In BWTA, I am going to quibble with the opening clause of the answer. In the column, the two spades bid had been made in third position after two passes. Most partnerships take greater liberties in that position. Similarly, the column doubler’s partner had also already passed, which changes many of the response ranges when responding to the double.

In this BWTA quiz, all those same bids were in direct position by unpassed hands. These distinctions are particularly important to me, since I decline to play Lebensohl in these situations; I already have enough things to forget at the bridge table.

Hi Jim2, Bobby,

Although I play Lebensohl here as you describe, I wonder about how it copes with balanced hands. With an opening bid and a stop, you can just bid 3N while using 2N then cue-bidding might be such a hand without a stop. But what if part doubles 2S and you hold xx Jxx Kxxx Kxxx or even weaker? To be fair, bidding 3C without Lebensohl also doesn’t get the hand over but any thoughts?

Regards,

Iain

Hi Jim2,

I do not intend to quibble with your quibble about the change of position of the weak two bidder in today’s BWTA hand.

Certainly the bridge strategy for 3rd seat weak two bid openings requires less discipline than does 1st or 2nd seat WTB openings, since partner has already announced less than opening bid values. However important that fact really is, doesn’t actually affect the point made on this hand except in the discussion of the particular Lebensohl convention often played at the higher levels in bridge.

Today’s responder has a perfect example hand for how it should be handled while playing Lebensohl by bidding an artificial 2NT which is a puppet for partner to automatically respond 3 clubs, therefore then enabling the weak club hand to pass.

However, since the doubler has such a powerful hand, he would not choose to then meekly bid 3 clubs, in order to among many other reasons, not give his partner a chance to pass him out there.

Of course, Reese did bid 3NT over an amorphous 3 club response, a terrible contract, but his exceptional talent, overcame that small imperfection.

All of the above discussion is basically for me to agree with Jim2 in declining to play Lebensohl in this situation, but not just for his reason of not adding another convention to forget, but rather because I do not like to give up the natural meaning bid of 2NT as a response, perhaps the most frequent bid which might occur on this type of sequence.

Many top players swear by its value, but I choose to swear at its usual (at least for me) results.

Without delving into a controversial difference of opinion at the bridge table (they happen all the time and at every level of play) suffice it to say that If Terence Reese had been subjected to that convention (this hand happened decades before this version of Lebensohl was born) he would not have been able to include this typical cat and mouse battle between him and his defenders to include in his wonderful book.

Hi Iain, Jim2,

Your question is one in which I do not think has an intelligent answer and thus have formed an opinion to not play Lebensohl over doubles of weak two bids.

Its objective of constructing this version of Lebensohl is certainly well intended, but alas, the result might resemble an artist’s version of what might happen if camels were ordained to have a different look.

Yes, that might produce an improved and more efficient animal, but after careful reflection, it’s more attractive design just didn’t help.

Summing up by trying to be tasteful but descriptive: The age old way of responding to TO doubles of weak two bids, is still awkward and mostly guesswork, but as of yet, any significant improvement (or any at all) has yet to grow past the drawing board. AMEN!

Someone once described a camel as the result of a committee being asked to design a horse. Reese’s acerbic views on many conventions might apply here and in other areas.