Talk:Lebensohl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Contract bridge, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to bridge on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Hmm - the contents seems to be messed up. What have I done wrong? Cambion 14:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Looked OK to me, except that WP:LEAD was overlong. I restructured it a bit—is that what you wanted? Duja 14:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of 2NT followed by new suit bid above overcaller's bid

I think that the consensus for this bid is invitational, not forcing, but denying a stopper. Support of this is at [1], [2], [3] (just taking the first few google links). I changed the page appropriately.

[edit] Which sequences shows a stopper? Which are signoff, forcing or inviting

You and your partner should have an agreement about what shows and what denies a stopper. But most people play: http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/Conventions/Lebensohl.html

1. direct cuebid is stayman and denies stopper
2. first 2NT and the cuebid shows stopper
3. direct 3NT denies stopper
4. first 2Nt and the 3Nt promises stopper

forcing, invite or sign-off ?

1. suit at the 2-level is signoff
2. suit after 2NT (lower ranking than the overcalled suit) is signoff
3. suit after 2nT (higher ranking than the overcalled suit) in invite
4. direct bid of 3 of a suit aís forcing at least for 1 round

So after 1NT 2spades you have no invite only forcing (3H) or sign-off (2NT and later 3H)

After 1NT 2hearts you have 3 possibilities:

1. 2 spades (signoff)
2. 3 spades (forcing at least 1 round)
3. 2NT and later 3 spades after partners 3 club-relay (invite)

Xx1943 (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your treatment here although where I come from it's about 50:50 whether people play 2NT as showing or denying (I make sure I agree it when I sit down). Your edits made the article inconsistent so I've restored the consistent version. TBH I don't think it matters which version we describe. Any thoughts people?Cambion (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)