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.
2 comments:
I'd say that 'slow denies' is far more popular in the UK than in the US, although it is unclear which is more popular. I was taught 'slow denies' first and it is safer if one of you forgets!
Lebensohl-like methods can be applied to a number of other auctions, such as responding to a double of a weak 2 or after opener's reverse. But it takes some work to go through all the auctions.
Interesting. I certainly agree that slow denies is safer. 1NT - (2x) - 3NT sounds so natural, it just feels like you're asking for trouble when you say it isn't. But in the New York area, at least, it seems that virtually everyone plays "fast denies". I don't really know if the rest of the country has the same bias.
When I get around to it, I'll probably make posts about the other common-ish lebensohl situations. Maybe about Rubensohl (transfer advances) as well. Although that will be somewhat more theoretical because (again!) it's something that sounds good and I know gets used, but I don't personally know of anybody in my immediate neighborhood who plays it.
Post a Comment