[straube]

Looking for help from everyone, but I know awm faces these particular situations.

Strong club system and artificial 1D. Trying to reuse the same sort of machinery again and again for ease of memorization, but otoh situations are sometimes different.

1D (2C) 2D P 2H is acceptance and non-enthusiasm for responder's transfer. What are responder's continuations?

2N-natural? Rubensohl?
3C-stopper ask? Does this also have to handle GF heart and diamond hands?
3D-forcing? Invitational?
3H-invitational?

Similarly after 1C (2C) 2D P 2H P

2D shows a semi positive or better with hearts. How do we continue?

2S-forcing or just showing an invitational 4S/5H?
2N-natural? Forcing or nf? Rubensohl or Lebensohl?

I mean, I can see responder in both cases wanting to be able to suggest a second suit to play since opener didn't seem hazard about the first choice. We also need ways to force with new suits, show and look for stoppers, etc?

We're starting to get a confusing blend of Rubensohl, Lebensohl, and transfer Lebensohl and I'd like to uncomplicate matters.


While we're on the subject...

1C (2C) 2D P

2S- forcing or nf
2N-natural? Forcing or nf?
3C-?
3D-?
etc

[awm]

We don't generally play two-suited invites in these auctions. So a transfer followed by a new suit is forcing to game. Bidding 2NT or rebidding three of the suit transferred to is invitational. In the 1♣-(interference) auction, opener's acceptance of the transfer shows a minimum in any case, so there is rarely a need to invite (you can just pass). In the 1♦-(interference) auction we are potentially further from game so this inference doesn't exist though.

We never count diamonds as a bid suit after the 1♦ opening; given our style a 1♦ opening could be zero diamonds and is equally likely to have club length as diamond length (and is usually a weak notrump anyway). So in the first sequence 1♦-(2♣)-2♦ (hearts)-2♥:

2♠ = natural F
2NT = inv
3♣ = general GF; acts as a stopper ask primarily
3♦ = natural F
3♥ = inv with 6+♥
3NT = COG
3♠, 4♣, 4♦ = self splinter

With both majors and invitational (only) values we would double 2♣ (possibly bidding hearts next if they are longer).

1♣-(2♣)-2♦(hearts)-2♥(min, most often doubleton) are same as above.

Over 1♣-(2♣)-2♦ our agreements are:

2♥ is NF and shows a minimum, 1-3♥ (if 3♥ then pretty bad hand; if 1♥ then some three suiter w/o easy rebid)
2♠ is F1 (not necessarily extras) with spades
2NT is lebensohl-ish showing one of:
-- (1) NF 3♦ bid (3♦ next)
-- (2) COG with doubleton heart and extras (3♥ next)
3♣ is a general GF/stopper ask
3♦ is natural GF
3♥ is GF with 3+♥ (sets the suit)
3♠,4♣,4♦ are splinters
3NT is normally a running diamond suit with short hearts (i.e. to play, balanced GF go via 2NT...3♥)

I do suspect it's possible to improve on this slightly if we went through all the specific sequences, but we'd never remember it and what we play seems fairly straightforward.

[straube]

Thanks. I definitely take your point about memorization issues. These sequences don't seem to occur all that often for us so I'm not that worried about optimization.

After 1C (2D) 2H P. I assume that 2N by opener is a potential sign off in clubs or that GF hand with 2 spades. If responder accepts with 3C he may be dropped there. Is that right?

[awm]

straube, on 2012-October-27, 13:23, said:

Thanks. I definitely take your point about memorization issues. These sequences don't seem to occur all that often for us so I'm not that worried about optimization.

After 1C (2D) 2H P. I assume that 2N by opener is a potential sign off in clubs or that GF hand with 2 spades. If responder accepts with 3C he may be dropped there. Is that right?

Yes. Over lebensohl, if responder fails to "take" the puppet it always shows a game force. The 3♦ bid in that sequence is not necessarily natural (it's the default "I have a GF but I don't know what to do" bid).

[straube]

I'm thinking still of using Rubensohl after 1C (2m) transfer. It...

1) allows responder to react when opener has clubs
2) allows responder to show or deny a stopper AND show extra suit length instead of one or the other.
3) allows opener three ways to react to responder's suit...minimum tolerance, minimum fit, GF fit.

Say the bidding goes 1C (2D) 2H P

2S- minimum tolerance, perhaps stiff
2N-clubs
.....3C-minimum
.....other-GF
3C-stopper ask
.....3D-all without stopper
..........natural, opener can show four hearts now or two spades
...............responder can show six spades now or rebid 3N while having denied a stopper already
3D- hearts
.....3H- minimum
3H- spade raise, minimum
3S- spade raise, GF

I 'm stumped on whether 3H or 3S should be the stronger. Which do you like and why?

[sieong]

straube, on 2012-November-10, 16:40, said:

I'm thinking still of using Rubensohl after 1C (2m) transfer. It...

1) allows responder to react when opener has clubs
2) allows responder to show or deny a stopper AND show extra suit length instead of one or the other.
3) allows opener three ways to react to responder's suit...minimum tolerance, minimum fit, GF fit.

Say the bidding goes 1C (2D) 2H P

2S- minimum tolerance, perhaps stiff
2N-clubs
.....3C-minimum
.....other-GF
3C-stopper ask
.....3D-all without stopper
..........natural, opener can show four hearts now or two spades
...............responder can show six spades now or rebid 3N while having denied a stopper already
3D- hearts
.....3H- minimum
3H- spade raise, minimum
3S- spade raise, GF

I 'm stumped on whether 3H or 3S should be the stronger. Which do you like and why?

There are probably several ways to optimize for space here.

1. 3H showing either a min (non-GF) or a max (better than GF). Responder bids 3S with a min, 3N non serious, and 4X serious cue-bids. Over 3S, opener moves on with a max. A direct 3S shows a minimum GF.

2. 3H showing a GF. Responder bids 3S with a min (5-7), 3N non serious (8-10), and 4X serious (11+). A direct 3S shows a min (non-GF).

Both of these structures are predicated on excluding 3N as a contract. If one wants to offer a choice, one can probably go through 2N first (even under Rubensohl).

The excluded middle (3H min or max) is generally better when there are further competition. The cheap GF is probably better for slam bidding.

[straube]

sieong, on 2012-November-10, 17:47, said:

There are probably several ways to optimize for space here.

1. 3H showing either a min (non-GF) or a max (better than GF). Responder bids 3S with a min, 3N non serious, and 4X serious cue-bids. Over 3S, opener moves on with a max. A direct 3S shows a minimum GF.

2. 3H showing a GF. Responder bids 3S with a min (5-7), 3N non serious (8-10), and 4X serious (11+). A direct 3S shows a min (non-GF).

Both of these structures are predicated on excluding 3N as a contract. If one wants to offer a choice, one can probably go through 2N first (even under Rubensohl).

The excluded middle (3H min or max) is generally better when there are further competition. The cheap GF is probably better for slam bidding.

Wow, that's good but I bet more complicated than pd would tolerate. Mostly I'm concerned about positioning. After (for example) 1C (2D) 2H P we want to engineer opener being on lead as much as possible. So 3S as the stronger has the advantage that most often if opener has a fit we are getting to game and that immediately gets opener the declaration. OTOH, if 3S is the weaker bid, then 3H as stronger gives either hand the option of declaring. Responder can bid 3S immediately if he wants the lead coming to him or can...? transfer? cue? 3N? to get opener to do it. Unfortunately, we'd have to make yet one more continuation decision.