[akhare]

What are your preferred methods over 2-level interference over 1C (16)+ (natural and artificial)?

Our current methods over natural are the following:

X: Takeout, implying shortness in their suit
2X: Forcing, but not GF
2N: GF, 8-10 or 14+
3X: GF, with provisions for cue, stopper, etc
3N: 11-13

However, since the X implies shortness in their suit, it forces us to pass over 1♣- (2♣) (natural) with:


AQT98
XX
XXX
XXX

To me, it seems much better to play:

X: Takeout
2X: Constructive, NF
2N: Transfer to 3C, promises a rebid
3C: GF, transfer to D
3D: GF, transfer to H
3H: GF, transfer to S
3S: GF, clubs
3N: 11-13, balanced

Of course, a transfer to their suit shows some awkward hand.

Thoughts?

[Flameous]

Over 14-19 bal or nat clubs I'm playing just outright transfer lebensohl with X for T/O.
So:

2M = Nat, NF but constructive
2NT = Transfer to C, inv+ in C or competitive in a lower suit than opps'
3x = inv+ transfers
3NT = To play

Transfer to opponent's suit is asking for stopper/4 card majors (Technically you could just double with all these)

Over 2♠ I use a little twist that direct 3♥ is competitive to get long hearts to the action.

I used the same after 15+ club but with very limited experience. I feel quite strongly that 2M NF is good thing. After assuming that, the rest of it seems quite optimized for handling the hand types.

[awm]

I think it is very important to conserve space rather than bidding at the three-level on all game-forcing hands. Using all your two-level bids as NF seems wasteful especially when partner has shown a strong hand. Of course there is also my usual issue with negative free bids...

I recommend transfers at the two-level, so in this auction 2♦ = hearts constructive+, 2♥ = spades constructive+, 2♠ = diamonds and GF (transfer to the three-level is always GF).

[akhare]

awm, on 2012-January-12, 19:50, said:

I recommend transfers at the two-level, so in this auction 2♦ = hearts constructive+, 2♥ = spades constructive+, 2♠ = diamonds and GF (transfer to the three-level is always GF).

The transfer idea seems interesting.

Does a simple accept of the transfer by opener show a minimum hand with tolerance and willingness to play if responder doesn't have extras?

Also, if opener chooses not to accept the transfer, does it show a misfit or is it forcing?

Would you bid 2♥ with AQT98 XX XXX XXX in this scheme?

[awm]

akhare, on 2012-January-12, 21:10, said:

The transfer idea seems interesting.

Does a simple accept of the transfer by opener show a minimum hand with tolerance and willingness to play if responder doesn't have extras?

Also, if opener chooses not to accept the transfer, does it show a misfit or is it forcing?

Would you bid 2♥ with AQT98 XX XXX XXX in this scheme?

Basically accepting transfer shows a min balanced hand, although it can be off-shape and may be the right call even with singleton without a long suit. We use 2NT as a lebensohl-like bid in these auctions (since the min balanced hand accepts the transfer, and balanced with extras can super-accept or bid 3NT or cue depending on fit/stoppers).

[akhare]

awm, on 2012-January-12, 21:19, said:

Basically accepting transfer shows a min balanced hand, although it can be off-shape and may be the right call even with singleton without a long suit. We use 2NT as a lebensohl-like bid in these auctions (since the min balanced hand accepts the transfer, and balanced with extras can super-accept or bid 3NT or cue depending on fit/stoppers).

Couple more clarifications:

Do the transfers begin at 2C (following a 1♠ / 1N overcall by them) and are they on through a 2♥ overcall?

Does 2♠ always transfer to the cheapest minor that isn't shown by them?

[PrecisionL]

awm, on 2012-January-12, 19:50, said:

I think it is very important to conserve space rather than bidding at the three-level on all game-forcing hands. Using all your two-level bids as NF seems wasteful especially when partner has shown a strong hand. Of course there is also my usual issue with negative free bids...

I recommend transfers at the two-level, so in this auction 2♦ = hearts constructive+, 2♥ = spades constructive+, 2♠ = diamonds and GF (transfer to the three-level is always GF).

Wow, for once AWM and I are in agreement! This is the best way to handle interference, constructive responses, not necessarily G.F. unless pushing partner to the 3-level.

[the_clown]

What we play is the following:

1♣-(2♣/♦/♥)

X 5-7 any shape or balanced without stopper (cuebid next round). New suit by opener is round forcing
2NT GF with stopper, no good 5card suit.
new suit GF 5+cards.
cuebid- treesuiter Gameforce (alternatively you can play balanced and no stop GF)

If the interference is 2♠ or higher:
X takeout GF
2SA GF with stop
3x Gameforce 5+cards
cuebid treesuiter

[awm]

Our general agreement is that if there are two or more suits biddable at the two level we rotate them. All our bids are F1, with 2S+ or 3-level forcing xfer being GF. So there are no transfers after a 2H overcall or above.

After 2D: 2h-->spade, 2s-->heart and GF, 3c is natural (no 3x transfers) and GF.

After 1S: 2c-->diamond, 2d-->heart, 2h-->club and GF.

We adjust somewhat for artificial overcalls of course.

[straube]

awm, on 2012-January-12, 21:19, said:

Basically accepting transfer shows a min balanced hand, although it can be off-shape and may be the right call even with singleton without a long suit. We use 2NT as a lebensohl-like bid in these auctions (since the min balanced hand accepts the transfer, and balanced with extras can super-accept or bid 3NT or cue depending on fit/stoppers).

Would you explain what you mean by using 2N as a lebensohl-like bid? After which sequence? What does it show? Thanks

[straube]

I think I like the idea of transfers (and switching majors after 2D interference), but I'm wondering still how awm uses opener's 2N etc rebids. We've had only one weakness signal (2N) and I don't want to have acceptance of the major as well as 2N be weakness signals. What if 2N+ are transfers? Rubensohl?

1C (2C) 2H showing spades

2S-weakness, possibly short
2N-GF, no better bid
.....3C-no stopper
.....other-natural with stopper
3C-diamonds, to play or GF
3D-hearts, to play or GF
3H-agreeing spades
3S-3 spades, minimum

The problem otherwise is that if responder shows spades with a semipositive and our best contract is a heart or diamond part score, we need to be able to stop there. Also, opener needs to be able to agree spades so as to initiate cue-bidding.

I'm also interested in the idea of having a double promise a rebid. I've never liked our present method of bidding 3C with balanced hands without a stopper. That chews up too much room.

But I'm also concerned that we not double with offshape hands with length in the opponent's suit.

Maybe double shows either takeout shape (any) or GF balanced. Semipositives with offshape balanced hands (and thus length in the enemy suit) have to pass.

Then double and cue shows the balanced hand without a stopper. Game forcing.

Double and raise shows a fit (obviously).

Double and bid of a new suit shows that we have a semipositive with a preference for that suit. This rebid would be nf. The auction might go 1C (2C) dbl P 2S P 3H with 3442 for example.

So putting it together...

1C (2C)
.....dbl-takeout shape OR GF balanced, no stopper
.....2D-5H, 6+
.....2H-5S, 6+
.....2S-5D, GF
.....2N-bal 8-10 or 14+


1C (2D)
.....dbl-takeout shape OR GF balanced, no stopper
.....2H-5S, 6+
.....2S-5H, GF
.....2N-bal 8-10 or 14+
.....3C-C

1C (2H)
.....2S-5S, GF
.....2N-bal 8-10 or 14+
.....3m-5+m, GF

The 3-level has room to show GF hand with 6-cd suits and more.

I don't think others will agree that 2S should be GF, but we're starting to get very cramped. Oh, and no Rubensohl over a 2S bid.

[awm]

straube, on 2012-January-13, 16:05, said:

Would you explain what you mean by using 2N as a lebensohl-like bid? After which sequence? What does it show? Thanks

After 1♣ - (1♠ through 2♦ overcall) - transfer to a suit at the two level - (pass)

With a minimum, opener either accepts the transfer (usually 2-3 card support for partner, or sometimes singleton with no long suit) or bids 2NT. The 2NT bid shows length in a suit, asking responder to bid 3♣ if he has a non-game force. I think that (for example) being forced to bid 2♠ on a 1633 minimum is quite bad.

For example:

1♣ - 2♣ - 2♥ - Pass - 2NT! shows a hand with long diamonds or hearts, normally singleton or void spades, and less than GF values opposite a semi-positive.

1♣ - 2♣ - 2♥ - Pass - 3♦/3♥ are natural and forcing to game.

1♣ - 2♣ - 2♥ - Pass - 3♣ is a force without clear direction (less than three spades, no six-card suit)

1♣ - 2♣ - 2♥ - Pass - 3♠ is game force with 3+♠ fit

1♣ - 2♣ - 2♥ - Pass - 3NT is suggesting a contract

1♣ - 2♣ - 2♥ - Pass - 2♠ is either a (semi)-balanced minimum or maybe stiff spade if min with no biddable suit

[straube]

Wouldn't Rubeonsohl be better? Responder gets to know the suit. If it goes 1C (2D) 2H P 2N we don't know if we're about to be dropped in clubs or if opener will preference hearts. I suppose you can make 3D some sort of inquiry, but that adds a bit more complication.

How do you feel about making 2S a GF (regardless of which suit it shows)?

[awm]

straube, on 2012-January-13, 21:25, said:

Wouldn't Rubeonsohl be better? Responder gets to know the suit. If it goes 1C (2D) 2H P 2N we don't know if we're about to be dropped in clubs or if opener will preference hearts. I suppose you can make 3D some sort of inquiry, but that adds a bit more complication.

How do you feel about making 2S a GF (regardless of which suit it shows)?

2♠ is a GF in our methods; it's either transfer to the three level or a natural (forcing) spade bid. It's not too likely that opener's LHO is bidding again in this auction (and if he does it creates a lot of options for us) so responder knowing the suit isn't a big help for competitive reasons. It doesn't seem like playing transfer rebids by opener necessarily helps you that much (and it does wrong-side the contracts) but I'm fairly neutral about it.

[straube]

What's your thinking on a double promising a rebid? I'm back to thinking that's a bad idea. I want to make it a true takeout double (or GF balanced no stopper). Promising a rebid could work out ok over 2C interference, but gets scary as we get closer to 2S. It might as well be another GF...and yet I'd like to be able to make a takeout double of 2S with xx Kxxx Kxxx xxx and be able to play 3H. Opposite a takeout double, opener can jump to invite or cue-bid to force game. It seems like a 2N rebid by opener needs to be natural nf.

Also, 1C (2C) dbl P 3S P 3N ought to be GF balanced without a stopper. Not sure what else it could be. Partner can leave it in or correct. What do you think?

I also want to pass 2C with xx Kxxx Kxxx xxx and see if partner can balance. Between his ability to bid his own suit (or use the takeout double I've left him), we might find our fit more easily.

So your 1C (2C) 3D is a transfer to hearts with a decent suit but insufficient values for game...or something like a 6/5 which is bidding more on shape than points. Is that right?

What's responder's 2N, cue, and 3N bids?

[straube]

1C-(2L), transf-accept, 2NLebensohl-3CI don't have fit for major
.....P-5C
.....3D-5D
.....3H-5H if also 5 S
....3M-invite-6 major

This means you can transfer into your major, partner can accept, and you can raise (forcing) to show 6.

[straube]

So based on input here (the best parts are awm's), for interference of 2C,2D, or 2H. Comments?

P-0-5 any or length in opponent's suit
dbl-6+, takeout shape, does not promise a rebid unless opener cue bids, responder can establish a GF later by cue bidding or splintering, can show extra values or shape by rebidding a suit
2N-8-10 or 14+ with a stopper
3S-8+ balanced without a stopper, not takeout shape, I realize this seems a terrible waste of space, but I think it's better to separate these from the takeout
.....shapes, these hands are not that frequent, and opener seems well-placed usually to make the right game decision.
3N-11-13 with a stopper
3L-natural GF AND semipositive transfers with good suit

example...

1C (2D) ?
.....dbl-takeout
.....2H-6+, 5 spades
.....2S-GF, 5 hearts
.....2N-8-10, 14+ bal with stopper
.....3C-GF, 5 clubs
.....3D-6-7, good hearts
.....3H-6-7, good spades
.....3S-8+, bal without stopper

After 1C (2D) dbl P 2S
.....3C-6-7, 3S, 3+H, 5+C
.....3D-GF
.....3H-6-7, 3S, 5H, 3+C
.....3S-6-7, 4 spades

Acceptance of a transfer at the 2-level denies 3 trump and can be made with a doubleton or singleton

Lebensohl after a transfer has been accepted

After 1C (2D) 2H P 2S P ?

2N-asks 3C
.....3C-as requested
..........P-5 clubs
..........3D-stayman with a stopper-looks for 4/4 heart fit
..........3H-5 hearts, nf
..........3S-invitational, 6 spades
3C-GF
3D-GF
3H-GF
3S-GF

Forcing if opener makes a 2/2 call

After 1C (2C) 2D P 2S shows 5 spades and is forcing

Rubensohl if opener otherwise declines to accept the transfer. Acceptance of a transfer bid is nf.

After 1C (2C) 2H P

2N-GF since opener transfers to opponent's suit
.....3C-denies a stopper
.....other-natural and promising a stopper
3C-diamonds
3D-hearts
3H-minimum raise of spades
3S-GF raise of spades

[DinDIP]

akhare, on 2012-January-12, 12:24, said:

What are your preferred methods over 2-level interference over 1C (16)+ (natural and artificial)?

Funny you should ask: partner and I have just had a protracted discussion about this. He, from a Precision background, was used to playing X = 5-7 any with O's suit response F1. I, from a Moscito-like background, was used to playing X = takeout, 5+HCP, neg free bids at the two level and modified Rubensohl at the three level (with 2N NAT, NF). My other partners had some bad experiences with off shape hands so we had also adopted ELC after doubling 1M or 2m (meaning, e.g., we would X 1S with 3-4-(51)/2-4-(52)/2-4-(61) 5-7 and make the cheapest rebid if partner bid the minor we didn't have). He worried about ELC; I worried about O's NS in response to a X being F1. So, I generated 200 deals with semipos responding hands to see what worked best (recognising that the sample is limited in size). From this analysis I concluded that partner and I were both right: ELC was often dangerous and rarely necessary. In fact, it was mostly right to pass with length in their suit with less than GF values unless you had a 6+card suit or a good 5-card suit you could show at the same level. And playing O's rebid as F in response to a takeout X got us too high too often.

So, this is what we ended up with (these rules cover what we do after a 1M overcall as well; over lower interference we continue relaying):

• Pass = nothing to say or penalty pass
• X
(if their bid NAT or showing a suit) = takeout, at least semi-positive
(if their bid ART, not showing a suit) = as though they opened with the same bid (so often values but takeout of the higher-ranking suit if 2D multi or similar)
• New suit at same level
= NAT over D/H/S interference, NF at two level, F at one or three levels
= transfer over C interference
= transfer over NT interference, with C = both majors (unless NT is TFR to C)
• If NS is competitive, transfers start at the next level, either from 2C or 2N.
• Transfer into / bid of their known 4 card M = natural AT ONE OR TWO LEVEL, stopper ask at three level
• Transfer into / bid of their known m or 5+ card M = stopper ask
• JS at three level = NAT, GF, good suit
• Notrump bids are NAT, except over their 2M
1N = 5-bad 8, NF
2N = good 8+ (but prefer X or suit bid with flexible hand)
3N = 14-16 if 2N is F
4N = 14-16 if a single jump
• 4m = leaping Michaels (H+m if they haven’t shown a M), weak or strong

If R doubles at the one- or two-level this is classic takeout, semipos or better, or a flexible GF+ (where X is a better start than TFR and NS/cue)
• O's non-jump responses, including in NT, show a min and are NF. Any bid by R, including a raise, is GF: a NS shows a 5-card suit.
• O's J response is GF and shows 5+(4 good) cards. (This is NOT a fast arrival situation because R may have a GF flexible hand lacking support.) A NS by R shows 5 cards and a hand that was strong enough to GF. A cue initially asks for a stopper if below 3N.
• O's jump NT response is NAT and GF.
• With other GF hands O cues and we bid 4+card suits up the line (except that R shows 5M before a lower-ranked 4-card suit).
• O's jump to game shows a min hand with a 6+card suit and a shapely hand.
• (If available) O's below game double jump (say
1C 1H X P
3S/4m)
sets the suit and is slammish: R cues with any GF hand.
• If advancer bids/raises, O's free bid shows extras and is GF if at the three+ level; X of raise is responsive (of NS is penalties) and shows extra values or shape, and so is also GF.
• If advancer redoubles, O's bid suggests a strong preference (so usually 5+card suit); a P shows no preference. O's jumps are still GF.

If R makes a semipos+ TFR then O accepts the TFR with min hands. Bids (including 2N) are F and show extras (strength and/or shape). A Jraise is GF and JS are SPL.

The TFR scheme we use is based on Rubens's original Bridge World article, so (over their 2M) 2N is 5-7 with 6C or a GF with long C and at least a half stopper. With a GF and less than a half stopper R bids 3S (high but descriptive). After a TFR to their suit (BALish, no stopper) O's accept denies the ability to bid 3N or a NS and is Baron-like.

Over 1M, we feel 1N as a NAT response (5-bad 8, stopper) is too valuable to give up so we start TFRs at 2C. A TFR to their suit again shows BALish, no stopper but now O's acceptance is Lebensohl as a NS is GF.

David