple of spades mixed in with his clubs? But I had a couple of spades and AJTxxx of clubs, maybe another Q or something somewhere, so there was nothing to do except sit for it and lead a spade. Declarer wasn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even he managed nine tricks without any real trouble, and Elwood said I was really thin for my double. “You doubled, not me” I said. “No, your takeout double” he said, and the light dawned, at least a little bit. Pass is bright green, and the Double card is bright red, and Elwood is not color-blind. But somehow he hallucinated a takeout double on the first round, and the illusion persisted through the auction, even though I’m pretty neat about how I put my bids out on the table and there were two or three pregnant pauses as almost everyone (three out of four people, anyway) wondered what was going on with these unusual bids. We still have no explanation.

The other week, the Welland team visited the MBC for an evening pairs game (change of pace?). Christal Henner and Uday Ivatury sat N-S, and for the second of our two boards against them, I picked up as dealer:

  ♠ K
  ♥ 9 5
  ♦ 7 6 5 
  ♣ A K Q 10 5 3 2

Both sides were vulnerable. I decided that against that pair, a very sound 3♣ pre-empt was in order. Passed out and down one, slightly above average since several pairs reached game in a major their way (both make). But I wonder how I would have bid the hand against a pair of palookas?

In case you were wondering, Andrew Stark and Franco Baseggio sat E-W, and won quite convincingly with a 72% score. Elwood and I were their nearest competition, second on 65%.

We continue to have a love-hate relationship with the weak no-trump. Both of us like the bid, but the bid seems to hate us: we continually run into penalty situations with it when we play together, although we don’t when we play with other people. But we’re fighting back:

♠ A 5             ♠ Q J 9 8
♥ J 4 3      [ ]  ♥ K Q 8
♦ 10 6 3          ♦ J 8 7 2
♣ J 10 9 6 4      ♣ K 5

N    E    S    W
     1NT  Pass Pass
Dble Pass Pass Pass

Elwood could have run to 2♣, but actually that would have been worse. As it was, South led the ♠7 to North’s ♠K, and the ♠3 came back to the ♠A. With three spade tricks visible and two hearts coming, I decided I needed a club and a diamond. So tricks three and four were a club – 4, 3, K, 2 – and a diamond – 2, 4, 6, 9. The full hand:

            ♠ K 10 4 3
            ♥ A 9 7 2
            ♦ A K 9
            ♣ A 3
♠ A 5                   ♠ Q J 9 8
♥ J 4 3        [ ]      ♥ K Q 8
♦ 10 6 3                ♦ J 8 7 2
♣ J 10 9 6 4            ♣ K 5
            ♠ 7 6 2
            ♥ 10 6 5
            ♦ Q 5 4
            ♣ Q 8 7 2

The reason why I’m reporting the hand is that (while I had no idea of it at the time) the two defenders have become completely disconnected by those two tricks. North could still have defeated me by switching to hearts, but she persisted with another spade, and that was seven tricks for me. It’s a classic case, really: the N-S assets would be much easier to handle if they were split more evenly. North is too good.

How about a hand where you push to slam with just two small trumps?

♠ K J 10 5 2          ♠ A 7
♥ A           [ ]     ♥ K 9 5 3
♦ 2                   ♦ A K 8 5 3
♣ K Q J 4 3 2         ♣ 7 5

N    E    S    W
     1♦   Pass 2♣
Pass 2♦   Pass 2♠
Pass 2NT  Pass 3♠
Pass 4♣   Pass 4NT
Pass 6♣   All pass

The 2♣ response is forcing to game, so the 4♣ bid is Minorwood 1430, and 4NT showed two keycards plus the ♣Q. I was very nervous bidding the slam, though. I liked my controls, and didn’t think it could be right to settle for 3NT. But in clubs the ♥K might be vulnerable, and in no-trumps I might not have enough tricks. In the end, I decided that clubs would probably be safer (a spade ruff might be vital), so 6♣ was the bid.

In fact spades were 3-3 with the Q onside, and clubs broke 3-2, so twelve tricks were easy in three denominations. But we were actually the only pair to bid any slam.

Bermuda Bowl

I haven't felt much like blogging lately, but I thought I would keep this thing alive by commenting on the World Championships. I don't rub elbows with very exalted company, in bridge circles, so I have no more information or insight than the average Joe Public bridge player. But I have enough experience and a varied enough background to make these international competitions  fascinating for me to watch. I'm spending as much time as I can on VuGraph at BBO, and I find myself unable to stick with just one match at a time. I can't resist flitting across the three or four matches that seem the most interesting match-ups.

Before it started, I picked Italy to win over USA2, with the Netherlands and USA1 as the losing semi-finalists, and Germany, Japan, Norway and China losing in the quarter-finals. Those picks aren't looking too great at the moment. We're about two-thirds through the round-robin, and Japan, USA1 and Germany have a lot of work to do to make the quarter-finals. Instead, Bulgaria, Russia and Argentina are currently in the top eight in the standings.

It's amazing to me how good the teams are, generally. I don't get over-awed and fawn like some bloggers I could mention, but I appreciate that some pairs are a class above the average expert. And it seems to me that a lot of the teams are fielding two or three pairs that are genuinely that good. I mean, Chagas and his pals from Brazil are not what anyone would call deadwood in any competition, and they're currently languishing 18th out of 22 teams . I mean, holy shit, 18th? I've been reading the blogs of Sartaj Hans and Cathy Chua and one or two other people who generally are concerned with how Australia and New Zealand don't seem to be able to step up to the winning circle at these very top levels. I have to admit, looking through the results so far, it does indeed look as if the 22 teams are separating into the top 8 or 10, the next 8 or 10, and the bottom 3 or 4. And Australia and New Zealand seem to be firmly planted in the middle, and if you don't get into the knock-out, you're not going to win. But that doesn't mean they're all chumps, either. When you look, they're both ahead of Brazil - in fact, they're both ahead of USA1, which must be rattling some cages in ACBL-land. USA1 cleaned everybody's clock in the US Trials, and comprise some of the best players in America, and realistically they have no chance of making the knock-out at this point. That must hurt.

To look on the brighter side, I'll say that I don't think Fantunes or Meckwell have really turned it on yet, so my Italy-USA2 final still looks very possible to me and still looks like a cracking match. I'll also say that I've been very impressed by Norway. I knew they were good, of course, but they're actually missing a couple of their best pairs for this competition, and they still look capable of kicking pretty much anybody's ass. Boye Brogeland seems to be one of relatively few players in this round-robin who aren't afraid to pull out the red card when the opponents are getting out of line - good for him.

I haven't seen much of the women (Venice Cup) or the seniors (D'Orsi Senior Bowl). I watched a little of Sabine Auken and Daniela von Arnim a couple of days, and was distinctly under-whelmed. They seemed to be playing very much below their best. And I haven't really looked at the seniors at all. But I'll have to take a look now - England are currently at the top of the standings, and it would be distinctly unpatriotic to ignore them. Rule Britannia!