[ghow]

After reading some articles on various methods and then watching WC players on BBO.it seems to me (please correct me if wrong) that there aren't many (any?) that play Rubens Advances or Obvious Shift (at least not to the extent of Granovetter's book). So, I was wondering what the downsides of these concepts are that result in their not being used?

[Phil]

Rubens Advances are not rare but they are usually termed 'transfer advances' after an overcall.

Obvious Shift is not used as often. I'm not even sure Granovetter used it in the Trials. I believe Meckwell play a version of Obvious Shift, but I'm not sure the extent of it.

[jdonn]

I consider transfer advances after overcalls the hardest convention to remember that I'm playing, I have forgotten it enough times that I'm never going to play it again without practicing it a lot online first so that it's more instinctive. Which is a little disappointing since I think they are clearly good.

[ArtK78]

I find it hard to understand why a player of your caliber has such a hard time remembering such a simple concept. I played transfer advances with a couple of partners in high-level events without any problem.

Must be some sort of mental block.

[Phil]

ArtK78, on Jul 21 2009, 03:53 PM, said:

I find it hard to understand why a player of your caliber has such a hard time remembering such a simple concept. I played transfer advances with a couple of partners in high-level events without any problem.

Must be some sort of mental block.

I've had the same experiences as Josh.

Xsfr advances are simple enough when 3rd chair passes or makes a negative double, but they can become convoluted when overcaller makes a 2 level overcall, or 3rd chair makes a suit bid.

[Gerben42]

Transfer advances come up all the time and I think it's easier to remember than all those things my partner sometimes comes up with. It's just that you ONLY play it in the sequences you agreed them and no others, and have clear rules about them.
There's not much point in playing them if a 3rd suit gets bid anyway.

Obvious shift: Great convention but for a regular partnership only, needs some getting used to but works very good afterwards.

[jdonn]

Sure they are simple, that has nothing to do with it. I forget them since I usually don't play them so when they do come up the auction looks like something it's not.

[fromageGB]

Gerben42, on Jul 21 2009, 10:31 PM, said:

There's not much point in playing them if a 3rd suit gets bid anyway.

Not sure I agree with you here. One of the main advantages is to distinguish between different strength and length raises, and this applies even if 3rd seat bids.

[zheddh]

As an aside, should rubens advances be on if 3rd hand negative dbls?

[fromageGB]

Yes, they should be on. There are major benefits in showing support, and major benefits in transfers to a new suit. You still want to be able to distinguish a good strength raise and weaker raise and can use the transfer to their implied suit to show a different hand. For example, take the sequence :
(1♣) 1♠ (X showing hearts)
2♥ is a full strength raise to 2♠, eg 3 card support and 9-11 count (if you have agreed that the strength of an overcall is about 10+)
2♠ is 3 card support up to 8 points
2♦ is a transfer to hearts, on the face of it, so this shows heart values and strength that will enable partner to bid NT if he has club stops. You'd better have a couple of spades in case he does not have the clubs. Or if you have clubs as well, you can continue to 2NT when partner bids 2♠. This frees up the use of the direct 2NT bid. We use that to show a game invitation with 3 spades, say 12/13 points. This obviously invites a penalty double from partner if opponents overstep the mark.

You can also use the same bids at a higher level, so 3♥ is a game invitation or better with 4 spades and 3♠ is pre-emptive.