[straube]

Which is better after 1N (2S)

2N-shows clubs, GF or sign off
3C-shows diamonds, GF or sign off
3D-shows hearts, GF or sign off
3H-stayman
3S-asks stop
3N-shows stop

or

2N-shows clubs or...
.....3C-forced
..........3D-diamond sign off
..........3H-heart sign off
..........3S-clubs, asks stop
..........3N-clubs, stop
3C-diamonds, GI+
3D-hearts, GI+
3H-stayman
3S-asks stop
3N-shows stop

I'm guessing the latter. Opinions? Anything better than these two?

[straube]

Found this...

1N (2L)
.....2suit=5+ suit competitive, or if cue of known suits then take-out
.....X followed by 3 of a suit = 5 card suit with a stop
.....3 suit< theirs = 5+ suit, game forcing
.....3 suit> theirs = 5+ suit, game forcing, no stop
.....3 cue = 4 card major(s), no stop
.....3NT = No 4M, No stop
.....2NT = Lebensohl: Transfer to 3C. Then:
..........Pass or 3<Suit = to play
..........3>Suit=6+, Invitational
..........3cue = 4M with stop
..........3NT = no 4M with stop

No transfers here other than 2N which is competitive in lower ranking suits or invitational in higher ranking suits, etc.
It looks like X is used similar to what I'd suggested on a different thread (which was that it showed 2+ in their suit with GI values). Here they
use it to show a stopper which is obviously useful and probably quite better. It still allows for pass.

[Zelandakh]

I play the first of these but there is no reason why you cannot combine the parts you like from all 3. For example

1N - (2S)
--------
X = spade stop, INV
2N = clubs or INV with a red suit and no stop
...3C
......3D = natural, no stop, INV
......3H = natural, no stop, INV
......3S = clubs, GF, no stop
......3N = clubs, stop
3C = diamonds, weak or GF
3D = hearts, weak or GF
3H = 4 hearts
3S = no stop, GF
3N = stop

[straube]

Zelandakh, on 2010-October-30, 22:26, said:

I play the first of these but there is no reason why you cannot combine the parts you like from all 3. For example

1N - (2S)
--------
X = spade stop, INV
2N = clubs or INV with a red suit and no stop
...3C
......3D = natural, no stop, INV
......3H = natural, no stop, INV
......3S = clubs, GF, no stop
......3N = clubs, stop
3C = diamonds, weak or GF
3D = hearts, weak or GF
3H = 4 hearts
3S = no stop, GF
3N = stop

I like that.

For 1N- (2H)

X=heart stop, INV
2S=nf
2N=clubs or inv with a pointy suit
.....3C-forced
..........3D-natural, no stop, inv
..........3H-clubs, GF, no stop
..........3S-natural, no stop, inv
..........3N-clubs, GF, stop
3C=diamonds, weak or GF
3D=4 spades
3H=GI+ spades
.....3S-fit and weak or no fit and weak or no fit and no stop
..........P-GI with or without stop
..........3N-GF with stop
3S=no stop
3N=stop

[Zelandakh]

Notice that you can handle invitational hands with spades via double and 2NT so you do not need to include that hand type within 3H. That allows 3H to be GF with spades if you like or you could bid invitational hands with 6 spades this way and use dbl/2NT only for 5 spades.

[Cascade]

straube, on 2010-October-30, 15:13, said:

Which is better after 1N (2S)

2N-shows clubs, GF or sign off
3C-shows diamonds, GF or sign off
3D-shows hearts, GF or sign off
3H-stayman
3S-asks stop
3N-shows stop

or

2N-shows clubs or...
.....3C-forced
..........3D-diamond sign off
..........3H-heart sign off
..........3S-clubs, asks stop
..........3N-clubs, stop
3C-diamonds, GI+
3D-hearts, GI+
3H-stayman
3S-asks stop
3N-shows stop

I'm guessing the latter. Opinions? Anything better than these two?

Depending on your no trump range and therefore how important it is to right side why not swap 3♥ and 3♠ so that:

3♥ asks spades stop
3♠ Stayman - asks of four hearts

[straube]

I think it's because 1N (2S) 3H still allows opener to bid 3S to deny a spade stopper. If 1N (2S) 3S shows hearts, opener will occasionally have a real problem.

Looked at hands and it seems like the negative double occurs a lot more frequently than the stopper-showing dbl. Even when responder has a stopper, he frequently has the other major he'd rather be showing.

[Cascade]

If you play negative doubles (or maybe even stopper showing doubles) then you might be able to show four hearts in two ways - one with and one without a stopper.

And there is another advantage or use for 3♠ after 3♥ stopper ask. With half a stopper you can bid 3♠.

[Zelandakh]

Cascade, on 2010-October-31, 00:50, said:

If you play negative doubles (or maybe even stopper showing doubles) then you might be able to show four hearts in two ways - one with and one without a stopper.

This will not work Wayne as the proposed double is invitational. Otherwise you might easily be penalising the opps where you have a making game. It seems that straube is going to go with the more mainstream take-out double approach though so it is probably moot.

[straube]

I think you both make good points. I'd like to avoid having responder declare heart contracts, but I'm more concerned about avoiding exceptions due to memory constraints. We're playing Rubensohl over strong club and some form of transfer Lebensohl over NT and we're still deciding what to do over our artificial 1D (2M). I'm all for memorizing best structures over different situations, but it's the exceptions that are killers.

[han]

Zelandakh, on 2010-October-31, 00:58, said:

This will not work Wayne as the proposed double is invitational. Otherwise you might easily be penalising the opps where you have a making game. It seems that straube is going to go with the more mainstream take-out double approach though so it is probably moot.

I think it is good to often make a negative double with gameforcing values. Even if you have values, game might not make, and besides, the penalty if partner converts might be larger than game anyway.

[gnasher]

Zelandakh, on 2010-October-30, 22:26, said:

1N - (2S)
--------
2N = clubs or INV with a red suit and no stop

This is very vulnerable to premption by 4th hand. If it goes

1NT 2♠ 2NT 3♠

it's going to be very hard to get to hearts when it's right.

A similar approach which is less vulnerable to competition is:
2NT = weak with clubs or inv+ with diamonds
3♣ = weak with diamonds or inv+ with hearts
3♦ = weak with hearts or FG with clubs
3♥ = 4 hearts FG

Now if it goes

1NT 2♠ 2NT/3x 3♠
pass pass dbl

opener will know which suit responder has.

[gnasher]

Regarding the original question: Rubensohl is better for coping with further competiton when responder has a signoff, because opener always knows what responder's suit is. Transfer Lebensohl is better for exploring games, because it allows you to show more invitational hands.

I prefer Rubensohl, because I think that the partscore hands are much more common.

[1eyedjack]

I am not that keen on methods that leave the suit ambiguous. The oppo have an annoying tendency to continue removing space and all your neatly compartmentalised followups that are designed to *just* clarify the ambiguities in a safe amount of space fly out of the window.

The way I have been playing for some time, and feel comfortable, is:

1N-(2S)-X = takeout, not promising GF or even GT. Opener bids 2N as Lebensohl in case responder has GT
1N-(2S)-2N = Diamonds, any strength. Given the chance, opener clarifies via 3C/3D whether he would move over a GT
1N-(2S)-3C = Hearts, any strength. Given the chance, opener clarifies via 3D/3H whether he would move over a GT
1N-(2S)-3D = Stayman with a guard (start with X on hands that would stayman without a guard)
1N-(2S)-3H = Clubs. F but not GF. Obviously not weak.
1N-(2S)-3S = Clubs, GF

Weak hands with Clubs are unbiddable.
Invitational hands with Clubs are a bit hairy.
C'est la vie. An acknowledged cost.
I am thinking of putting more of the club-length hands in the Double, but then I would have to radically change opener's followups. Probably just use 2N to deny (or promise) 4 cards in other major.

[straube]

gnasher, on 2010-October-31, 04:25, said:

Regarding the original question: Rubensohl is better for coping with further competiton when responder has a signoff, because opener always knows what responder's suit is. Transfer Lebensohl is better for exploring games, because it allows you to show more invitational hands.

I prefer Rubensohl, because I think that the partscore hands are much more common.

But Rubensohl loses the invites entirely for lower ranking suits. At least with transfer Lebensohl we get to invite in diamonds and the other major immediately...hands that are more interested in the 4-level in the first place.

I see the main disadvantage for transfer Lebensohl in hands with clubs. One can't show 5 clubs and the other major or clubs and side diamonds.

I think I've seen that with transfer Lebensohl it's good to give up on the competitive club hands. 1N (2S) 2N shows GI+ clubs or red suit sign offs or GF clubs. Then...

1N (2S) 2N P 3D is super-accepting for clubs.

[gnasher]

straube, on 2010-October-31, 08:55, said:

I think I've seen that with transfer Lebensohl it's good to give up on the competitive club hands. 1N (2S) 2N shows GI+ clubs or red suit sign offs or GF clubs.

If it's a striaght swap of a competitive club bid for an invitational club bid, it doesn't sound a very attractive exchange.

If you don't have an invitational bid available, it usually makes sense to bid game on an invitational hand. Therefore your suggestion gains only on the deals where opener was going to decline the invitation and be right. The average gain from doing that is about 5 IMPs. That's approximately the same as the loss from passing 2♠ on the deals where both 2♠ and 3♣ make.

It seems to me that the second category of hands is much more common than the first.

[straube]

gnasher, on 2010-October-31, 10:36, said:

If it's a striaght swap of a competitive club bid for an invitational club bid, it doesn't sound a very attractive exchange.

If you don't have an invitational bid available, it usually makes sense to bid game on an invitational hand. Therefore your suggestion gains only on the deals where opener was going to decline the invitation and be right. The average gain from doing that is about 5 IMPs. That's approximately the same as the loss from passing 2♠ on the deals where both 2♠ and 3♣ make.

It seems to me that the second category of hands is much more common than the first.

ok. thanks

[Zelandakh]

gnasher, on 2010-October-31, 04:13, said:

This is very vulnerable to premption by 4th hand. If it goes

1NT 2♠ 2NT 3♠

it's going to be very hard to get to hearts when it's right.

A similar approach which is less vulnerable to competition is:
2NT = weak with clubs or inv+ with diamonds
3♣ = weak with diamonds or inv+ with hearts
3♦ = weak with hearts or FG with clubs
3♥ = 4 hearts FG

Now if it goes

1NT 2♠ 2NT/3x 3♠
pass pass dbl

opener will know which suit responder has.

I agree with you Andy, which is why I prefer to play method 1 (Rub). But here the Op has some ideas and some things that he wants to explore and i see no reason not to help in melding those ideas into something cohesive. Since I am not willing to play-test the idea, and I doubt you are either, then it seems absolutely right to iron out the best possible set of options for straube to test if he is interested.

On your specific example there is not alot of difference between
1N - (2S) - 2N - (3S) - X = invitational with hearts and no spade stop
and
1N - (2S) - 3C - (3S) - X = invitational+ with hearts

On the first you lose the double on a diamond invite while on the second you have less definition. I also agree 100% that given a choice between an invitational and a competitive bid the competitive is a big winner. This is even more important over a strong NT than a weak NT. And I agree with Han too that when playing negative doubles it is ok to double with a GF hand. But this discussion was about using the double differently for which I do not think GF hands are necessarily compatible other than perhaps a hand that wants to penalise and failing that play 3NT. Finally, I respect jack as one of the stronger theorists from the Acol Club but on this I think his convention is fundamentally flawed. Not only does it involve more memory than the other options but it also gives up some important hand types for essentially no gain.

[straube]

I had an idea, but I'm really looking for the best method.

A little surprised that everyone seems more concerned about losing the ability to show which suit we're competing in vs which suit we're inviting in. I see the point in 1N (2S) 3C as heart hands because now you have space to separate all three types (GF, GI, competitive) but now you lose the ability to compete in clubs at all and you get overboard with GI clubs.

One could put the GI hands into 2N. 1N (2S) 2N (P) 3C (P) 3H which would work if the opponents cooperate.

Or just give up on GI altogether which the Rubensohl supporters must do.

I want the ability to compete in clubs and I think I still want the ability to invite in hearts and diamonds. I think with transfer Lebensohl I'll lose some hands where partner has a super fit and I'm just competing, but I'll be able to compete on some hands precisely because I can warn partner that I don't have invitational strength.

[mattias]

After 1NT (2S) we play

X - takeout, including stayman and stopper ask. Opener uses Lebensohl
2N - GI+ with clubs or signoff with a red suit. Opener can superaccept with 3D
3C - GI+with diamonds
3D - GI+ with hearts
3H - 1444 GF
3S - 55 minors GF
3N - to play