1NT (3D) ?

[bilalz]

If right-siding is important to you then Rubensohl is the way to go. There are a few different versions of this but a simple one is:-

 

1NT - (2♦)

==

X = optional takeout (you can use penalty doubles if preferred)

2M = nat, to play

2NT = clubs, to play or GF

3♣ = stopper-ask Stayman

3♦ = hearts, INV+

3♥ = spades, INV+

3♠ = stopper ask with <4 spades

==

 

1NT - (2♥)

==

X = optional takeout (you can use penalty doubles if preferred)

2♠ = nat, to play

2NT = clubs, to play or GF

3♣ = diamonds, to play or GF

3♦ = stopper-ask Stayman

3♥ = spades, INV+

3♠ = stopper ask with no 4 card major

==

 

1NT - (2♠)

==

X = optional takeout (you can again use penalty doubles if preferred though here doing so loses the ability to double and bid hearts as an invite)

2NT = clubs, to play or GF

3♣ = diamonds, to play or GF

3♦ = hearts, to play or GF

3♥ = stopper-ask Stayman

3♠ = stopper ask with <4 hearts

==

 

This is really not complicated at all and already an improvement over Stolen Bid Doubles.

 

Thanks, will propose this to some of the Lebensohl naysayers.

On a sidenote: surely I am not the only one who thinks that rightsiding is particularly important in this exact situation, where a lead through the nt opener can turn ugly... could easily be the difference between 2M making or going down and an IMP swing if other overcallers are not as adventurous as our opps (ironically the contract that is not being rightsided even in Rubensohl).

[helene_t]

Stolen bid doubles are really for people who can't be bothered to make better agreements and just want to get back to uncontested bidding for simplicity.

I hear that a lot so I suppose it must be true, but it is not clear to me why.

 

Stolen bid doubles right-side the contract, something which I don't care for in uncontested auctions but I do care for it in contested auctions. Beginners are taught to play transfers only in uncontested auctions but IMO it would make more sense to play the opposite.

 

You can then play Rubensohl but that only works when opps overcall at the 2-level and you are happy to play at the 3-level. And you can't show an invitational hand with clubs when opps interfere with 2M, nor can you bid an invitational 2NT after having shown a 5-card major en passent.

 

Obviously stolen bids comes with a price. You can't double with a very weak hand with 6 or 7 trumps as you can't tolerate a conversion. The alternative would be to agree not to pass the double unless opener has 5+ trumps but that would be terrible. And you miss out on the negative double (you can bid strong 3-suited hands in some other way but not the weak ones).

 

Overall it seems to me that stolen bid (if worked out well) would be better than Lebensohl and not much worse than more andvanced Sohls. But I am happy to learn why I am wrong.

[dokoko]

You can't double with a very weak hand with 6 or 7 trumps as you can't tolerate a conversion. The alternative would be to agree not to pass the double unless opener has 5+ trumps but that would be terrible.

 

Why should opener be allowed to pass the stolen bid double (except for KQJT9 perhaps). There is about as much need for a penalty pass as there is for a pass of an uncontested Jacoby transfer bid.

 

The only technical advantage stolen bid can claim is right-siding a 2M contract. If you give up on some 2h contracts for fear of a mistimed penalty pass (and on some 4h contracts as well) you get the worst of two worlds.

 

A "stolen bid worked out well" structure - if it exists - would be no less complicated as the cited "advanced Sohls" and probably won't be stolen bid any more.

 

You may defend stolen bid for simplicity, but not for technical merit.

[Zelandakh]

Overall it seems to me that stolen bid (if worked out well) would be better than Lebensohl and not much worse than more andvanced Sohls. But I am happy to learn why I am wrong.

You may defend stolen bid for simplicity, but not for technical merit.

Well let's put something together along the lines discussed and see how far we get. I have taken a 2♥ overcall first as that is the middle ground and ought to provide a balanced proof of concept.

 

1NT - (2♥)

==

X = 5+ spades

2♠ = nat invite; or 5+ clubs, weak/GF

2NT = both minors, weak; or 5+ diamonds, weak/GF

3m = nat, INV

3♥ = 4 spades, GF

3♠ = GF with no stopper and <4 spades

3NT = to play

==

 

Is this good? I am not sure. Losing the ability to compete with 4 spades seems to me like a massive price to pay but you do certainly get some things back in return. Particularly as a weak NTer, it is not something I would personally consider playing but I would hear from the strong NTers before rejecting it. And as this was just the first scheme that came to mind, we can surely improve on the structure. We could, for example, lose the club invite to reclaim 2♠ for the competitive hands with 4 spades (with 2NT and 3♣ becoming the minor-suit transfers). So I think Helene is right that a workable system can be put together. Whether it can ever be called "better" though is less clear.