Ruben Advances

[Shugart23]

My partner and I have good ability to recognize and memorize systems and responses. I am wondering if the experts think Ruben Advances are worth adding to our system. Are they in common use amongst top-flight pairs. Are they ACBL GCC legal ? (We currently use a transfer lebensohl type scheme when partner does an overcall, but that is really neither here nor there). Thank you

[steve2005]

Ruben advances are GCC legal. Funny you can use transfers over overcalls but not after openings.

[mgoetze]

After (1x)-1y, I play that 2x through 2y-1 are transfers. For the intermediate suits, this basically just gives you two ways of bidding them for absolutely free, what's not to like? Would certainly recommend it.

[foobar]

After (1x)-1y, I play that 2x through 2y-1 are transfers. For the intermediate suits, this basically just gives you two ways of bidding them for absolutely free, what's not to like? Would certainly recommend it.

 

+1 -- would also recommend transfers after an overcall and interceding X, i.e., after (1x) - 1y - (X), transfers starting with a XX through 2y-1. Alternatively, one could use the XX as Rosenkranz or something similar, but we preferred to use it as transfer.

 

One often ignored use case is the use of transfer advances after overcalls over a preempt. For example, after (2♦) - 2♠, 3♦ can be invite+ with ♥ (and potentially secondary side fit) and 3♥ can be a good ♠ raise.

 

Another obscure use case is using transfers over 1N - (3♣) starting with 3♦, with 3♠ as a transfer to 3N (3N natural and shows / denies stopper depending on your preferences)

[Free]

After (1x)-1y, I play that 2x through 2y-1 are transfers. For the intermediate suits, this basically just gives you two ways of bidding them for absolutely free, what's not to like? Would certainly recommend it.

We also play them, but only after a 1-level overcall. Higher levels are also possible but make some auctions too complex imo.

[Mbodell]

IME they are neither common nor rare in expert circles. I.e., a non-trivial minority of experts play them.

 

They are fairly straight forward to add in the context that mgoetze suggests (2x through 2y-1).

 

More meta rules that can help (at least as I frequently play them):

 

1. They are on anytime opponents continue bidding but don't take away any of the 2x through 2y-1 bids.

2. They are off anytime opponents continue to bid and take away any of those bids.

3. When advancer makes an advance in a new suit, original overcaller bids as if advancer had made an announced NF call of that suit (where completing the transfer means would have passed the NF call).

4. You can play at any level (so not just 2x through 2y-1). If original opener bid 1♥ and overcaller bid 2♦, now 2♥ through 3♣ (not counting NT which stays natural) are all transfers. Similarly a 2♦ weak opener followed by a 2♠ overcall allows 3♦ and 3♥ to be transfers too. This basically always works, although there is a potential loss if opener preempts 2M and overcaller bids 3♦ or 3♥/2♠ where the transfer cue is now above 3nt which may be suboptimal.

[mgoetze]

Also, be sure to agree with your partner what delayed support means, e.g. (1♣)-1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♠. For me, this sequence would be forcing, but I'm sure you can find people who think otherwise.

[paulg]

Also, be sure to agree with your partner what delayed support means, e.g. (1♣)-1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♠. For me, this sequence would be forcing, but I'm sure you can find people who think otherwise.

Definitely non-forcing for me and only promising Hx support, although highly invitational.

[case_no_6]

Ruben advances are GCC legal. Funny you can use transfers over overcalls but not after openings.

 

Yes, transfer advances after overcalls are definitely GCC compliant.

 

But it is NOT a bit funny that the ACBL allows transfers when partner responds to overcalls but not when partner responds to an opening bid. It is SAD and PATHETIC. What is more, it is strong evidence that ACBL policies on convention use have much more to do with who advocates for a convention (e.g., if it is Jeff Rubens's pet convention, it is fine) rather than anything resembling logical consistency or concept familiarity.

 

Transfers are fine after 1NT openings and 2 level or higher openings, but not opening bids in a suit at the one level. Why is that ACBL? That rule is completely arbitrary, especially when virtually every ACBL tournament player uses transfers.

 

Transfers should either be 100% legal in ALL situations or prohibited completely. That is the only thing that makes any sense.

 

Megan

BBO username "Case_No_6"

[wodahs]

We use transfers in any generic position where (1) three suits have been bid, and we've bid one of them (2) double is a legal call. Transfers begin with X. Notrump bids are natural. If partner has bid (the more common occurrence), transfers end with the suit below his. If partner has not bid, transfers end with the suit below my rebid.

 

When partner has bid, the first eligible position is the Snapdragon position, and you end up with a kind of Transfer Snapdragon. After say (1♣) 1♥ (1♠), then

 

X = transfer cuebid here, usually limit raise or better

1NT = natural

2♣ = diamonds

2♦ = constructive raise

2♥ = junk raise

 

You always get a 2nd raise, but depending on the suits involved, you might not get a transfer into the unbid suit. After (1♣) 1♠ (2♥), then

 

X = constructive raise

2♠ = junk raise

 

The second eligible position is the Support X spot, and you get a kind of Transfer Support X. After say 1♦ (P) 1♥ (1♠), then

 

X = clubs

1NT = natural

2♣ = transfer cuebid

2♦ = constructive raise

2♥ = junk raise

 

Here is the third position. I will stop here, but the positions keep going. After (1♣) 1♦ (P) 1♥; (2♣), then

 

X = diamond rebid (this is very powerful)

2♦ = better than minimum raise

2♥ = minimum raise

 

If partner has not bid, the structure looks like this. After 1♦ (1♥) P (1♠), then

 

X = clubs

2♣ = better than a minimum rebid

2♦ = minimum rebid

 

 

We also use transfers here (1♣) 1♠ (2♣), then

 

X = diamonds

2♦ = hearts

2♥ = constructive

2♠ = junk

 

To mitigate the loss of a responsive double here, we play Raptor and we double with most (54)xx hands, so partner is unlikely to have the unbid M.

[evileyes]

Some other utilization:

 

(1♣) - 1♠ - (P) - 1N; (P) - ?

 

2♣=4+♦, weak 5S+ 5D or 5H+4D inv+.

2♦=4+♥, weak 5S+ 5D or 5S+ 4H inv+.

2♥=6+♠, inv+.

2♠=6+♠, to play.

[ArtK78]

Yes, transfer advances after overcalls are definitely GCC compliant.

 

But it is NOT a bit funny that the ACBL allows transfers when partner responds to overcalls but not when partner responds to an opening bid. It is SAD and PATHETIC. What is more, it is strong evidence that ACBL policies on convention use have much more to do with who advocates for a convention (e.g., if it is Jeff Rubens's pet convention, it is fine) rather than anything resembling logical consistency or concept familiarity.

 

Transfers are fine after 1NT openings and 2 level or higher openings, but not opening bids in a suit at the one level. Why is that ACBL? That rule is completely arbitrary, especially when virtually every ACBL tournament player uses transfers.

 

Transfers should either be 100% legal in ALL situations or prohibited completely. That is the only thing that makes any sense.

 

Megan

BBO username "Case_No_6"

 

It is not SAD and PATHETIC. It just is. You don't have to agree with it. But it is just the way things are.

 

And it is not completely arbitrary. Since virtually 99% of the ACBL membership would be unfamiliar with dealing with transfer responses to opening bids, a judgment has been made not to allow them. I am sure that arguments have been presented to the ACBL Conventions Committee to allow transfer responses to overcalls, but to date they are not allowed. So deal with it.

 

I will say that the idea that transfer responses should either be allowed in all situations or in no situations is SAD and PATHETIC. For now, be happy that some transfer responses are allowed.

[Free]

Oh dear, "it is just the way things are" is a SAD and PATHETIC argument...

[johnu]

It is not SAD and PATHETIC. It just is. You don't have to agree with it. But it is just the way things are.

 

And it is not completely arbitrary. Since virtually 99% of the ACBL membership would be unfamiliar with dealing with transfer responses to opening bids, a judgment has been made not to allow them. I am sure that arguments have been presented to the ACBL Conventions Committee to allow transfer responses to overcalls, but to date they are not allowed. So deal with it.

 

I will say that the idea that transfer responses should either be allowed in all situations or in no situations is SAD and PATHETIC. For now, be happy that some transfer responses are allowed.

 

SAD and PATHETIC is just an opinion of that rule. I think some other GCC rules are SAD and PATHETIC. Deal with that :P

 

As to your 99% unfamiliar with transfer responses to opening bids, I would guess the same percentage are unfamiliar with transfers after overcalls. Familiarity with a convention doesn't seem to be the reason for acceptance by that standard.

[case_no_6]

It is not SAD and PATHETIC. It just is. You don't have to agree with it. But it is just the way things are.

 

And it is not completely arbitrary. Since virtually 99% of the ACBL membership would be unfamiliar with dealing with transfer responses to opening bids, a judgment has been made not to allow them. I am sure that arguments have been presented to the ACBL Conventions Committee to allow transfer responses to overcalls, but to date they are not allowed. So deal with it.

 

I will say that the idea that transfer responses should either be allowed in all situations or in no situations is SAD and PATHETIC. For now, be happy that some transfer responses are allowed.

 

 

You should do your homework. Transfer responses are allowed according to the GCC in response to ALL opening bids except 1 of a suit. Open 1S. No transfers. Open 2S, go ahead and transfer.

 

Overcall 1H, no transfers. Overcall 1NT, go ahead and transfer. Familiarity is not a sound argument. Who is to say what I or anyone else is familiar with? Oh yeah, its the gods at the ACBL!

 

Case_No_6

[Phil]

Whatever you do, don't have a call to 'transfer' into 1 or 2NT. You have instantly wrong sided the contract with no real tangible gain. For instance, after 1c 1h x:

 

Xx - spades

1s - transfer to 2c, so a cue

1n - natural

2c - diamobds

2d - constructive raise

2h - junk raise

[fromageGB]

Whatever you do, don't have a call to 'transfer' into 1 or 2NT. You have instantly wrong sided the contract with no real tangible gain.

We play transfers in many situations, ie "Ruben responses" as well as Ruben advances. The agreement is that in all cases either we transfer through NT (♠>NT, NT>♣, ♣>♦) or round NT (♠>♣, NT=NT, ♣>♦) depending on which of the opponents has shown more strength, ie put the opener on lead rather than the responder, or the overcaller on lead rather than the advancer.

 

So it is correct to transfer into NT if the person on your right is the stronger of the opponents.

[gwnn]

The term is Rubens advances (after Jeff Rubens). I'm not a big spelling nazi but this has gone long enough, someone had to say something. Also, Michaels (Mike Michaels) cuebids, not Michael's.

[Fluffy]

For a GWNN you know other's very well :P

[Shugart23]

and I think 'lebensohl' is not supposed to be capitalized

[nielsfoged]

It is not SAD and PATHETIC. It just is. You don't have to agree with it. But it is just the way things are.

 

And it is not completely arbitrary. Since virtually 99% of the ACBL membership would be unfamiliar with dealing with transfer responses to opening bids, a judgment has been made not to allow them. I am sure that arguments have been presented to the ACBL Conventions Committee to allow transfer responses to overcalls, but to date they are not allowed. So deal with it.

 

I will say that the idea that transfer responses should either be allowed in all situations or in no situations is SAD and PATHETIC. For now, be happy that some transfer responses are allowed.

First, I thought ArtK78 used irony/sarchasm, then when I noticed he didn't, I went to check his profile expecting 78 to be his age, but then I found that he is a tax attorney, which surely explains "It just is - you don't have to agree with it"! :rolleyes:

/Niels

[helene_t]

SAD and PATHETIC is just an opinion of that rule. I think some other GCC rules are SAD and PATHETIC. Deal with that :P

 

As to your 99% unfamiliar with transfer responses to opening bids, I would guess the same percentage are unfamiliar with transfers after overcalls. Familiarity with a convention doesn't seem to be the reason for acceptance by that standard.

I am unfamiliar with strong diamond openings and Avarelli Blackwood also but that doesn't mean that I think those toys should be banned. This is because if I know our defense against strong club and ordinary Blackwood I can deal with those toys also without having to discuss it.

 

People are familiar with transfers in constructive auctions. They probably have discussed that double is lead-directing, they may or may not have discussed what a direct cuebid in the transfer suit means. In any case they are in no less familiar territory after a transfer response to a suit opening than after 1NT.

 

I can understand that T-Walsh and Moscito openings are not covered by the same umbrella, though, since the transfer bidders could be in a 4-0 fit so we might want to bid their suit naturally, and we would need to discuss this, even if we do have a defense against 5-card transfers.

[mycroft]

Transfers where it is reasonable that we want to play in the transferred suit are a very different beast from transfers where it is highly unlikely. Our defence, for instance, to transfers after NT (by either side!) is "double for the suit, "accept" the transfer for takeout, delayed double for penalty". This will clearly get us talked out of our heart fits (with 4-1 breaks, of course, but at least we know that) after 1♣-p-1♦(♥) ...

 

I am not arguing for or against the restriction, whether it be an opener or an immediate response (frankly, I think they should be GCC allowed (at least for T-Walsh style; not so sure about transfer openings), but I also think 'any defence to NT' should be allowed, KI should be allowed, and a few others; I'm generally in favour of liberalization of the GCC - but not "but our system is so good, why can't we play it? But not any of that weird stuff, no!" (maybe *because* it's so good, especially without a carefully tuned defence?)). I'm just pointing out that the difference between 5 and 4 is actually a really big deal.

 

Note: another thing I'd be happy to see added to the GCC is transfer responses after an overcall (you can do it against a double, provided it's not penalty, because "any call after conventional calls", but not over a natural overcall. Try explaining (or remembering) that!) Which is more pertinent to the original topic.