I have a hand for you

[mikeh]

Here's a "bad agreement" with 2♠ non-forcing:-

 

1♣ - 1♠; 2♥

==

2♠ = to play

2NT = to play 3♣ or GF with 3+♣

3♣ = GF exactly 5♠

3♦ = to play 3♥ or GF with 4+♥

3♥ = GF with 6+♠

3♠ = GF looking for a ♦ stop (or GF with 6+♠ and no ♦ stop if you are happy using a different sequence with 4342 and ♦xxxx)

3NT = to play (typically 4342)

--

 

I very much agree that bidding over reverses is one of the weakest areas of bidding for most players. But I also think that there are system advances to be had in this area even for top players above and beyond the Blackout/Lebensohl/Ingberman schemes that are typically espoused.

I also very much agree that it is possible to devise theoretically better approaches to ingberman, lebensohl, etc. However, few but dedicated members of a serious partnership would be willing/able to remember them. I can sit down with virtually any NA expert and say ‘ingberman over reverses’, expecting an ok or ‘I prefer just lebensohl’ and expect that we’ll be pretty close to being on the same wavelength if it came up.

[Zelandakh]

I also very much agree that it is possible to devise theoretically better approaches to ingberman, lebensohl, etc. However, few but dedicated members of a serious partnership would be willing/able to remember them. I can sit down with virtually any NA expert and say ‘ingberman over reverses’, expecting an ok or ‘I prefer just lebensohl’ and expect that we’ll be pretty close to being on the same wavelength if it came up.

But this is something of a chicken and egg thing. Before transfers were widespread, you could also not sit down and agree "4 suit transfers"; similarly for "2/1 GF" or even RKCB. The rules for the above method may not be theoretically better than Lebensohl but the rules involved are just as simple and if it were widely used 2 players could just as easily agree "4S5 transfers" (or whatever you want to call it). And the same would be true for an optimised version.