[wclass___]

Quote

  What I've never liked about responses to 2C is that most seem to play 2M as constructive nf. Not saying that this isn't right necessarily, but what does 2M advertise?

Average+ 5 card suit or 6+ that thinks game would be a nice contract, if partner has a maximum hand with fit. Fits are very important here, therefore it is constructive NF. Sometimes you don't want to force game with 5♠ and random 12 count, fearing misfit. But if partner has a fit and fitting hand, you might need very little for game.
IMO constructive NF is by far the best approach here as it is the most flexible.

Quote

Does the response deny club support?
Will we languish in a 5-2 fit when we have a 6-4 club fit available?

No, 2 card support is certainly ok, if 3 then it probably depends on your hand.
I would advertise 2♣-3M fit jumps.

Quote

If I can play transfers over interference, then responder can show a constructive hand (I'm thinking 9+ hcps with a 5-cd suit) and then decide after opener accepts the transfer (generally showing 2-cd support) whether to pull to 3C or not. Certainly responder would pass 2M with a minimum hand and a 6-cd suit.

You need 2♠ as NF. Clubs or whatever isn't close to this. If you bid this way, you will lose part score swings and good games frequently.

Quote

I do agree about 2N invitational being a rather narrow target but it seems like an important message to send. I'd have the cue bid (2S for clubs) which then pretty much denies exactly an invitational hand with a stopper but does show some points

Please do not play 2N as nat inv. It is not problem hand at all, you have many options that are usually better than 2N.

1) Show support+inv - 3m will often be safer contract than 2N. And when partners goes for game, 3NT will be rightsided.
2)Pass - typically if you don't have fit or 3m isn't appealing. If we have game partner will reopen. Or you will penalize.
3) Ask partner to bid 3N - rightisiding contract might as well be worth that one trick so if you were up to bidding 2N, you may as well try this.

[Zelandakh]

wclass___, on Oct 10 2010, 09:49 AM, said:

Quote

IMO constructive NF is by far the best approach here as it is the most flexible.

Transfers are absolutely much more flexible than 2M = constructive NF. With transfers you lose on hands where you would relay to slam were you to be using 2D as a relay. You can also lose out on hands with a diamond fit that do not play well in 3NT although those are pretty difficult with every response set.

Quote

I would advertise 2♣-3M fit jumps.

It seems to me clear that you should use 2C - 3M for whichever hands are difficult to bid in the rest of your system. I noticed today that Meckwell use 3H (in their uncontested auction at least) the same way as me (strong hand with diamonds) and use 3S as 6-4 in S/H. Presumably this latter hand type is otherwise awkward to handle using their methods. Fit jumps are an option if you do not have any other awkward hands of course.

Quote

You need 2♠ as NF. Clubs or whatever isn't close to this. If you bid this way, you will lose part score swings and good games frequently.

You need 2S as NF only if you do not have 2H followed by pass of partner's 2S available to show this hand type. I agree that straube might find that delayed action on competitive hands is problematic - it is an easy thing to track it and see - but keeping the transfer structure and allowing this hand type is a far smaller change than moving to a non-forcing 2S bid. If you are using 2H to show spades then you really do not need 2S as another spade hand. If you are missing games then you are not using the transfers correctly and you can compete on more hands, not fewer.

Quote

Please do not play 2N as nat inv. It is not problem hand at all, you have many options that are usually better than 2N.

1) Show support+inv -  3m will often be safer contract than 2N. And when partners goes for game, 3NT will be rightsided.
2)Pass -  typically if you don't have fit or 3m isn't appealing. If we have game partner will reopen. Or you will penalize.
3) Ask partner to bid 3N -  rightisiding contract might as well be worth that one trick so if you were up to bidding 2N, you may as well try this.

Did you actually look at the responses? The structure already has options for 1 and 3. You solution to the hands shown by 2NT is pass. That is not unreasonable for some reasons already given in the thread but straube just said he thinks the message is important. More interesting (and useful) would be to suggest which holes in the suggested structure might be plugged using the 2NT bid. After all, if there are no holes to plug you may as well use it naturally - the same argument as with 2C - 3M above in essence.

[Free]

Zelandakh, on Oct 8 2010, 04:10 PM, said:

Free, on Oct 8 2010, 07:39 AM, said:

I agree.  And play some kind of Lebensohl/Rubensohl/someothersohl for constructive purposes, works great imo.

If you look at straube's structure he is using something Rubinsohl-like except that the transfers start from double and 2S is used as the cue bid with a direct cue bid a stopper ask. I think this is at least as good as a pure Lebensohl structure with penalty doubles. For comparison:-

2C (2D) (straube)
...............dbl-5 hearts, INV+
...............2H-5 spades, INV+
...............2S-cue bid, club tolerance
...............2N-natural
...............3C-raise
...............3D-stopper, demands opener bid 3N

2C (2D) (rub with pen dbl)
...............dbl-pen
...............2H-to play
...............2S-to play
...............2N-club raise
...............3C-4 spades
...............3D-5 hearts, INV+
...............3H-5 spades, INV+
...............3S-stop ask

It is clear that the second structure deals better with competitive hands (straube prefers delayed action with these) and gets a penalty double. It is equally clear to me that the first structure is better on constructive hands. The loss of penalty doubles is not great (trap pass or bid 3NT) although I personally think the delayed action with competitive hands might prove to be a problem in practise. Even when I am a big fan of Rubinsohl, here I prefer the former structure modified to allow competitive hands to bid dbl/2H. That said I am not convinced that 2NT natural is a good use of a key bid - seems to be stopping on a pin-head to me.

I wouldn't use the original Rubensohl structure because of the lack of showing invitational hands. I'm more for combining more hands in 2NT, like:
2NT = puppet to 3♣, either signoff or INV in another suit
...3♣ = obligated
......pass = to play
......3X = invite with a good 6+ card suit
This brings you to 3-level with invites, but it makes your GF hands easier, you can still support (indirectly), you can bid a suit NF at 2-level, and you can penalize opps for being idiots.

As an extra, you have several calls available for all sorts of things:
2♣-(2X)-2NT;3♣-3X
2♣-(2X)-3X-1
2♣-(2X)-3♠
2♣-(2X)-3NT
In case of ♦ you might even have an invite with ♣ (bid 3♣ immediately with inv, go via 2NT with weaker hands). In case of a Major you could still play something similar, keep 3♣ invitational, and use some 3-level bids natural. You can play with it as much as you want

[wclass___]

Quote

Transfers are absolutely much more flexible than 2M = constructive NF. With transfers you lose on hands where you would relay to slam were you to be using 2D as a relay. You can also lose out on hands with a diamond fit that do not play well in 3NT although those are pretty difficult with every response set.

I will add some:

They are antipreemptive - it is not clear who owns the hand yet, it may allow opponents to enter an auction safely. And you give opponent one more moment to balance - giving opponent more options.

Wrongsiding. If opener has to declare this then his hand will be more defined than his partners's making defense relativey easy. Also I would certainly prefer to be a leader if opener declares rather than his partner.

Surely wide ranged bids don't shine in competition as well as in constructive bidding. Limit yourself early.

I am not saying transfers are unplayable, i just said that ''IMO constructibe NF is by far the best.''

I don't think you are competent enough to say that "Transfers are absolutely much more flexible than 2M = constructive NF" .... like it would be accepted by all professional players and bridge gods, lol.

Quote

It seems to me clear that you should use 2C - 3M for whichever hands are problematic to bid in the rest of your system. I noticed today that Meckwell use 3H (in their uncontested auction at least) the same way as me (strong hand with diamonds) and use 3S as 6-4 in S/H. Presumably this latter hand type is otherwise awkward to handle using their methods. Fit jumps are an option if you do not have any other awkward hands of course.

Exactly: suit+fit is difficult, if you bid 2M with great ♣ fit, it might backfire, very logical. And it is also relativey common and safe.
Meckwell has different openings and they tend to focus on GF hands a lot. If they play something it doesn't mean at all that it is best.

Quote

If you are missing games then you are not using the transfers correctly and you can compete on more hands, not fewer.

It is very important to limit your strenght in competitive auctions. 5OM+ is very important hand type and 2 bids for it is way better than 1. If you double 2♥ on weaker hands than i bid 2♠ then your double is way too wide ranged.

Quote

Did you actually look at the responses? The structure already has options for 1 and 3. You solution to the hands shown by 2NT is pass. That is not unreasonable for some reasons already given in the thread but straube just said he thinks the message is important.

I am pretty sure straube meant to be able to bid 2N with 2-card support.
3 is suggestiog alternative option for hands that one would be going to bid 2N and i can't see where straube would examine this particulary.

Quote

More interesting (and useful) would be to suggest which holes in the suggested structure might be plugged using the 2NT bid.

If you read my posts in this thread maybe you would find some suggestions and also reasoning.

[straube]

I'd like to see complete structures for all of the 2-level overcalls (as I posted). I'm open to using 2N etc as transfers but I'm not seeing how it all fits together. Please keep in mind that both of our 2m openings deny hearts and the 2D opening denies four spades.