[fromageGB]

Rubensohl seems to have bids at the 2 level as natural, with transfers at the 3 level. What does the team think of using transfers at the 2 level?

After an overcall of our suit opening we normally play transfer responses, so it seems natural to play the same after an overcall of 1NT. The main benefit here is that opener's hand with tenaces and possible weaknesses is concealed, and the overcaller is on lead to lead away from his suit holding. A lesser advantage is that responder can show 2 suited hands without forcing to game. Surely this is better than bidding say 2♠ to play, with 4th seat then leading through partner to overcaller's strength?

This implies the use of X as a transfer to the next step. While a scrambling takeout double is not a bad idea, is the benefit of a transfer better? After all, partner is not prevented from making a takeout double when you pass, and if he does not, there is likelihood of getting a good plus score when you have the values to make a scramble takeout to a poor fit at possibly the 3 level, with the inherent chance of a negative score when you and opener both have no length.

[wank]

the take out double is infinitely more valuable.

[straube]

wank, on 2012-April-14, 10:10, said:

the take out double is infinitely more valuable.

I agree. 2N as natural is thought by many to be less useful and is consequently a good place to start transfers. 2M as natural is still important, despite wrong-siding.

[Statto]

If you want to play transfers at the 2 level, you could employ the stolen bid principle, where a double of the intervening bid says that that's the bid you would have made with systems on. I've no idea how that fits with Rubinsohl, as I haven't played them in combination.

Edit: corrected should to could

[the hog]

Bruce Neill used to play that bids from 1NT+ were transfers into the next suit. If you had a 1NT bid you had to x.
Hence:

1D (1H) 1S = 4S+, x = a 1NT bid, 1NT = t/f to C etc