[jamf1]

Hello
This is a situation that came up recently. My partner opened 1NT (16-18). RHO overcalled 2D, and I bid 2H, intended as a transfer to spades. P did not treat it as a transfer, so I did a little research, and found that in Standard American, systems are OFF after opps interfere. We transfer only to the majors.
The way I would play it is systems are ON. Here is my reasoning:

Case 1: 1 NT – (2C)-?; Easy. Club bid will not affect the transfer bids, so transfers are on.
Case 2: 1 NT – (2 D)- ? : Also easy. Double is transfer to H, and 2H –> 2 S.
Case 3: 1 NT – (2 H)- ? : X is transfer to Spades. The transfer to Hearts is out, but so what? Opps
outrank you!
Case 4: 1 NT – ( 2 S or higher): Transfers are automatically off.

The advantage to having systems always on, IMHO, is it’s easy to remember as long as you have discussed X for “stolen” bids, and you retain the advantage of some transfers, if not all, being available.
In other words Systems always ON when P bids a strong NT.
Are there any disadvantages?
Any discussion? Comments ?

[Cyberyeti]

Over 2♦, you can play the scheme you outline, but it really depends what 2♦ shows, clearly if it shows spades and another, then you probably don't want a 2♥ transfer. If it's natural, playing X as T/O (or pens if you prefer) and 2♥/♠ to play is reasonable.

[pescetom]

Your scheme is feasible if 2♦ rarely shows majors in your part of the world.

A more flexible and powerful alternative is to play Rubensohl
My link

[TylerE]

jamf1, on 2020-April-06, 11:40, said:

Case 1: 1 NT – (2C)-?; Easy. Club bid will not affect the transfer bids, so transfers are on.
Case 2: 1 NT – (2 D)- ? : Also easy. Double is transfer to H, and 2H –> 2 S.

This works only against horrible opponents. Otherwise, they quickly learn they can bid 2♥ on absolutely nothing and you can't punish them.

[Stephen Tu]

The huge disadvantage is you give up using the double as negative/takeout, making it harder to compete when you have hands with only 4 cards in unbid major(s), and sometimes collecting a good penalty when opener has no fit and a good holding in the opponent's suit. Most good players think quite poorly of these "stolen bid" doubles; they tend to be popular only among players with less experience.
A small % of adv+ players play *3-level* transfers over 2 level interference, so that one could do say 1nt-(2H)-3H! as invitational+ transfer in spades, or 1nt-(2S)-3d! as transfer to hearts. Search for "transfer Lebensohl", "Rubensohl" on the web. This retains the double for negative (or penalty, though that is dropping in popularity). If you just want to play 2 of a higher ranking major you just bid it at the 2 level.
But learn regular Lebensohl first, as it is played by a tremendously greater percentage of potential partners.

[nudnikbp]

I play with many different partners, so 2H would be natural in that sequence.

[jamf1]

Thanks to all for your thoughtful and insightful replies

[leslfg]

for interfernce after one NT, after inquiring whether bid is natural, I like to use double of a minor to mean stolen bid and double of a major to be a negative double. This way I retain ability (albeit only up to a 4 card holding) of every suit.

[barmar]

What you describe is not new, it's commonly called "Stolen bid doubles" or "Shadow doubles". It's played by many players, but most experts think it's one of the worst ideas, and the reasons have been posted above.

Most advanced and experts play that systems are on only when the interference is double or 2♣.

[msjennifer]

Stephen Tu, on 2020-April-06, 21:10, said:

The huge disadvantage is you give up using the double as negative/takeout, making it harder to compete when you have hands with only 4 cards in unbid major(s), and sometimes collecting a good penalty when opener has no fit and a good holding in the opponent's suit. Most good players think quite poorly of these "stolen bid" doubles; they tend to be popular only among players with less experience.
A small % of adv+ players play *3-level* transfers over 2 level interference, so that one could do say 1nt-(2H)-3H! as invitational+ transfer in spades, or 1nt-(2S)-3d! as transfer to hearts. Search for "transfer Lebensohl", "Rubensohl" on the web. This retains the double for negative (or penalty, though that is dropping in popularity). If you just want to play 2 of a higher ranking major you just bid it at the 2 level.
But learn regular Lebensohl first, as it is played by a tremendously greater percentage of potential partners.

Sir,
In fact this in a nutshell has summed up the right approach to intervention over 1NT opening. I fully agree with you .In fact, the scheme explained by the OP is to say humbly is a discarded old concept.As my Grandfather would observe this was the scheme in perhaps the Culbertson days way way before the Lebensohl and Rubensohl gadgets came into existence more than 50 YRS .back (and remain the much much better schemes.).I,politely,suggest the OP to kindly go through these and decide after the pros and cons of all.THANKS

[bluenikki]

jamf1, on 2020-April-06, 11:40, said:

Hello
This is a situation that came up recently. My partner opened 1NT (16-18). RHO overcalled 2D, and I bid 2H, intended as a transfer to spades. P did not treat it as a transfer, so I did a little research, and found that in Standard American, systems are OFF after opps interfere. We transfer only to the majors.
The way I would play it is systems are ON. Here is my reasoning:

Case 1: 1 NT – (2C)-?; Easy. Club bid will not affect the transfer bids, so transfers are on.
Case 2: 1 NT – (2 D)- ? : Also easy. Double is transfer to H, and 2H –> 2 S.
Case 3: 1 NT – (2 H)- ? : X is transfer to Spades. The transfer to Hearts is out, but so what? Opps
outrank you!
Case 4: 1 NT – ( 2 S or higher): Transfers are automatically off.

The advantage to having systems always on, IMHO, is it’s easy to remember as long as you have discussed X for “stolen” bids, and you retain the advantage of some transfers, if not all, being available.
In other words Systems always ON when P bids a strong NT.
Are there any disadvantages?
Any discussion? Comments ?

Suppose the opponents bid as follows: 2♣ shows at least one major, 2♦ shows 5+ ♥ , 2♥ shows 5+ ♠ .

Then your methods sre suboptimal, if not suicidal. So it is not so simple to describe. "Double of 2♣ shows majors unless 2♣ showed majors, double of 2♦ shows ♥ unless 2♦ showed ♥..."

[miamijd]

What Stephen Tu said is quite right, but you sound like someone new to the game, so I would forget about Rubenshol for a long time and just learn regular Lebensohl.

In addition, drop your 1NT opener from 16-18 to 15-17. 16-18 was for the days when you needed 13HCP to open. Nowadays, almost all balanced 12-counts are worth an opener. You don't want to have 1x-1y-1NT show 12-15; a four-point range is too much for responder to bid accurately (for example, if responder has a 10-count, if he invites with 2NT, you are apt to go set if you have only 12, but if he passes 1NT, you are likely to miss game if you have 15).

Cheers,
Mike

[heart76]

After using stolen bids for some time, there were things that made me sick, such as that you often can't show 4 of a major with invitational values, or that you don't have enough competitive bids available. For instance:
1NT - (2D = long suit): you can't X without 5 H, you can't bid properly with 4 S 8-ish points and you can't compete in the minors (although some may have 3D available as to play, many would have 3C as Stayman).
I then studied how to exploit a takeout X to mix in invitational and forcing values (and opening for converting it to penalties) while leaving direct bids to play.
The method I have now is very flexible because it depends on the meaning of opponent's bid rather than on its facial denomination.
My suggestion to you and for any serious partnership of yours is to discuss along these lines and then find out if Lebenshol, Rubenshol or what other method is best for you.

[Vampyr]

heart76, on 2020-April-08, 16:59, said:

After using stolen bids for some time, there were things that made me sick, such as that you often can't show 4 of a major with invitational values, or that you don't have enough competitive bids available. For instance:
1NT - (2D = long suit): you can't X without 5 H, you can't bid properly with 4 S 8-ish points and you can't compete in the minors (although some may have 3D available as to play, many would have 3C as Stayman).
I then studied how to exploit a takeout X to mix in invitational and forcing values (and opening for converting it to penalties) while leaving direct bids to play.
The method I have now is very flexible because it depends on the meaning of opponent's bid rather than on its facial denomination.
My suggestion to you and for any serious partnership of yours is to discuss along these lines and then find out if Lebenshol, Rubenshol or what other method is best for you.

For less experienced players, natural bidding is fine. Suits you can bid at the two-level are terminal; three-level suit bids are forcing. Takeout doubles and 2NT can handle a lot of the invitational hands, and of course you can bid the suits they are showing; this will often be Stayman or asking for a good stopper depending on the auction.

This “stolen bid” concept, I assume you double if RHO has made the bid you would have chosen (does it apply also if you would have bid something lower?) seems to have been appearing on these forums for the past couple of years. Did the treatment originate on BBO?

[AL78]

miamijd, on 2020-April-08, 14:20, said:

You don't want to have 1x-1y-1NT show 12-15; a four-point range is too much for responder to bid accurately (for example, if responder has a 10-count, if he invites with 2NT, you are apt to go set if you have only 12, but if he passes 1NT, you are likely to miss game if you have 15).

Cheers,
Mike

Unless you are playing checkback, or that other method where 1X - 1Y - 1NT = 12-16 HCP that I can't rememnber the name of (and I don't like).

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2020-April-08, 17:34, said:

This “stolen bid” concept, I assume you double if RHO has made the bid you would have chosen (does it apply also if you would have bid something lower?) seems to have been appearing on these forums for the past couple of years. Did the treatment originate on BBO?

Not at all. It's something the LOLs have been playing in f2f bridge for years.

[Vampyr]

AL78, on 2020-April-08, 17:47, said:

Unless you are playing checkback, or that other method where 1X - 1Y - 1NT = 12-16 HCP that I can't rememnber the name of (and I don't like).

We play a wide-ranging protective NT, with Crowhurst-style continuations. You are probably thinking of Crowhurst.

[blackshoe]

Is "Crowhurst" not the same as "Checkback Stayman"?

[mikestar13]

barmar, on 2020-April-07, 07:16, said:

What you describe is not new, it's commonly called "Stolen bid doubles" or "Shadow doubles". It's played by many players, but most experts think it's one of the worst ideas, and the reasons have been posted above.

Most advanced and experts play that systems are on only when the interference is double or 2♣.

I go one better 1NT-(♣)-X is playable as Stayman if and only if 2♣ doesn't show a specific suit (say in Cappelletti/Hamilton where 2♣ is an unspecified one suiter)

[fromageGB]

TylerE, on 2020-April-06, 20:35, said:

This works only against horrible opponents. Otherwise, they quickly learn they can bid 2♥ on absolutely nothing and you can't punish them.

To be fair, this is not exactly true. If you do play X as transfer, and you wanted a penalty double, the chances are you would also have good cards and long in their suit. If you were not long, you could play in NT. OK, given the sort of hand you want for penalty, the chances are opener is fairly short and few values. You could have an agreement that if he does have such a hand (typically low doubleton) when you pass, he will reopen with a X. You can now pass. Should you not have that hand after his double, it acts as a takeout double, and that could well be the best outcome.