[gwnn]

New forum mission: change your avatar to chickens. LOL

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on Jul 20 2010, 05:42 PM, said:

Not with the given hand, of course.  But with a good minor and a mere competitive hand (AX XX KQJTXX XXX), you want to not only get the suit shown but also the limited strength.

With more strength, maybe it is more important to use 2NT to establish a force with an unknown long minor.

I don't know the real frequencies, but this seems more useful over the long run ---putting partner in a better position after further competition.  He still might not know which minor you have after heart competition, but your strength will be known and a FP is established.

Are you saying that opener might prefer to face

  1♠ (2♠) 2NT(1) (4♥)
(1) Game-force with an unknown minor

than

  1♠ (2♠) 2NT(2) (4♥)
(2) Clubs, competivie or game-forcing

[mikeh]

It occurred to me that gnasher probably already plays, or advocates, transfers....and, on reflection, transfers are clearly better, imo, than the lebensohl-like ideas I suggested. 2N clubs, limit or better....if they bounce, double shows the gf hand, with no clear direction.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Jul 20 2010, 12:38 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Jul 20 2010, 05:42 PM, said:

Not with the given hand, of course.  But with a good minor and a mere competitive hand (AX XX KQJTXX XXX), you want to not only get the suit shown but also the limited strength.

With more strength, maybe it is more important to use 2NT to establish a force with an unknown long minor.

I don't know the real frequencies, but this seems more useful over the long run ---putting partner in a better position after further competition.  He still might not know which minor you have after heart competition, but your strength will be known and a FP is established.

Are you saying that opener might prefer to face

  1♠ (2♠) 2NT(1) (4♥)
(1) Game-force with an unknown minor

than

  1♠ (2♠) 2NT(2) (4♥)
(2) Clubs, competivie or game-forcing

It looks to me like he is saying it's better for opener to face

1♠ 2♠ 3♦(1) 4♥
(1) Diamonds, competitive

than

1♠ 2♠ 3♣(1) 4♥
(1) Diamonds, competitive or better

[hanp]

What gnasher is saying is that by playing transfers you always know the suit, while by playing lebensohl you sometimes know the suit (when competitive) but you sometimes don't (when gameforcing). And when you don't know the suit, it's tough to decide whether to play 4HX or bid on.

Of course you don't have to choose between these methods when it comes to diamonds.

[jillybean]

mikeh, on Jul 20 2010, 10:43 AM, said:

It occurred to me that gnasher probably already plays, or advocates, transfers....and, on reflection, transfers are clearly better, imo, than the lebensohl-like ideas I suggested. 2N clubs, limit or better....if they bounce, double shows the gf hand, with no clear direction.

What does the auction look like "if they bounce" ?, who/what bounces, I have no idea what this means.

[mikeh]

jillybean, on Jul 20 2010, 03:00 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jul 20 2010, 10:43 AM, said:

It occurred to me that gnasher probably already plays, or advocates, transfers....and, on reflection, transfers are clearly better, imo, than the lebensohl-like ideas I suggested. 2N clubs, limit or better....if they bounce, double shows the gf hand, with no clear direction.

What does the auction look like "if they bounce" ?, who/what bounces, I have no idea what this means.

bounce=preempt: so, if you were to bid 2N, as either minor, for example, and LHO 'bounced' to 4♥, partner won't know which minor you hold...after all rho has one, and you have one...you may have a misfit or a great fit, and he won't know. If you can show your suit, as by a transfer, then he will know more about what to do if they 'bounce'.

[bluecalm]

Yeah, many pairs here play either lebensohl or inv+ transfers (then 2NT is clubs, 3♣ is diamonds, 3♦ is stopper ask gf and 3♥ is inv+ in spades).

[gnasher]

bluecalm, on Jul 20 2010, 10:12 PM, said:

Yeah, many pairs here play either lebensohl or inv+ transfers (then 2NT is clubs, 3♣ is diamonds, 3♦ is stopper ask gf and 3♥ is inv+ in spades).

I think 3♦ is more useful as another type of spade raise - eg 3-card instead of 4-card. What sort of hand wants to ask for a stopper anyway?

[aguahombre]

Yes, both Gnash and Josh got what I was saying. It is a choice to be able to get the suit in and the (weaker) strength in with the direct 3m bids. And with the stronger hands to get the strength (if that only) in.

Also transfers, give 4th chair more tools (like them bidding your minor, whatever that means).

I have just offered a different approach, which we happen to use at this time --- am not declaring whether it is better or not, but think it is worth consideration.

[the hog]

Australian Bruce Neill's Rubensohl is a handy gadget here. Basically it is a series of transfers, 2NT- 3C, 3C - 3D, 3D in this case a good raise in S, etc etc.

[hanp]

Sounds like a handy gadget!

[the hog]

See the May 1983 Bridgeworld. Some think that it is a Jeff Rubens invention, but that is incorrect. It was originally designed to cope with intervention over NTs and when the opps opened a weak 2 and partner doubled. Since then Bruce has developed it further. This hand is a good example of where it can be used, though I would prefer the Ds to be a little better.
In Australia many big C players use it to cope with intervention.

[aguahombre]

strange to use 3D as a good raise in spades, since a cue of their only known suit is available.

[the hog]

aguahombre, on Jul 21 2010, 08:19 AM, said:

strange to use 3D as a good raise in spades, since a cue of their only known suit is available.

3H would be GF values, no stopper in H. Mind you, like anything you can optimise these bids to suit yourself.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on Jul 20 2010, 11:58 PM, said:

Yes, both Gnash and Josh got what I was saying.

Just to be clear, I merely understood it. I wouldn't want anyone to think that I like the suggestion.

[gnasher]

The_Hog, on Jul 21 2010, 02:16 AM, said:

See the May 1983 Bridgeworld. Some think that it is a Jeff Rubens invention, but that is incorrect. It was originally designed to cope with intervention over NTs and when the opps opened a weak 2 and partner doubled. Since then Bruce has developed it further. This hand is a good example of where it can be used, though I would prefer the Ds to be a little better.
In Australia many big C players use it to cope with intervention.

So because Bruce Neil thought of using transfers in one situation, when someone else suggests playing them in a completely different auction, you're going to attribute the method to Neil?

By the same argument, we could refer to this method as Jacoby or Texas.

[hanp]

Shut up Andy, the man is Australian.

[the hog]

Oh dear, oh dear Andy. NEILL originally developed it for use over 1NT and weak 2s and then NEILL developed it further. I should have thought that was obvious from my post. I guess not....

[gnasher]

The_Hog, on Jul 22 2010, 02:13 AM, said:

Oh dear, oh dear Andy. NEILL originally developed it for use over 1NT and weak 2s and then NEILL developed it further. I should have thought that was obvious from my post. I guess not....

OK, so when did Bruce Neil first suggest playing transfers over an Michaels cue-bid?