[32519]

I was watching a BBO Live Broadcast some time ago when the commentators were discussing Lebensohl versus Rubensohl. I never understood a word of it. I know the basics of Lebensohl. But what the heck were these commentators talking about?

What is Rubensohl?
Which is better?

[han]

I prefer Rubensohl (or even better: transfer lebensohl) when you freely bid (as after interference over partner's 1NT opening) and lebensohl (or reverse lebensohl) when you are forced to bid (as after a double of a weak 2).

I'll let others explain what they are.

[Statto]

32519, on 2012-February-21, 15:25, said:

What is Rubensohl?

http://www.bridgehan...r_Lebensohl.htm

Quote

Which is better?

I play Leb, but some people I know play Rub and claim it is better...

[CSGibson]

rubensohl (or transfer lebensohl) is better over NT interference because it allows you to distinguish between forcing & invitational hands, and because it right sides contracts. It also allows you to deal with stayman without a stopper more effectively (you transfer into the interference suit as stayman, and if opener doesn't have a 4 card major, and doesn't have a stopper, he just accepts the transfer, leaving more room for responder to describe their hand).

Lebensohl is my preference over weak 2 bids. it facilitates playing in 3C better when you have values & clubs.

[Statto]

CSGibson, on 2012-February-21, 16:46, said:

Lebensohl is my preference over weak 2 bids. it facilitates playing in 3C better when you have values & clubs.

Agree with the first statement, but not sure your argument is correct...

[gnasher]

If you're distinguishing between two different strengths of non-forcing action, Rubensohl doesn't work, so you're stuck with Lebensohl (or possibly some hybrid method).

If you're distinguishing between a non-forcing bid and a forcing bid, Rubensohl (and transfers in general) is generally to be preferred to Lebensohl (and Good-Bad in other sequences), because it is less vulnerable to competition. If the opponents compete further, it's better to have shown your suit with ambiguous strength than vice versa. If you've already shown your suit, you can then distinguish between good and bad hands by doubling or not doubling; if all you've shown is your strength, there's no easy way to show your shape.

Hence when they overcall over partner's notrump you should play Rubensohl, because you want to distinguish between a competitive hand and a forcing hand, or between an invitational hand and a forcing hand. When your partner doubles a weak two you should play Lebensohl, because you want to distinguish between a weak hand and an invitational hand.

[Cthulhu D]

gnasher, on 2012-February-21, 17:06, said:

If you're distinguishing between a non-forcing bid and a forcing bid, Rubensohl (and transfers in general) are generally to be preferred to Lenensohl (and Good-Bad in other sequences), because it is less vulnerable to competition. If the opponents compete further, it's better to have shown your suit with ambiguous strength than vice versa. If you've already shown your suit, you can then distinguish between good and bad hands by doubling or not doubling; if all you've shown is your strength, there's no easy way to show your shape.

Great explaination, cheers. Logically that implies that transfer advances and responses in competition is a winner as well.

[the hog]

Good explanation by Gnasher. I also prefer Rubensohl. - Invented by Bruce Neill of Australia and not jeff Rubens as is commonly thought.

[bluecalm]

I saw this solution by Krzysztof Martens:

1NT - 2S - ???

2N = lebensoshl, signoff in any suit or GF with 4OM
3C = diamonds, invite+
3D = hearts, invite+
3H = ask for stopper without 4OM
3S = clubs, GF

Am I getting it right that this one allows you to distinguish between signoff/invite/GF while both lebensohl and rubensohl only allows you to choose 2 of those 3 ?

Quote

Hence when they overcall over partner's notrump you should play Rubensohl

I like this explanation. Transfers make much more sense than lebensohl to me.

[Cthulhu D]

bluecalm, on 2012-February-21, 19:51, said:

I saw this solution by Krzysztof Martens:

1NT - 2S - ???

2N = lebensoshl, signoff in any suit or GF with 4OM
3C = diamonds, invite+
3D = hearts, invite+
3H = ask for stopper without 4OM
3S = clubs, GF

Am I getting it right that this one allows you to distinguish between signoff/invite/GF while both lebensohl and rubensohl only allows you to choose 2 of those 3

That's what I play and I thought that was 'standard' transfer lebensohl. Obviously not, whoops. It does seem like the best configuration, the only cost is wrong siding the hand after a weak signoff in a suit that isn't clubs.. which is negliable.

[blackshoe]

Rubensohl may well have been invented by Ira Rubin. Neill's article in The Bridge World, which was reprinted in Brian Senior's The Transfer Principle, described it as "the application of Jeff Rubens' transfer advances to Lebensohl".

Barry Rigal, in Precision in the '90s, suggested that Lebensohl should apply when advancer is forced to bid (e.g. after partner doubles a weak two and RHO passes), and Rubensohl (or Rubinsohl) when he is not forced (as after an overcall of partner's 1NT opening).

[Cthulhu D]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-21, 23:50, said:

Rubensohl may well have been invented by Ira Rubin. Neill's article in The Bridge World, which was reprinted in Brian Senior's The Transfer Principle, described it as "the application of Jeff Rubens' transfer advances to Lebensohl".

Barry Rigal, in Precision in the '90s, suggested that Lebensohl should apply when advancer is forced to bid (e.g. after partner doubles a weak two and RHO passes), and Rubensohl (or Rubinsohl) when he is not forced (as after an overcall of partner's 1NT opening).

You can use the above solution at all times though, though you lose invitational values with clubs, you can only be weak or GF.

[Zelandakh]

This thread is probably a good first point of call. It contains an online lesson explaining Lebensohl and I also wrote a short description of the most basic form of Rubensohl there. I agree 100% with Gnasher's write-up to use Lebensohl when differentiating between 2 non-forcing ranges and Rubensohl/transfers otherwise. I think one of the biggest advantages of Rubensohl at the B/I level is simply that it is easier to use. Every bid has a direct meaning making it so much simpler to advance and explain.

The method bluecalm gives sacrifices the stopper ask with 4oM and most constructive sequences with primary clubs in order to get red suit invites in. You can usually invite in hearts via a double here so for me the losses are bigger than the gains. Martens is obviously alot more experienced than me though!

[Cthulhu D]

You can show all options except invitational with clubs. The full scheme is something like:

1NT - (2S) - ???

The hands we could have are:

Weak/Invite/Strong with

clubs/diamonds/hearts or balanced (stayman) or balanced not stayman.

Mapping them to bids we get:

3C: Inv+ diamonds
3D: Inv+ hearts
3H: GF Stayman without stopper
3S: GF Stayman with stopper
3NT: GF with stopper

and after a 2NT-> 3C relay

Pass: Clubs (weak)
3D: Diamonds (Weak)
3H: Weak hearts
3S: GF, no stopper
3NT: Free bid GF with clubs is a likely candidate.

You can obviously shuffle the 3NT, cue and transfer cue bids around to taste. But yeah it does torch Invitational hands with clubs. I'm old fashioned and play a penalty double here so inviting via a takeout double isn't an option.

Edit: Over 1NT (2H) it's the same except 2S is weak and going via the relay shows a good invitational hand.

[Tomi2]

Zelandakh, on 2012-February-22, 03:51, said:

This thread is probably a good first point of call. It contains an online lesson explaining Lebensohl and I also wrote a short description of the most basic form of Rubensohl there. I agree 100% with Gnasher's write-up to use Lebensohl when differentiating between 2 non-forcing ranges and Rubensohl/transfers otherwise. I think one of the biggest advantages of Rubensohl at the B/I level is simply that it is easier to use. Every bid has a direct meaning making it so much simpler to advance and explain.

The method bluecalm gives sacrifices the stopper ask with 4oM and most constructive sequences with primary clubs in order to get red suit invites in. You can usually invite in hearts via a double here so for me the losses are bigger than the gains. Martens is obviously alot more experienced than me though!

That's not true, with "stopper-ask and 4oM" you bid 2NT (=... or GF with 4oM) and cuebid after partners 3 Clubs

[gnasher]

bluecalm, on 2012-February-21, 19:51, said:

1NT - 2S - ???

2N = lebensoshl, signoff in any suit or GF with 4OM
3C = diamonds, invite+
3D = hearts, invite+
3H = ask for stopper without 4OM
3S = clubs, GF

Am I getting it right that this one allows you to distinguish between signoff/invite/GF while both lebensohl and rubensohl only allows you to choose 2 of those 3 ?

For this type of auction (where you want to distinguish between forcing and non-forcing actions), that's obviously an improvement on Lebensohl. However, it has the same disadvantage of being vulnerable to competition: If you bid 2NT and the next hand raises, partner won't be able to compete to four of your suit when it's right. That cost might be worthwhile anyway - in this auction they don't compete that often.

Here is another hybrid scheme:
2NT = competitive with clubs or invitational+ with diamonds
3♣ = competitive with diamonds or invitational+ with 5+ hearts
3♦ = competitive with hearts or game-forcing with clubs
3♥ = game-forcing with 4 hearts
3♠ = stop-asking (or minors, if you prefer)
After the two-way transfers, you bid your second suit with an invitation, and something else with a game-force.
This is very vulnerable to competition, so the only time I might play it is in a sequence like (2♠) dbl (pass), where the opponents are known to be out of the auction. Not being able to show an invitation with clubs is probably too big a cost, though.

[Zelandakh]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-February-22, 04:14, said:

You can show all options except invitational with clubs. The full scheme is something like:

1NT - (2S) - ???

The hands we could have are:

Weak/Invite/Strong with

clubs/diamonds/hearts or balanced (stayman) or balanced not stayman.

Mapping them to bids we get:

3C: Inv+ diamonds
3D: Inv+ hearts
3H: GF Stayman without stopper
3S: GF Stayman with stopper
3NT: GF with stopper

and after a 2NT-> 3C relay

Pass: Clubs (weak)
3D: Diamonds (Weak)
3H: Weak hearts
3S: GF, no stopper
3NT: Free bid GF with clubs is a likely candidate.

But yeah it does torch Invitational hands with clubs. I'm old fashioned and play a penalty double here so inviting via a takeout double isn't an option.

A couple of minor points. 1NT - (2♠) - 3♥ can cope with all hands with 4 hearts, both with and without a stopper. This frees up 1NT - 3♠ for, for example, a 3NT raise without 4 hearts or a stopper. This in turn would allow you to use 1NT - (2♠) 2NT; 3♣ - 3♠ as a slam try in clubs and 3NT (instead of 3♠) as, say, choice of games. Of course you still have a problem with, for example, a slammy hand with 4 hearts and 5 clubs but this is overall a good compromise.

Notice that there is also no reason that you could not keep the transfers as their normal meaning (weak or strong) and channel the invitational red-suited hands through 2NT. There are plenty of things you can do here but they all add complexity. The basic Rubensohl scheme is plenty good enough for most players and very simple. I would recommend this form for intermediates and advanced wanting to improve upon natural or Lebensohl and suggest the more advanced form(s) for those playing at expert level (or reasonably close). Beginners should probably leave both alone until they understand how to use natural methods and why these methods are inadequate.

[32519]

How do we incorporate the feedback from mycroft’s thread “Lebensohl vs Transfer Overcalls” http://www.bridgebas...sfer-overcalls/ with this one?

Thus far the feedback is extremely illuminating. These forums truly are a hive of information!

[gnasher]

There's also Gucci:

http://www.bridgebas...post__p__605749

[Siegmund]

The main lesson I have taken from this thread is that, in the two partnerships where we have agreed Rubensohl, partner and I are almost certainly not playing it the same way. Knowing you are playing the same version as your partner is a big plus to Leb in a casual or new partnership