[kgr]

1♥-(2♠)-Pass-(Pass)
DBL-(Pass)-2NT

1♥=5c+♥
2♠=weak (This happened when opps were vulnerable, so not very weak)
DBL=take-out

What is best usage for 2NT bid here?:
- I expected Lebensohl, similar as (2♠)-DBL-(Pass)-2NT; This is easiest for memory as well.
- My partner meant it as both minors. Maybe that is more useful because I already know that partner will not have much (different than 2NT lebensohl after opps open a weak 2).

[SteveMoe]

I like Danny Sprung's idea Two Places to Play from Bridge Winners.

[lalldonn]

Definitely I prefer it as two places to play. That makes it safest for partner to double as often as possible. It's so nice that he can double on 1642, 1525, etc without having to worry about whether or not he is in a dumb contract after you bid his short minor, or for you to not have some giant headache when you are 4144, 3244, 4243, etc.

[lalldonn]

doubled up

[JLOGIC]

This is one auction where all of Nat scramb and leb are reasonable. I prefer leb but any of them is fine

[bluecalm]

I like nat.
I would expect it's lebensohl for most people in my country.

[Vampyr]

Two places to play for me.

[the hog]

I play it as scrambling. 2NT as natural to play makes no sense at all as partner could not bid over the wjo.

[Codo]

I join Justins view and you should play Leb, because of the memory load.

You already play a complex system, so keep it as easy as possible when the possible gain is just small.

[lalldonn]

Codo, on 2012-November-01, 03:35, said:

I join Justins view and you should play Leb, because of the memory load.

You already play a complex system, so keep it as easy as possible when the possible gain is just small.

I don't understand the reasoning. Maybe it's because you use leb other places in your system that I don't, but for me these are almost always scrambling so that is easier on my memory for this auction as well.

[han]

JLOGIC, on 2012-October-31, 19:18, said:

This is one auction where all of Nat scramb and leb are reasonable. I prefer leb but any of them is fine

I remember talking about this auction with you perhaps 6 years ago. You then also said that all of natural, scrambling and lebensohl were reasonable but that you prefered scrambling, with lebensohl second and natural third. Is my memory correct, and if so, what made you change your mind?

[kgr]

Thanks for the answers!
Still not sure what is best. I think 2 places is best in this situation (not sure), but maybe Lebensohl is easier for memory.
"I like Danny Sprung's idea Two Places to Play from Bridge Winners." => He defines it a Lebensohl: "2NT is 2PTP instead of Lebensohl unless only one opponent showed values"; But he could also have used the rule: "2NT is 2PTP instead of Lebensohl when partner is certainly weak" and then it would be 2 places.

This was my hand when partner bid 2NT.
MP's:

---

I thought it was Lebensohl, he tought it was 2 places.
Do you prefer Lebensohl or 2 places holding this hand?

[kgr]

1♥-(1♠)-Pass-(2♠)
DBL-(Pass)-2NT
2NT=both minors, this one is clear?

1♥-(2♠)-Pass-(Pass)
DBL-(Pass)-2NT
2NT=???

Pass-(2♠)-Pass-(Pass)
DBL-(Pass)-2NT
2NT=Lebensohl, this one is clear?

Maybe a good and easy rule is?:
"2NT is 2PTP instead of Lebensohl when DBLer knows that 2NT bidder is weak"
(weak to be defined to have a decision for 2nd bidding)

[kenrexford]

FWIW, I use a blended scrambled lebs in situations like this. Thus, 2NT is minors or weak diamonds, 3C clubs, 3D diamonds and extras.

[Codo]

lalldonn, on 2012-November-01, 03:53, said:

I don't understand the reasoning. Maybe it's because you use leb other places in your system that I don't, but for me these are almost always scrambling so that is easier on my memory for this auction as well.

Koen said in the OP that it is easier for his memory, so I supported this choice for him.
If I have to give you an advice, it would be scrambling. But you did not ask, so I remain silent.

[lalldonn]

Haha that's fair, I missed it. I would have made the same comment then but quoted him instead of you.

[jallerton]

This is a matter for partnership agreement.

However, even if you prefer to use scramble, you can still get part of the benefit of Lebensohl:

2NT = two places to play or a weak 3♥ bid
immediate 3♥= constructive, not quite strong enough to bid on the previous round.

[Fluffy]

I try to keep lebensohl really under control, and have all sequences where it applies on a tight list of 4-5 sequences. This one is not there and so I would take it as scrambling.

[CSGibson]

combination of scrambling & lebensohl - 3♥ directly would be values in context of the auction, 2N then 3♥ as competitive, and opener responds to 2N as though it is 2 places to play.

edit: I see JAllerton has already mentioned this treatment. I support him, then.

[JLOGIC]

han, on 2012-November-01, 04:27, said:

I remember talking about this auction with you perhaps 6 years ago. You then also said that all of natural, scrambling and lebensohl were reasonable but that you prefered scrambling, with lebensohl second and natural third. Is my memory correct, and if so, what made you change your mind?

This sounds about right. I'm not sure if Anything specific happened, its a small change from thinking scrambling is slightly better to leg is slightly better in six years. Maybe I missed some games lol. I am usually in the scrambling camp but here the ranges are so wide it seems ridiculous, opener is 11 plus and responder is anywhere from zero with a four card suit to nine or ten with a five or six card suit. Given such a massive range I just think leb is really useful. I still think Nat is the worst of the Three