[mycroft]

For those intending to play Standard Lebensohl but aren't ready for it yet (which are a lot of people around here, as "Standard Lebensohl" is standard around here), I suggest playing "half-Lebensohl" (my term); effectively Full Standard Leb without the 2NT bid. It's crap, but it's better than nothing, and at least you're not unlearning anything when you add the 2NT call. So:

• two bids are to play
  
• three bids are GF
  
• cuebid is Stayman (GF)
  
• double is penalty (or takeout if your area has takeout standard)

What you lose:

• weak bids at the 3 level
  
• differentiators between "GF with stop" and "GF without stop" for both cuebid-Stayman and 3NT
  
• the odd invitation -

basically anything that would go through the 2NT relay.

What you gain:

• an invitational NT bid (of course the whole point behind Lebensohl is that this is "almost useless")
  
• surety that you're both on the same page
  
• as I said before, transfer to full Leb is reasonably easy
  
• and people who do play full Leb can play this easily (even if they'll grumble when doing it)

[Mbodell]

Mycroft's suggestion is a good one, because while leb is a good convention (and so are the transfer versions) it is fairly complex and many newer players have trouble with it. For some reason the multiple different reasons for when you go through 2nt is hard for people to remember or understand. So if you are trying to not add lots of conventions like the OP wisely says they are, then half-leb would be good.

[steve2005]

Charlie Yu, on 2015-December-02, 13:31, said:

If 3S is stayman then there is not much merit for X to be takeout.

The method we use takeout double almost always has at least 2 cards in overcaller's suit. This facilitates opener converting to a penalty doubles.
While a cuebid is 0-1 card in opponent's suits, this helps for slam, deciding to play in 5m instead of 3N or even to play in a 4-3 major fit.

Now poster is using weak NT so don't have enough values for 3S but would right opposite a strong NT.

[1eyedjack]

Charlie Yu, on 2015-December-02, 13:31, said:

If 3S is stayman then there is not much merit for X to be takeout.

If X is takeout then it may be profitable to reconsider the definition of 3S.

[steve2005]

1eyedjack, on 2015-December-05, 05:22, said:

If X is takeout then it may be profitable to reconsider the definition of 3S.

Minor Suit Stayman is a possible meaning that would fit. But I still like it as takeout with 0-1 ♠ usually 1444, 13(45) or 14(53) but not limited to.

[Liversidge]

Zelandakh, on 2015-December-03, 12:37, said:

There are some further refinements you can add but the above is enough to start off with. If you like it, use it for 2♦, 2♥ and 2♠ overcalls of your 1NT opening. For a 2♣ overcall it is simplest, if not always optimal, just to play system on with X for Stayman.

I have had a good look at Rubensohl and I so far I do prefer it to lebensohl, for several reasons (transfer, ability to show your suit right away in case of intervention).
When you mention "refinements" does that include a modification to Stayman where a response of the overcall suit prioritises the lack of a stop over the presence or otherwise of a four card major? I came across this from one source and although it adds another layer of complexity maybe its worth learning / adopting from the start.

[Stephen Tu]

mycroft, on 2015-December-04, 12:24, said:

For those intending to play Standard Lebensohl but aren't ready for it yet (which are a lot of people around here, as "Standard Lebensohl" is standard around here), I suggest playing "half-Lebensohl" (my term); effectively Full Standard Leb without the 2NT bid. It's crap, but it's better than nothing, and at least you're not unlearning anything when you add the 2NT call. So:

• two bids are to play
• three bids are GF
• cuebid is Stayman (GF)
• double is penalty (or takeout if your area has takeout standard)

Isn't this just "standard"? I don't think it's "half-Lebensohl", it's "no Lebensohl", what I would expect if playing with a pickup partner who said SA or SAYC, no Lebensohl.

[Zelandakh]

Liversidge, on 2015-December-05, 14:29, said:

I have had a good look at Rubensohl and I so far I do prefer it to lebensohl, for several reasons (transfer, ability to show your suit right away in case of intervention).
When you mention "refinements" does that include a modification to Stayman where a response of the overcall suit prioritises the lack of a stop over the presence or otherwise of a four card major? I came across this from one source and although it adds another layer of complexity maybe its worth learning / adopting from the start.

There are several extra things you can do. The first one is better defining the follow-ups. In the case of the Stayman sequences, the easiest is for the cue (first step) to deny a known major fit or a stopper, while 3NT denies any possible major fit and shows a stopper. The difference between the 2 italicised words is seen after an overcall showing diamonds:-

1NT - (2♦) - 3♣ = Stayman
===============
3♦ denies a diamond stop but does not deny a 4 card major
3♥ shows 4 hearts and a stopper
3♠ shows 4 spades and a stopper
3NT denies a 4 card major and shows a stopper

The point is that Opener does not know which 4 card major Responder holds in this case so passing stopper information first makes sense. The corrolary to that is that it is possible to refine the structure further for Stayman to be non-promisary and also cover the 3♠ (stopper ask) response. The problem with that is that it means different structures for different overcalls - that is not only a bad idea for N/B/I players but also provides minimal advantage.

Perhaps more important would be follow-ups to a double, specifically double then bid sequences. The simple form of this is to cover the unavailable invitational hands this way, so that (for example) 1NT - (2♠) - X; 3m - 3♥ shows an invitational hand with 5+ hearts. But it is also nice to be able to use some of these sequences for 2-suited takeouts - modify the auction slightly to 1NT - (2♠) - X; 3♣ - 3♦ and now both an invite with diamonds (and heart tolerance) and competitive with both red suits are interesting hand types. There is a solution to this too but it adds a fair amount of extra complexity and removes one of the advantages of Rubensohl. Basically the 2NT response is underloaded showing clubs so it is possible to add the extra invites here. Taking a natural 2♠ overcall as the examples again:

1NT - (2♠) - 2NT; 3♣
==================
3♦ = natural invite
3♥ = natural invite
other bids show clubs

Again, the benefits you get compared to the extra complexity are small but for pairs looking to fully optimise it probably makes sense to do this. Further refinements are possible too. For example, PK has often pointed out that the take out double can handle most Stayman hands if you are clever enough with your follow-ups so the Rubensohl Stayman sequence can be used for something else. That is probably correct but is also not something I would suggest to non-experts.

As you can perhaps see, most of the refinements mean squeezing out the maximum from the possible sequences at the cost of complexity. For many of them the advantages are so minimal that I prefer not to use them myself. For N/B players, the benefits just from playing the simplest form are already so large that the danger of making a mistake through extra complexity is really not worth it. Much better to put those efforts into other areas imho.

[Liversidge]

Many thanks!

[mycroft]

Offtopic:

Spoiler

Stephen Tu, on 2015-December-05, 16:08, said:

Isn't this just "standard"? I don't think it's "half-Lebensohl", it's "no Lebensohl", what I would expect if playing with a pickup partner who said SA or SAYC, no Lebensohl.

Yeah, but unfortunately, "standard" around here is "systems on" including stolen bid doubles. And they have no clue what "3 level bid that would have been conventional if they were still able to make the 2 level bid, which they can't over a 2♥ overcall" is. Or perhaps, they know exactly what it means - the bidder thinks that systems are still on, and opener thinks it's natural (or vice versa). So, teaching them a system that isn't stupid, and that both pairs can agree on, is at least an improvement.