[wank]

Stolen bid doubles are really for people who can't be bothered to make better agreements and just want to get back to uncontested bidding for simplicity.

[msjennifer]

Take Out Double.Primarily,interested in one or both majors.If partner has none and can't bid 3NT he can pass for penalties or in a rare case bid 4C( Well,he can have a 4/5 card club suit).His bid will depend upon his actual holding

[bilalz]

miamijd, on 2017-July-12, 19:00, said:

The big problem with "stolen bid" doubles in this situation (really, in any situation) is that they don't accomplish a whole lot and they rob X of a better meaning. In the 1NT interference context, if a stolen bid X is available, that means three levels of bidding the suit are available: 2-level (drop); Leb/3suit (invite); and 3suit (GF). As an example:

1NT (2d) ??

Xing as a transfer to 2H right-hands a heart contract, but that's about it. You can show all the hands without it just as well:

2H: drop
2NT (leb) followed by 3H: 5/6H invite (invite, since 2H is available)
3H: GF with 5H
4D: Texas (gf with 6H)

The stolen bid X doesn't really help you solve a problem that you can't solve almost as well in some other way.

on the other hand, there are a couple of very good uses for Xs here. The traditional use is a penalty double. If you play stolen bid Xs, you have to give that up. No, you don't get a pure penalty X a lot in this situation, but it does happen. One more modern use is a "card-showing" double (which partner will sometimes pass, so you need to have at least two pieces). The card-showing double solves the problem of what to do with the balanced 8-9 counts (which come up a lot in this situation). Another possible use is a pure negative double. I don't care for that so much over 2-level bids, because with Leb, you have plenty of ways to show various types of unbalanced hands.

You do play Lebensohl, don't you? If not, you should (or Rubenshol, or some similar method).

Cheers,
Mike

Thanks for the nice reply and for the arguments. I played Lebensohl with one of my partners at the local club sometimes, for example today. But as mentioned by others, not everyone likes to play what is a rather lengthy convention ( http://www.bridgebum...l_after_1nt.php ). You have listed the pros: penalty double and takeout double available. cons: not right siding the contract and often wrong siding the lead, 2nt natural invite unavailable, a bit of a bother to learn the convention (not a problem for me personally).
Overall Lebensohl is probably superior but stolen bids is not as bad as everyone thinks, since the 1nt opening is a pretty descriptive bid in itself, some inference and partnership experience can make the right siding worthwhile, and stayman 3c can find the 4 card fits too. We can cue bid to find stoppers, and if the level three invite is not available, we can sign off or bid game based on a sense of opponents, and some slight inferences, etc. Double at level two is rare and often does not pay as handsomely as we expect, a lot of it again having to do with the nature of the 1nt opening being pretty descriptive helping the declarer a lot.

I guess I would play Lebensohl with the partners that are willing to play it but I would not trash the stolen bids system either if someone insists on keeping it simple. As long as they have a reasonable argument for a guesswork bid that went wrong

I was good to get schooled directly for the first time, after years of just reading you guys and learning from it.
Cheers

[Mbodell]

ggwhiz, on 2017-July-12, 12:30, said:

I have a sneaking suspicion that 5♣ over a double followed by spades from partner could be the winner as partners most likely shape on that auction is 4-3-2-4.

You could well be right, but I wouldn't be shocked if some partners might think 5♣ over 3♠ is exclusion keycard and be off for a disaster.

[Zelandakh]

bilalz, on 2017-July-13, 15:17, said:

Overall Lebensohl is probably superior but stolen bids is not as bad as everyone thinks, since the 1nt opening is a pretty descriptive bid in itself, some inference and partnership experience can make the right siding worthwhile

If right-siding is important to you then Rubensohl is the way to go. There are a few different versions of this but a simple one is:-

1NT - (2♦)
==
X = optional takeout (you can use penalty doubles if preferred)
2M = nat, to play
2NT = clubs, to play or GF
3♣ = stopper-ask Stayman
3♦ = hearts, INV+
3♥ = spades, INV+
3♠ = stopper ask with <4 spades
==

1NT - (2♥)
==
X = optional takeout (you can use penalty doubles if preferred)
2♠ = nat, to play
2NT = clubs, to play or GF
3♣ = diamonds, to play or GF
3♦ = stopper-ask Stayman
3♥ = spades, INV+
3♠ = stopper ask with no 4 card major
==

1NT - (2♠)
==
X = optional takeout (you can again use penalty doubles if preferred though here doing so loses the ability to double and bid hearts as an invite)
2NT = clubs, to play or GF
3♣ = diamonds, to play or GF
3♦ = hearts, to play or GF
3♥ = stopper-ask Stayman
3♠ = stopper ask with <4 hearts
==

This is really not complicated at all and already an improvement over Stolen Bid Doubles.

[bilalz]

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-14, 02:59, said:

If right-siding is important to you then Rubensohl is the way to go. There are a few different versions of this but a simple one is:-

1NT - (2♦)
==
X = optional takeout (you can use penalty doubles if preferred)
2M = nat, to play
2NT = clubs, to play or GF
3♣ = stopper-ask Stayman
3♦ = hearts, INV+
3♥ = spades, INV+
3♠ = stopper ask with <4 spades
==

1NT - (2♥)
==
X = optional takeout (you can use penalty doubles if preferred)
2♠ = nat, to play
2NT = clubs, to play or GF
3♣ = diamonds, to play or GF
3♦ = stopper-ask Stayman
3♥ = spades, INV+
3♠ = stopper ask with no 4 card major
==

1NT - (2♠)
==
X = optional takeout (you can again use penalty doubles if preferred though here doing so loses the ability to double and bid hearts as an invite)
2NT = clubs, to play or GF
3♣ = diamonds, to play or GF
3♦ = hearts, to play or GF
3♥ = stopper-ask Stayman
3♠ = stopper ask with <4 hearts
==

This is really not complicated at all and already an improvement over Stolen Bid Doubles.

Thanks, will propose this to some of the Lebensohl naysayers.
On a sidenote: surely I am not the only one who thinks that rightsiding is particularly important in this exact situation, where a lead through the nt opener can turn ugly... could easily be the difference between 2M making or going down and an IMP swing if other overcallers are not as adventurous as our opps (ironically the contract that is not being rightsided even in Rubensohl).

[helene_t]

wank, on 2017-July-13, 00:20, said:

Stolen bid doubles are really for people who can't be bothered to make better agreements and just want to get back to uncontested bidding for simplicity.

I hear that a lot so I suppose it must be true, but it is not clear to me why.

Stolen bid doubles right-side the contract, something which I don't care for in uncontested auctions but I do care for it in contested auctions. Beginners are taught to play transfers only in uncontested auctions but IMO it would make more sense to play the opposite.

You can then play Rubensohl but that only works when opps overcall at the 2-level and you are happy to play at the 3-level. And you can't show an invitational hand with clubs when opps interfere with 2M, nor can you bid an invitational 2NT after having shown a 5-card major en passent.

Obviously stolen bids comes with a price. You can't double with a very weak hand with 6 or 7 trumps as you can't tolerate a conversion. The alternative would be to agree not to pass the double unless opener has 5+ trumps but that would be terrible. And you miss out on the negative double (you can bid strong 3-suited hands in some other way but not the weak ones).

Overall it seems to me that stolen bid (if worked out well) would be better than Lebensohl and not much worse than more andvanced Sohls. But I am happy to learn why I am wrong.

[dokoko]

helene_t, on 2017-July-17, 17:26, said:

You can't double with a very weak hand with 6 or 7 trumps as you can't tolerate a conversion. The alternative would be to agree not to pass the double unless opener has 5+ trumps but that would be terrible.

Why should opener be allowed to pass the stolen bid double (except for KQJT9 perhaps). There is about as much need for a penalty pass as there is for a pass of an uncontested Jacoby transfer bid.

The only technical advantage stolen bid can claim is right-siding a 2M contract. If you give up on some 2h contracts for fear of a mistimed penalty pass (and on some 4h contracts as well) you get the worst of two worlds.

A "stolen bid worked out well" structure - if it exists - would be no less complicated as the cited "advanced Sohls" and probably won't be stolen bid any more.

You may defend stolen bid for simplicity, but not for technical merit.

[Zelandakh]

helene_t, on 2017-July-17, 17:26, said:

Overall it seems to me that stolen bid (if worked out well) would be better than Lebensohl and not much worse than more andvanced Sohls. But I am happy to learn why I am wrong.

dokoko, on 2017-July-17, 21:42, said:

You may defend stolen bid for simplicity, but not for technical merit.

Well let's put something together along the lines discussed and see how far we get. I have taken a 2♥ overcall first as that is the middle ground and ought to provide a balanced proof of concept.

1NT - (2♥)
==
X = 5+ spades
2♠ = nat invite; or 5+ clubs, weak/GF
2NT = both minors, weak; or 5+ diamonds, weak/GF
3m = nat, INV
3♥ = 4 spades, GF
3♠ = GF with no stopper and <4 spades
3NT = to play
==

Is this good? I am not sure. Losing the ability to compete with 4 spades seems to me like a massive price to pay but you do certainly get some things back in return. Particularly as a weak NTer, it is not something I would personally consider playing but I would hear from the strong NTers before rejecting it. And as this was just the first scheme that came to mind, we can surely improve on the structure. We could, for example, lose the club invite to reclaim 2♠ for the competitive hands with 4 spades (with 2NT and 3♣ becoming the minor-suit transfers). So I think Helene is right that a workable system can be put together. Whether it can ever be called "better" though is less clear.