Transfer Leb in competition

[Echognome]

If you currently play some form of transfer lebensohl, do you *always* play transfer lebensohl in competition or only for certain sequences?

 

For example, do you play transfer lebensohl for which of the following?

 

1NT - (2♠) - ?

(2♠) - P - (P) - Dbl - (P) - ?

(1♠) - P - (2♠) - Dbl - (P) - ?

 

Etc etc.

[david_c]

Only in certain sequences. (Yes, No, No)

 

The reason we play any variant of Leb is to give us two different ways to show a suit, with one being stronger than the other. For example, over a double of a weak two, we distinguish hands in the 0-7 range (approximately) from those with more like 7-10 HCP.

 

But Transfer Lebensohl only works when the strong hands are game-forcing. So it would be useless over a double of a weak two, because neither of the two strengths are good enough to bid game.

 

In practice, we only play Transfer Lebensohl in specifically defined sequences. If Lebensohl applies in other sequences it will be traditional Lebensohl.

[mikeh]

I play transfer lebensohl only after an overcall of our 1N showing a major.... including 2 suiters where one major is known.

 

Otherwise, I play slow-denies regular lebensohl.

 

Transfers into a suit show invitational or better values.

 

BTW, this is in only one partnership.. in others I play rubensohl, which uses transfers but is not quite the same as transfer lebensohl, at least as I understand, and use, the latter.

[Echognome]

But Transfer Lebensohl only works when the strong hands are game-forcing.

I don't understand why this is true? I've always included some invitational hands as well.

 

BTW, this is in only one partnership.. in others I play rubensohl, which uses transfers but is not quite the same as transfer lebensohl, at least as I understand, and use, the latter.

 

I was actually trying to be more general, not just saying specifically Rubensohl, but any form of transfer Lebensohl. I apologize for not making that clear.

 

For what it's worth, I play a mix with Jason, where we use 2NT as a puppet to 3♣ and then show less than invitational hands (or the various GF hands that go through 2NT), and then for invitational or better hands use 3♣ for diamonds, 3♦ for hearts, etc. The downside is that we have to decide whether our club bid is competitive or GF, but that is true in regular lebensohl as well.

 

I don't see why we can't play all of our lebensohl sequences the same way. The main point is to make sure we don't forget, so that when it goes:

 

(1♠) - P - (2♠) - Dbl

(P) - 3♣ = diamonds

 

The only real difference is remembering the trigger that we are in a lebensohl-like sequence.

[david_c]

But Transfer Lebensohl only works when the strong hands are game-forcing.

I don't understand why this is true? I've always included some invitational hands as well.

You must mean something different to what I was expecting then. I was assuming "Transfer Lebensohl" meant that over a 2♠ bid,

 

2NT shows clubs

3♣ shows diamonds

3♦ shows hearts

3♥ and above can be given some other meanings

 

This allows you to distinguish two different strengths of hands when you have clubs or diamonds, but only by bidding again once partner has completed the transfer. So this stronger sequence has to be a game force - you can't use this scheme to distinguish between "weak" and "constructive" hands, as with ordinary Lebensohl over a weak two.

 

Even if you were to change the meaning of 2NT so that it didn't necessarily show clubs, this wouldn't help on those hands where you actually hold a club suit. So in those situations where it's important to distinguish between a "weak" 3♣ bid and a "competitive" 3♣ bid, transfers don't work.

[Echognome]

But Transfer Lebensohl only works when the strong hands are game-forcing.

I don't understand why this is true? I've always included some invitational hands as well.

You must mean something different to what I was expecting then. I was assuming "Transfer Lebensohl" meant that over a 2♠ bid,

 

2NT shows clubs

3♣ shows diamonds

3♦ shows hearts

3♥ and above can be given some other meanings

 

This allows you to distinguish two different strengths of hands when you have clubs or diamonds, but only by bidding again once partner has completed the transfer. So this stronger sequence has to be a game force - you can't use this scheme to distinguish between "weak" and "constructive" hands, as with ordinary Lebensohl over a weak two.

Nope, I meant that as well. Some methods may be more suitable than others.

[Fluffy]

If you currently play some form of transfer lebensohl, do you *always* play transfer lebensohl in competition or only for certain sequences?

 

For example, do you play transfer lebensohl for which of the following?

 

1NT - (2♠) - ?

(2♠) - P - (P) - Dbl - (P) - ?

(1♠) - P - (2♠) - Dbl - (P) - ?

 

Etc etc.

These 3 are exactly the ones in wich I play lebenshol, and only on these 3.

 

I play rubenshol on the bidding 1♣-2♠-?

[keylime]

Matt,

 

Larry and I currently play Xfer Leb only in case 1 - in case 2 and 3 we revert to more standardish methods.

[MickyB]

I don't know quite what the difference between Rub and Xfer leb is either. I'd have guessed that Rub was more specific, referring to methods invented by either Ira Rubin or Jeff Rubens.

 

As David says, there are auctions where, if using leb, you would distinguish weak hands from invitational hands (e.g. over weak twos) and there are auctions where you would distinguish competitive hands from GF hands (e.g. over pard's 1NT opening). Using xfers only works when the strong option is GF. When this is the case, Rub is superior to leb.

 

If you use 2NT as a puppet to 3♣, as Matt suggests, you can show all three ranges - weak, invitational and forcing. If you are going to play this method in many different situations, it is best to separate the INV hands from the GF hands, otherwise it gets awkward when partner has a misfitting minimum that wants to (re)bid its own suit.

 

3X = xfer, weak or strong

2NT = weak or GF with ♣; or INV with a different suit

 

The advantages are obvious, the disadvantages less so. You lose a lot of room when responder has a GF hand with ♣, and, unlike Rub, you might sometimes lose the club suit if the opponents keep bidding. Unlike leb, you can't choose to have a way to show a constructive hand with ♣, so again this method is more suitable for use over a 1NT opening than over a weak two.

[Free]

Rubensohl is not the same as trf Lebensohl. Rubensohl always uses 2NT to show ♣, while Trf-Leb uses 2NT like Lebensohl does, which doesn't necessarily promisse ♣! This is the main (and probably only) difference.

 

For what it's worth: I only play Rubensohl after intervention of our 1NT openings and overcalls (we use takeout doubles, which take care of the invitational hands or constructive distributional ones). After weak two's we use regular Leb.

[Impact]

FWIW I think that the situations you have specified are quite different:-

 

1. THe first auction assumes a base as partner (opener) has shown both values and a balanced handtype.

 

Depending on your style and proclivities (not to mention your actual holding!) you may wish to pass, compete, invite or force.

 

As a matter of practice I use something akin to Woolsey's transfer style here:-

 

2 bid suit is to play

2NT initially asks for choice of other 2 suits (if they bid a Major it is pick a minor; if they have shown 2 suits it asks for the other, if they showed a minor it asks for a Major st opener's 3D is both - continuations by responder tend to show stoppers in bid suit if revert to NT etc)

3C if not the cue bid is to play; if the cue it is a transfer to D

3D= transfer with at least invitational values to H unless H is the shown suit in which case it is GF Stayman without a stop

3H= transfer to S with at least invitational values, unless S is their shown suit in which case it is Stayman without a stop

3S= forcing bid in C

3NT= balanced without 4OM or stop

 

This allows me to compete at the 2-level,

compete with choice of suits at 3-level,

compete in relevant 3 minor,

invite and/or force with any relevant 5+M, and still have a transfer so it is played by the NT bidder who is more likely to hold useful values in their suit,

force with Stayman and/or stop or balanced hand without stop.

 

I gain many elements but lose to precisely a merely competitive hand (<invit) in OM at 3 -level. Note that the choice of other 2 suits allows good competition on many hands and still retains a PENALTY double for the 2-level overcall....

 

2. THe second case is one in which the opponents have opened a weak 2 , partner has NOT been able to act directly and it has been passed to 4th seat.

 

This is a very different position than above as we have only a few negative inferences about passed partner's hand.

 

Accordingly there are at least 3 schools of thought:

a) Lebensohl by advancer to allow descriptive bids to define strength as the doubler will have a huge range for his hand and allows sensible action later;

 

:) transfers by advancer to allow definition of length and give doubler a 2nd bite - and advancer with a 2 suiter a chance to show both suits

 

c) Scramble: using 2NT as at least 2 places to play recognising the forcing nature of the double (absent a penalty pass by advancer)

 

a) or its evil twin which I use reverse Lebensohl (whereby a direct bid in a suit other than C is weak and a bid of a non-C , non-cue through NT is value -showing) gains whenever the first issue is to define relevant strength of advancer. Even more than over a direct double this is important - and NOTE that since responder has refrained from increasing the pre-empt directly, he is very unlikely to do so now! Given the potential light shapely double for 4th seat I rate this as the primary use to avoid getting too high with a second bid.

I should add that sensibly one combines this with a direct cue as DAB for a stop, a delayed cue (ie via 2NT) as GF 2-suiter, advancer's delayed 3NT as showing half stop.

Note that if doubler did not bid NT directly it is unlikely to wrongside the contract as NT is less likely to be the spot.

 

:) has the advantage that it allows doubler to become declarer thereby putting the weak two bidder on lead but the range of the potential doubler is quite great and all too often say a potential working 9 count will be caught in a dilemma whether to bid again or not! This is a matter for partnership agreement but I consider it a lesser consideration than the method outlined as a) above.

 

c) retains maximum safety and has the advantage of promising 5+ card length in suits bid, but also gives virtually no information as to strength - hence making bidding games/slam VERY difficult. Given that they have not promised any real strength, my view is that our constructive bidding should prevail here and that hence, option a) is preferable.

 

3. In this last scenario there has been an opening bid and raise by responder to 4th seat.

 

Regardless of whether you play OBAR or not, many will balance on relatively little here - and certainly at pairs it is all but a given with short S and a semblance of a bid.

 

Notwithstanding light openings (and indeed the different connotations of single raises from KS & R-S to courtesy) the opponents have shown substantial values -albeit the degree of substance is open to some doubt!

 

In this instance with at least one opponent having narrowly defined his hand, you are at penalty risk if you cannot find your best spot - and your game prospects appear considerably less than in the second numbered scenario above (and much less than the first).

 

Hence, IMHO, your target has changed to finding the best strain, which is why I think scramble is much better use of 2NT (so that an immediate bid stipulates at least 5 cards). Advancer is not prevented from bidding game eg a working 11+HCP hand with 5H and 3/4 small S which was just short of an overcall but now everything is working plus the knowledge of ruffing values opposite, but this hand is not so frequent!!! eg xxxx AJTxxx Kx Kx or similar...

 

NB I prefer to use 2NT directly over 2S as 5+5+ H & minor as that way I double its use compared to minors only (and when you know they have the boss suit that is more important).

 

Accordingly, to answer your first query, whereas you may choose for simplicity, to adopt the same method in all 3 circumstances, in my opinion that is neither optimal nor necessary in any practised partnership or any partnership which considers matters of theory.

 

Further, each of the 3 separate methods may be extended to other situations where the parameters are similarly appropriate eg all NT situations can be similarly classified (this can be extended to "deemed NT auction" )

-the method over weak twos can be extemporised to bidding following a (strong) club and pre-empts

-the method after the single raise can be adopted in equivalent circumstances where it is unlikely that your side holds the balance of power

 

regards

[awm]

These three are very different auctions. In the first:

 

1NT-(2♠)

 

Opener's point range is very well established. Responder is not forced to bid. There is little need for points-based invites (sometimes you do want to be in 4♥ only if opener has a fit and play 3♥ otherwise of course). Responder will normally have a real suit here (often six cards) and wants opener to know the identity of the suit so opener can bid on if advancer raises to 3♠. This situation is ideal for transfer-based approaches which immediately identify a suit, and allow responder to be in control of the auction (select GF or signoff). Rubensohl will work quite well here.

 

(2♠)-X-(pass)

 

Here doubler could have a wide range of hands. Advancer is forced to bid, and could well be naming a four-card suit with zero points. It's extremely important to distinguish between utter garbage and a constructive (but NF) hand. The opponents are unlikely to compete further here, since most do not open a weak two and then bid again, and opener's partner already passed 2♠ doubled. In this auction Rubensohl will not work particularly well (hard to distinguish decent hands from bad and still stop at the three-level). Transfer lebensohl is okay, but gives you trouble when advancer has clubs and also leads to issues when opener has a lot extra and doesn't want to accept the puppet to 3♣ (and knows nothing about responder's shape or values). Regular lebensohl seems best here, with some modifications allowing opener to refuse the 2NT puppet with certain big hands.

 

(1♠)-X-(2♠)

 

Here doubler could have a wide range of hands, but advancer is not forced to bid. All advancer's calls should show a decent hand. There is also the addition of double as a constructive call (most would not play penalty at the two level when opponents have found a fit). It can still be useful to distinguish a "serious invite" from a "competitive hand" and it's valuable to be able to show more than one place to play (for example competing with a 4-4 hand in two unbids). Opponents are likely to compete to 3♠, so methods where responder's suit is unknown aren't so good. I personally like to use 2NT to show minors here, double to show hearts and another suit or a heart invite, and a direct 3♥ as competitive, with three-minor as somewhat ambiguous as to strength (it's like 6-11). This method is excellent for finding our best fit and competing to the four-level when necessary, but can occasionally be troublesome when opponents bid/raise on nothing, our best fit is a minor, and our high card points are divided something like 16-10 (doubler with mild extras, advancer with a good hand in the 6-11 range). There are alternate methods which are less accurate in finding/identifying fit but better at dealing with the point totals.

[Impact]

Adam,

 

While you might note that I agree with your premises, you have misread the 3rd auction

 

1S (X) 2S ?

 

is very different from the auction posed: 1S (P) 2S (X)

P ?

 

BTW as an aside, on your auction:

 

1S (X) 2S ?

 

I prefer to use X as a more traditional responsive double : 1 or both 4m with values to 3-level, so now I can use all bids as transfers!!

 

regards

[awm]

Adam,

 

While you might note that I agree with your premises, you have misread the 3rd auction

 

1S (X) 2S ?

 

is very different from the auction posed: 1S (P) 2S (X)

P ?

 

BTW as an aside, on your auction:

 

1S (X) 2S ?

 

I prefer to use X as a more traditional responsive double : 1 or both 4m with values to 3-level, so now I can use all bids as transfers!!

 

regards

Yup, misread the third auction. I would treat 1♠-p-2♠-X as virtually identical to 2♠-X.

 

I don't really understand why you'd want to use all bids as transfers; there are a number of severe disadvantages to this approach including:

 

(1) Transfer puts the weaker opponent's hand on lead, when you'd rather the strong hand be on lead (endplayed at trick one?) as well as exposing the hand with possible spade values (the non-doubling hand) to the likely spade lead through.

 

(2) Transfer makes it easier for opponents to double you, since they can double the artificial bid to show "extras" and encourage partner to penalize.

 

(3) Transfers put advancer in control of the auction, but it is quite rare that advancer actually wants to force in this sequence. What are the odds that advancer has a game force with both opponents bidding? Not only this, but you need advancer not to know which game is right. It seems much more useful to distinguish between hands with something like 5-6 points and a five-card suit that just want to bid, versus hands with something like 8-10 points and a four-card suit where you may want to get to game or penalize if the opponents bid on.

 

(4) When you make a call that shows "two places to play" it can be really nice for partner to know whether one of those places is a major. Besides the obvious matchpoint losses of playing 3m instead of 3♥ when there are two 4-4 fits, it's quite possible that you miss a game when doubler assumes "minors" and in fact advancer has hearts.

[Impact]

Adam - read more carefully please!

 

On the auction YOU described: 1S (X) 2S ? where advancer does NOT have to bid (ie pass denying values as opposed to penalty applies): I clarify

I repeat double denies 4H - so it shows 4minor, 2NT shows 5+C, 3C= 5+D, 3D/H show different length and strength in H: 3H competitive and 3D invitational....while still leaving room for higher bids. Length tends to be crucial for further competition since they have the boss suit....even ignoring LOTT

 

 

By contrast the auctions 1S (P) 2S (X)

P ?

the opponents have shown substantial values even in these times so SCRAMBLE is appropriate because your game likelihood is substantially less (and the doubler's minimum quite low with a singleton S) - your expectation is competition for a partscore (or minimisation of loss by finding best fit!).

The parameters are quite different from 2S (X) as here your expectations are higher for game your way and doubler's minimum is probably also higher...

 

regards

[awm]

So say the auction goes 1♠-X-2♠ and you are 3-4-2-4 with a decent hand. You seem to be suggesting that not only will you bid to 3♥, which could easily be a 4-3 fit (since double would show minors and 2NT is a tranasfer to clubs showing five-plus), but that you would also bid to this contract via 3♦ (transfer), allowing opener to double to show cards and responder to then double you off when hearts are 4-2 or worse, and that you would side the contract in such a way that responder can lead spades through any honor you might happen to have in that suit.

 

No thanks, I'll stick to letting 2NT and double be the only artificial calls here.