[KurtGodel]

Suppose the auction begins 1NT - (2♦) - what's a sensible treatment if you play Rubensohl? (Assuming a natural 2♦)

Everywhere that I have searched on the internet seems to have that you 2NT and up are transfers, and that transferring into their suit is Staymanic. It seems like this can't be the best way, as you can't really invite in this situation, or you have to do something messy, like just bid game. I think I saw Kit Woolsey saying that he puts most of his weak hands and some of his invites through 2NT, and all the others were GF.

Suggestions?

[helene_t]

Over for example 2♠:
2NT: weak with clubs or heart, among other things
3♣: diamonds, weak or strong
3♦: hearts, invitational among other things.
3♥: both minors
3♠: Stayman

What "other things" is depends on how you play double but obviously strong hands with hearts are among them.

This isn't something I have worked out but the idea is that overcall is always put on lead, and we can show invitational hands with hearts.

But OK this isn't Rubensohl. More like Rumpensohl.

[Shugart23]

I play match points, mini-NT, and double-barreled Stayman. In your sequence :

1NT- 2D, a double by partner is Stayman, but not necessarily a game force

2H and 2S by partner are to play


2NT is a relay to 3C which begins an invitational sequence or will be left in to Play 3C

3C shows values to play 3NT but looking for 4 card Major, with a Diamond Stop

3D,3H are relays to Hearts and Spades respectively, which will be left in or if Partner bids again, we are off to game or slam

We do 'slow' and 'fast' 3NT to show stops or no stops

3S would be undefined

[antonylee]

X T/O limited to competitive values.
2M to play
2N puppet to 3C then...
... pass to play
... 3D undefined
... 3H/S 5crd invite
... 3N club slam try
3C Stayman (3D=no major, no stopper)
3D/H invitational or better transfer, 6crd if invitational
3S raise to 3N without a stopper (à la fast 3N in Lebensohl)
3N raise with a stopper

Perhaps it makes more sense to play transfers as weak or GF (especially against 2M overcalls) and put the invites in 2N, to be less vulnerable against further raises.

[Zelandakh]

The basic method over 2♦ is:

X = takeout
2M = to play
2NT = clubs, weak or GF
3♣ = Stayman
3♦ = hearts, INV+
3♥ = spades, INV+
3♠ = stopper ask
3NT = to play

PK has often pointed out that the double can handle all of the Stayman hands here so one option is to reclaim that for a natural invite. You can also choose to replace one or more of the rebids after 2NT so that it shows a specific hand type rather than GF with clubs. That makes most sense after a 2M overcall when space is limited, for example:

1NT - (2♠)
==
X = takeout
2NT = clubs, weak/GF; or invitational with a red suit
... - 3♣
... - ... - 3♦♥ = nat invite
... - ... - 3♠ = 4 hearts, SI
... - ... - 3NT = mild slam try
3♣ = diamonds, weak or GF
... - 3♦
... - ... - 3♥ = 4 hearts, SI
... - ... - 3♠ = both minors, SI
... - ... - 3NT = mild slam try
3♦ = hearts, weak or GF
3♥ = 4 hearts (Stayman)
3♠ = stopper ask
3NT = to play

Again, the 3♥ call can be reclaimed by passing those hands through the double if preferred.

[gnasher]

 antonylee, on 2015-March-19, 09:05, said:

Perhaps it makes more sense to play transfers as weak or GF (especially against 2M overcalls) and put the invites in 2N, to be less vulnerable against further raises.

Doesn't that make you more vulnerable to further raises? If they're going to raise to the four level before I've shown my suit, I'd rather have a weak hand than an invitational one.

[rhm]

 gnasher, on 2015-March-20, 01:23, said:

Doesn't that make you more vulnerable to further raises? If they're going to raise to the four level before I've shown my suit, I'd rather have a weak hand than an invitational one.

I believe the whole question of the thread is misguided.
When you play transfer over notrump openings (no competition) opener also does not know the strength of responder either. He does not need to know.
The transfer principle "only" ensures that the unlimited hand gets another chance to describe his hand and strength.
The same principle applies to Rubensohl and that's why it is superior to Lebensohl in my view:
Shape before strength and any schema violating this principle opposite a limited hand is a dubious enhancement.
(Lebensol can be useful when neither you nor partner are limited. Here a transfer schema does not necessarily work better and gets complicated, not that Lebensol is simple either.)

Back to Rubensohl:
Obviously if you transfer into a suit at the three level, which you could have bid at the two level, you are showing at least invitational values.
If you transfer into a lower ranking suit than overcaller's suit, opener assumes you want to compete, but obviously you are not broke or you would have passed.
Most invitational hands without much shape will be suitable for a negative double and last but not least you have two bids available in addition:
Transfer in overcaller's suit and 3♠.
For example you could agree that a negative double is at least a doubleton in overcaller's suit (so that opener has the option to pass with confidence if he has length in overcaller's suit).
If responder bids again after a negative double he shows at least invitational values. So for example 1NT-(2♦)-DBL-2♠-2NT shows an invitational hand, but also if he would have bid anything else, say 3♣ instead of 2NT at his last turn.
If responder is short in overcaller's suit and has no long suit, he transfers into overcaller's suit.
See also https://sites.google...mp-interference which is one of the best articles on the subject for advanced partnerships.

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

 rhm, on 2015-March-20, 02:56, said:

A negative double is always invitational, if responder does not have ideal shape in the unbid majors. So for example 1NT-(2♦)-DBL-2♠-2NT shows an invitational hand

Again, this idea works best over 2♦ and can be awkward over 2♠. I generally agree with much of your post though, just pointing out one of the potential issues.

[rhm]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-March-20, 03:20, said:

Again, this idea works best over 2♦ and can be awkward over 2♠. I generally agree with much of your post though, just pointing out one of the potential issues.

But the awkwardness does not come from the method employed, but from the fact that there is less bidding room left to describe hands. No method can give you this bidding room back.

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

The awkwardness comes from Opener needing to either bypass 2NT with a minimum or use 2NT as a bucket bid. This space issue is fine if double shows a real takeout hand but not when it can just be a general invite. I remember straube trying to build a method around a similar concept a while back and having difficulty making it work. I think he abandoned it in the end but not too sure. The point being that when even players that are experienced in complex system building have difficulty then it is probably not optimal for regular club players.

What I strongly suspect is that you reduce the hands in your double of 2♠ to avoid the problem. No problem with that at all, it is exactly the same as the simple version of Lebensohl I posted does. The more complex version goes further in taking more hands out.

In the end we are really talking about the fine details here. You define strength for a double to be "invitational"; another might simply use "enough defence to stand a pass"; while another, especially in a weak NT context, might allow any competitive hand without a suit. Each appproach has strengths and there are plenty more possibilities too. I would not like to say which line represents an optimal solution and it is quite likely that NT range and level of opps is relevant, as well as the level of the partnership itself.

[fromageGB]

I should also add to the discussion that when you are playing a 2-point range 1NT opening, you can manage happily enough without an invitation. That makes all methods easier.

[rhm]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-March-20, 05:08, said:

The awkwardness comes from Opener needing to either bypass 2NT with a minimum or use 2NT as a bucket bid. This space issue is fine if double shows a real takeout hand but not when it can just be a general invite. I remember straube trying to build a method around a similar concept a while back and having difficulty making it work. I think he abandoned it in the end but not too sure. The point being that when even players that are experienced in complex system building have difficulty then it is probably not optimal for regular club players.

What I strongly suspect is that you reduce the hands in your double of 2♠ to avoid the problem. No problem with that at all, it is exactly the same as the simple version of Lebensohl I posted does. The more complex version goes further in taking more hands out.

In the end we are really talking about the fine details here. You define strength for a double to be "invitational"; another might simply use "enough defence to stand a pass"; while another, especially in a weak NT context, might allow any competitive hand without a suit. Each appproach has strengths and there are plenty more possibilities too. I would not like to say which line represents an optimal solution and it is quite likely that NT range and level of opps is relevant, as well as the level of the partnership itself.

What I said: Shape is more important than strength
I do not believe that invitations or game tries are terrible important after a 1NT opening. I can live without them, responder either bidding game or giving up on game.
Hand evaluation and judgement matter much more. Bridge is not played double dummy and invitations and game tries are a big information leak to opponents.

After 1NT-2♠

I consider a transfer into a minor competitive until proven otherwise.
A transfer into hearts is invitational plus for opener. When responder wants to compete at the three level there must be suitable hands for opener making it worthwhile trying for ten tricks in hearts.
I have no qualms making a negative double with a 5 card heart suit when I have 2 or less likely 3 cards in spades.
3♥ shows four cards in hearts, game forcing with shortage in spades, otherwise double 2♠.
3♠ is asking about ♠ help for 3NT.

Bidding 2NT with all sorts of hands and making myself vulnerable to spade raises is not my cup of tea.

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

My take is as follows:

1. All schemes where most non-shapely exploratory hands do not start with a double lack efficiency and add unnecessary complexity. You miss out on some lucrative penalties, and assuming partner removes the double, you have much more room.

2. Transfer schemes in which the suit is not guaranteed are seriously misguided (Rumpensohl). One of the main advantages of transfers is that you can hit opener hard. This does not apply after a 2♦ overcall, but say it goes 1NT-2♠-2NT-3♠ you can lose a game when opener has a big fit for for responder's suit.

Anyway, my method always involves a bid of 3♠ as a shapely takeout that can't stand partner passing a takeout double, and everything else extends from there. After 1NT-2♦:

2♥♠ competitive
2NT clubs
3♣ hearts, game forcing
3♦ spades, game forcing
3♥ specifically invitational with 6 hearts
3♠ shapely take-out

As RHM says, you can't do everything. My scheme cannot invite in spades, but I like the clarity of the three-level major suit transfer setting up a game force since opener can now show a fit below 3NT. Those who believe you can never play in 3NT with a major suit fit do not need this wrinkle. But regardless of that, you have much more flexibility after a 2-under transfer.

Thing work a bit differently after a major suit overcall, but that is a different topic.

[perko90]

First off, it's good that you play Rubensohl instead of Lebensohl; it's clearly better.

Nonetheless, neither work so well over 2♦ (2 unbid majors and a desire to show invite vs GF hands). The X is best treated as Stayman/Takeout. 2M is to play (like normal) and the rest of Rubensohl (2NT and above) is on. Although the transfer in their suit can have a specific Stayman meaning (like GF + stopper). Exception: if 2♦ shows both majors, then X is "I can whack one of the majors ptr; double for penalty if you can."

Over 2M interference, using the X for penalty and the typical Rubensohl responses will work fine (at least for the Stayman auctions, there will be only 1 unbid major!).