Talk:Lebensohl

Format
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)

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, , (just taking the first few google links). I changed the page appropriately.

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)

Where I come from, everyone plays the "fast denies" version, and every book I've seen uses "fast denies." I've changed it accordingly. 140.180.17.177 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of "Lebensohl"
The suggested German etymology of the word "Lebensohl" is both amusing and more than a little far-fetched. To start with, the German word for "foot" is not "Sohl" but "Fuß" or "Fuss". "Sohl" means "sole". GdB (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. Most conventions in bridge are atributed to individuals or are acronyms. I have added a 'citation needed' tag and will remove the material in due course if non is provided. Newwhist (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Material removed and stored below for possible reinstatement if a verifiable source is cited. Newwhist (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Another possible origin is from German or Yiddish. Lebensohl is the concatenation of the German words for to live and foot, implying that the bid is a way to get responder's "foot in the door" during the auction.  This origin could explain why the convention is often written in lower-case (lebensohl), although this explanation is far from certain since German nouns are always capitalized. It is, however, consistent with the adaptation of another Yiddish word, kibitzer, into common bridge (and chess) parlance."

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lebensohl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111102190343/http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=article_sampler&f=samleb.html to http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=article_sampler&f=samleb.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)