broze, on 2013-March-11, 15:41, said:
Ok - I think this scheme makes sense to me. Is this the "Gucci" lebensohl variant I've heard of. That is "gives up invitational with clubs"? I doubt this is much of a loss. You say a downside is complexity but seems to me like an upside is simplicity!
Simplicity is important for me. I like everything the same as in other sequences, or as far as it is possible, with common principles that are applicable everywhere. So as we play transfers after other things, with a "stolen bid" X, we do the same thing here. It is "system on".
Without interference over 1NT we play
2
♥ = transfer to
♠
2
♠ = minor suit stayman
2NT = transfer to
♣
3
♣ = transfer to
♦
3
♦ = 55 majors
so they are exactly the same bids. Except that you no longer need to show both majors with 3
♦ so this transfer acts like a classic cue bid of their suit in normal Lebensohl, used for 4 card majors.
When choosing to change to a method such as Zel suggested or one like mine, I think it depends on what your bids mean in uninterrupted sequences. I would prefer to keep them as similar as possible. Comparing these two, mine has compulsory transfers to both minors, which makes competitive bidding easier, and minor suit stayman, but it does not have an invite+ in spades, on the face of it. This latter could be important, perhaps, if you play a 3 point 1NT range. I play 15/16 only, so am happy to have no invitations in a major. If you wanted one, you would X to transfer to spades, then raise to 3
♠. And a game invitation in diamonds is impossible without raising to 4.
Just a note on the ace asking bit - as 3
♣ in both suggestions is categorically diamonds, if you follow with pass it is to play, and if you follow with 4
♥ it is obviously ace asking.