[kgr]

We play:
(1M)-DBL-(Pass)-1NT
1NT here is like Lebensohl. Often a weak hand, less then 8/9 HCP. This avoids that you have to jump with 8 to 10 HCP.
Does anyone else play this?
BTW: We take some parts (as much as we can handle ) of the system of the best pair that plays at our club in Leuven (Belgium). I like the name that they gave at this convention. If it already exists (probably) then I think it is still a nice name

[effervesce]

Transfers in competition are quite common. Including your example.

[kgr]

effervesce, on Apr 12 2008, 12:01 PM, said:

Transfers in competition are quite common. Including your example.

It's not really a transfer to clubs (It doesn't necesarilly show C), but rather a relay to C like Lebensohl.

[effervesce]

Ah ic. I think it's still better to retain (1M)-X-p-1NT as natural though. What about hands you would normally respond 1NT but cannot pass 1MX?

[Free]

Hmm I wonder who this best pair is

Personally I don't feel the need for this convention. It takes a valuable bid away to show something that isn't really a huge and frequent problem. Oh, and why would you jump with 8-9hcp?? Can't your partner bid one more with 15+ or some distribution?

However I have to agree with you that it's a nice name, although many people won't be able to pronounce it correctly

[kenrexford]

I have played this, when I used Herbert Negatives a lot.

1♣-X-P-1♦ was weak.
1♦-X-P-1♥ was weak.

We decided that 1♠-X-P-2♣ was a tad bulky as weak and tried 1NT as weak instead for a while, and then added 1♥-X-P-1NT also. The experiment ended when the partnership fizzled for other reasons. So, I never got any good take on the idea.

[rbforster]

The original overcall structure by Fout used 1N as lebensohl in response to 1 level uncontested overcalls, but they needed it since they often were overcalling on nothing and 4 card suits. Hands that bid 1N relay were runouts to a 5+ suit that couldn't be bid non-forcingly at the one level or various invitational hands.

[dake50]

Typical to heave all strong(or weak, but forced) into a catchall bid, intending more clarity in non-catchall bids. Systemically this makes sense, but always a cost for the lost 'natural' bid.
I like a Herbert-like 1st step may be 'stay low. partner' so others promise some values. 1NT is too valuable to replace as catchall, trying, if no future in this hand, to play 1NT (until doubled). The need for 1NT (F1) in OC-structure was a rare bid as the expected simple OC was much weaker. The hand trying to run was likely, but why run before axe?

[pclayton]

Rob F, on Apr 12 2008, 05:29 AM, said:

The original overcall structure by Fout used 1N as lebensohl in response to 1 level uncontested overcalls, but they needed it since they often were overcalling on nothing and 4 card suits. Hands that bid 1N relay were runouts to a 5+ suit that couldn't be bid non-forcingly at the one level or various invitational hands.

This was illegal before the advent of T-advances. I wonder if its OK now.

I play Herberts in response to power doubles of 1♣, 1♦ and 1♥.

[Trinidad]

I know of at least one pair, playing in the highest division in their (internationally pretty strong) country that has this convention on their card (in an otherwise fairly straightforward system). They like it a lot.

I don't have it on my card and I am not playing in the highest division in my country. (I don't think there is a causal relation, but maybe I am just stubborn )

Rik