[Free]

I have a contradiction here, and many questions... There are 2 ways to ask for Majors when using Rubensohl with takeout doubles:

Dbl = takeout
2NT-3♥ = transfers (transfer in enemy suit is GF stayman, asking for 4M or stopper)
3♠ = asks a stopper, no interest in Majors
3NT = signoff with stopper

An example will probably make it more clear:
1NT - 2♦ - Dbl
1NT - 2♦ - 3♣

What is the difference? Does double with a GF hand promisse a stopper? Or do you only use Dbl for less than GF hands?

Responses to the trf (or are some schemes better?):
3♦ = no M, no ♦ stop
3M = 4M
3NT = no M, ♦ stop

Here's a continuation that may be useful:
1NT - 2♦ - 3♣ - pass
3♠ - pass - 3NT
Does 3NT promisse a ♦ stopper?

What is the best approach?

[awm]

I play rubensohl + takeout doubles with many partners, in a slightly different version from this. Basically:

X = takeout
2NT-3♥ = transfer, but transfer to opponents suit is a stopper ask to which:

3NT = stopper
accept transfer = half stopper, Jxx or Qx
Else = no stopper

Jump to 3♠ = three suiter with 0-1 in opponents suit (not suited to defending).

[1eyedjack]

Slightly different style again:

X = takeout (over which 2N = lebensohl with min)
2N = Diamonds (unless enemy suit, then Clubs)
3C = Hearts (uneless enemy suit, then Clubs)
3D = Stayman with a guard
3H = Spades (unless enemy suit, then Clubs)
3S = Clubs (and stronger than other alternatives)

X followed by cue = stayman without guard

I expect the other methods work out well, but I have played this for a while and am VERY comfortable with it. The 2-step transfers allow you to compete with weak, inv or GF hands without (in the absence of further intervention) committing beyond the suit if opener is min opposite inv. You don't need a 2-step transfer if your suit is Spades, of course, because with a weak hand and Spades you will be able to bid them at the 2 level, so a 3H tfr to Spades promises GT+ and only requires one step before committing to game.

The initial double does not promise a game try - just enough to compete, hence the lebensohl 2N response to split opener's min v max (in case doubler really did have a game try). The leb monoeuvre is only required if intending to bid a lower ranking suit than the suit doubled - opener will only ever bid 2 of a higher ranking suit and await an invitational raise if appropriate.

There are some weak hands with Clubs that cannot compete (ie when oppo shows Spades). Otherwise you only have the benefit of 1-step transfers with Clubs, but hey, who's interested in Clubs?

For those of you with a fetish for positioning the declarer in a particular hand this is not for you.

[pclayton]

Here's how I play:

Over Double (non-penalty) or 2♣ - systems on;

Rubensohl (as you described) is on over 2♦ through 2♠;

Double is takeout and tends to show invitational values. With game-going values, either use a Rubensohl transfer-cue or 3♠.

Perhaps double is better used as cooperative in this scheme.

[P_Marlowe]

Free, on Aug 8 2006, 11:24 AM, said:

<snip>
An example will probably make it more clear:
1NT - 2♦ - Dbl
1NT - 2♦ - 3♣

What is the difference? Does double with a GF hand promisse a stopper? Or do you only use Dbl for less than GF hands?
<snip>

First of all I dont play Rubensohl,
so take the following comment with
a grain of salt.

The difference between both seq. is,
that the first seq. allows opener to convert
the takeout dbl. to a penalty dbl.
=> One possible explanation would be,
that the neg. X shows a fairly bal. hand,
e.g. promising 2 cards in the enemys suit
and suggests defending.

The transfer in their suit would deny 2 cards
in their suit, and would show a fairly unbal.
hand.

Amother reason, the cue forces to game, i.e.slam interest
may be a reason to ignore the penalty.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[joshs]

Free, on Aug 8 2006, 11:24 AM, said:

I have a contradiction here, and many questions... There are 2 ways to ask for Majors when using Rubensohl with takeout doubles:

Dbl = takeout
2NT-3♥ = transfers (transfer in enemy suit is GF stayman, asking for 4M or stopper)
3♠ = asks a stopper, no interest in Majors
3NT = signoff with stopper

An example will probably make it more clear:
1NT - 2♦ - Dbl
1NT - 2♦ - 3♣

What is the difference? Does double with a GF hand promisse a stopper? Or do you only use Dbl for less than GF hands?

Responses to the trf (or are some schemes better?):
3♦ = no M, no ♦ stop
3M = 4M
3NT = no M, ♦ stop

Here's a continuation that may be useful:
1NT - 2♦ - 3♣ - pass
3♠ - pass - 3NT
Does 3NT promisse a ♦ stopper?

What is the best approach?

In general, when you have a choice between xing and bidding the stayman bid you should x whenever you
a. would be happy to hear partner pass (e.g. you have 2 or 3 cards in their suit)
and
b. you can handle the auction if partner doesn't bid a major
(so for instance 4333 hands with a stopper might choose to x on the off chance that partner can pass, and 4324 hands are always happy to x since whatever partner does is correct)

and you should x whenever you legitamately have support for all the suits, and can tolerate partner passing.

The problem hands in your example would be something like 4432 (no stopper) which can't x since you have has no good bid over partner's 3C call or (42)34 (no stopper) which can't handle partner bidding the wrong major over your x, if further compitition occurs. Those hands would bid stayman (3C when the opps overcalled 2D) and then might have to bid 3N without a stopper. Also a hand like 2425 shape with weak clubs might well bid stayman rather than show the clubs.

[MickyB]

David_c pointed out the duplication to me, so we played that bidding the suit below the opponent's suit was natural and non-forcing, with the transfer to that suit being invitational plus. If you aren't prepared to hear a penalty pass of a takeout double then you can transfer to your 5+card suit and follow up by bidding your 4 card suit.

When I played Rubensohl with penalty doubles, I played that 1N (2♦) 3♣ (P); 3♦ denied a stop but didn't deny a 4cM, you can continue bidding majors up-the-line. It's probably better to rotate the bids so that when you land up in 4M you haven't shown whether opener has a diamond stop or not. Against that, I guess responder may sometimes decide to avoid looking for a 4-4 fit when both partners have diamonds stopped, for fear of ruffs in 4M.

[FrancesHinden]

I would double (take-out) on pretty much all balanced hands, invitational or stronger. After all, you want partner to pass sometimes.

That leaves the transfer to the enemy suit as a 3-suiter with singleton or void in their suit.

(OK, I don't play rubensohl, but in a normal lebensohl scheme that's what I use the cue bid for and this seems to work very well)