[Free]

awm, on Apr 19 2010, 06:42 PM, said:

TimG, on Apr 19 2010, 07:27 AM, said:

AWM's suggested rules allow a 1♥ canape opening (promising 4+ hearts) with 8-9 HCP, but not a 1♦ opening to show the same hand.

I believe that the "transfer" 1♦ is inherently harder to defend.

The reason is this: when opponents open in a suit showing only four cards there (especially with canape style etc) there is a strong possibility that my side's best contract is in the suit they showed. It is important for us to have methods which allow us to reach this contract when it comes up.

If opponents open 1♥ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I can pass. Either the opponents will end up playing 1♥, which is usually a decent score for me (okay, occasionally if they are NV and I can make game in hearts I get a lousy score, but otherwise it's usually decent) or they will continue bidding, which means I get another chance to introduce my hearts naturally later. Thus I do not need any direct bid which "shows hearts" and can use the same types of methods I might use against 1♥ showing 5+ hearts without a big problem.

However, if opponents open 1♦ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I have a problem. If I pass, the opponents might end up playing 1♦. They might even have a good fit there, and now I have sold to 1♦ when I can make a heart contract. So there is some need for me to act directly when I have hearts, which takes away some of the sequences I might otherwise use to my advantage (i.e. "cuebids" in competition might have to be natural etc). There is a bit of a difference here.

Again, if the bid shows constructive values I'm inclined to allow it... but I think that very weak "natural bids" are not so hard to defend, whereas very weak "non-forcing transfer bids" are a bit more difficult.

I disagree with your point of view. Basically you claim it's harder to defend, just because you can't let them play 1♥. However, if they open 1♦ and pass you can let them play 1♦...

Plus you get an extra call. You say that if they open a 4 card suit you might well belong in that suit. Well, here's your chance! You can just overcall your good 5 card suit naturally, so you'll play in that suit if you belong in it. After a natural 1♥ opening you can hardly play in ♥ ever.

You get some, you lose some, that's all. Just because you can't do everything you normally can, doesn't make it harder to defend. You just have other possibilities. Compare this with weak vs strong NT: which one do you want to disallow? The strong one because you can't penalty double, or the weak one because you can't show as many hand types?

I must admit that a 1♠ opening showing ♦ is more difficult, because you have less options as a defender, and opps will land in a good spot most of the time. But you have even fewer options if opps open 2♦ with the single suiter, and 2NT with 54+m...

[straube]

blackshoe, on Apr 19 2010, 09:00 PM, said:

It seems rather disingenuous to say "all methods are allowed" while simultaneously arranging the scoring table to discourage those methods you don't like.

It's much better than barring methods you don't like. Right now they bar methods that don't show a suit, are designed to take up space without contributing anything useful and are designed to destroy the opponents' methods. But all those things are good bridge under the current scoring table. Of course you want to destroy the opponents' methods when the risk of doing so is small and the reward is potentially great.

I'm just wondering if that's the sort of game we really want to have. I'd rather have constructive bidding aimed at getting to game or slam when it's right. And sacrificing when it's right, too.

I held something like xx Kxxx KJxx xxx the other day and overcalled 1H against a strong club. Bad bid probably, but I was experimenting. We were favorable vulnerability. It went dbl (5-7) P P and the longest tank before a final pass. They got 500 and could have had 620. In other words, it was a real crap shoot. Opener had to make a big guess with hardly any information. They could have had slam. They could have had a fun auction to slam. Perhaps they had gadgets all prepared to get there and now they wouldn't be used. I bid 1H not because I thought it was our hand or that we might have a useful sacrifice, but to take up bidding room (much more so if partner can raise).

That's part of the game now, but I'd rather there was less of it.

[straube]

Free, on Apr 20 2010, 02:51 AM, said:

awm, on Apr 19 2010, 06:42 PM, said:

TimG, on Apr 19 2010, 07:27 AM, said:

AWM's suggested rules allow a 1♥ canape opening (promising 4+ hearts) with 8-9 HCP, but not a 1♦ opening to show the same hand.

I believe that the "transfer" 1♦ is inherently harder to defend.

The reason is this: when opponents open in a suit showing only four cards there (especially with canape style etc) there is a strong possibility that my side's best contract is in the suit they showed. It is important for us to have methods which allow us to reach this contract when it comes up.

If opponents open 1♥ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I can pass. Either the opponents will end up playing 1♥, which is usually a decent score for me (okay, occasionally if they are NV and I can make game in hearts I get a lousy score, but otherwise it's usually decent) or they will continue bidding, which means I get another chance to introduce my hearts naturally later. Thus I do not need any direct bid which "shows hearts" and can use the same types of methods I might use against 1♥ showing 5+ hearts without a big problem.

However, if opponents open 1♦ showing 4+ hearts (canape, etc) and my best suit is hearts, I have a problem. If I pass, the opponents might end up playing 1♦. They might even have a good fit there, and now I have sold to 1♦ when I can make a heart contract. So there is some need for me to act directly when I have hearts, which takes away some of the sequences I might otherwise use to my advantage (i.e. "cuebids" in competition might have to be natural etc). There is a bit of a difference here.

Again, if the bid shows constructive values I'm inclined to allow it... but I think that very weak "natural bids" are not so hard to defend, whereas very weak "non-forcing transfer bids" are a bit more difficult.

I disagree with your point of view. Basically you claim it's harder to defend, just because you can't let them play 1♥. However, if they open 1♦ and pass you can let them play 1♦...

Plus you get an extra call. You say that if they open a 4 card suit you might well belong in that suit. Well, here's your chance! You can just overcall your good 5 card suit naturally, so you'll play in that suit if you belong in it. After a natural 1♥ opening you can hardly play in ♥ ever.

You get some, you lose some, that's all. Just because you can't do everything you normally can, doesn't make it harder to defend. You just have other possibilities. Compare this with weak vs strong NT: which one do you want to disallow? The strong one because you can't penalty double, or the weak one because you can't show as many hand types?

I must admit that a 1♠ opening showing ♦ is more difficult, because you have less options as a defender, and opps will land in a good spot most of the time. But you have even fewer options if opps open 2♦ with the single suiter, and 2NT with 54+m...

Free, you don't get an "extra call" over an artificial 1D. You get the same number of calls whatever 1D means. Also suggesting that 1H (over their 1D showing hearts) should also show hearts is a really bad use of that bid. Probably transfers are best.

1H-spades
1S-NT
1N-clubs
2C-diamonds
2D-michaels
2H-spade preempt

[helene_t]

Agree with Straube (and AWM).

If the aim of the system regulations is to avoid players going for a number undoubled, then of course it is much better to target that strategy directly.

But: I think system regulations have other purposes. If I open 2♥, nonforcing, showing either hearts or spades, then part of the gain is that both opps have too many hearts to double so I go 6 down undoubled against a cold 4♥ their way. But it is also that sometimes opps will have misunderstandings as to whether 3♥ is a cuebid or natural in various situations. And I suppose that those who favor system regulations want to prevent me from gaining that way, also.

Another problem is that while system regulations are not very controversial (few people notice, let alone care, when they change), lots of people will object to a change of the score table. Especially if it is not done by WBF but by local NBOs so that the scoring table will vary between countries. Software written for the English market will give wrong scores in Scotland. BBO would probably use ACBL scoring, and people from other NBOs who use other scorings will be upset.

[blackshoe]

Dirk Kuijt, on Apr 19 2010, 11:30 PM, said:

First, sorry not to have answered awm’s question sooner; I have been traveling.

Let me try to explain why I think that full disclosure is impossible.

1. As awm hinted at, style matters, and getting this information is hard. Look at the discussion held earlier in this forum about what to open with 4-4 in the minors. Frank Stewart generally favors 1C while I believe I’m right in saying that most of the people on this forum favor 1D. Stewart’s choice is going to mean that 1D will tend to be a better suit that the other choice. Obviously, when RHO opens 1D I *can* ask this question, but I’m not likely to. There are countless examples of this; sequences that may be defined by a practiced partnership (or might not be) whose meaning in terms of strength or distribution is likely to differ from my definition. While this doesn’t affect bidding all that much, simply because one side so often just passes, it will affect the defense.

2. As pointed out in a Bridge World editorial (which I can’t lay my hands on, so this is from memory), there is a serious risk of passing unauthorized information to partner *simply by asking about a bid*. Hence, even if I can get all the information I want perfectly (which I don’t think I can), I can’t ask the question. For example, this sequence, starting with LHO: (1H)-Pass-(2C)-?. Sounds simple, right? But, if this is against an Acol pair, where 2C might be only 8 or 9 HCP, I want my double to be takeout; this might be our hand, especially if we have the spade suit. On the other hand, if this is against Auken-von Arnim, where 2C is a semi-artificial game forcing response, then our side is outgunned in high cards; we can outbid them only with extreme distribution. But, double as a lead director is attractive, since responder doesn’t promise clubs. But, can I ask? Not really. If I have clubs, and want to consider the lead directing double, what will happen if I ask about 2C, and get the answer “long clubs, 10+”. Now, I have to pass; double risks them redoubling 2C and making overtricks. But, partner now knows that I had a problem, and it isn’t going to be hard to figure out what that problem is. Under the current laws, I don’t see a way out of this legal trap. Note that the same situation arises in point 1. If I ask, “what do you open with 4-4 in the minors?” over their 1C bid, partner knows I’ve got something good in diamonds, and partner and I have to spend the dinner break explaining our defense to a committee.

One of the problems with this whole "asking questions gives UI" business is the very common practice of asking initially about specific calls. It's got to the point where, if I ask about the whole auction they, instead of answering, call the director, whose first question to me is "which call did you wish to ask about?" Yet the Law still suggests that one should start, at least, with a request for an explanation of the entire auction. The implication is that doing so at least mitigates the UI. I grant this seems a bit silly when a call is alerted, or early in the auction. Yet even after long auctions, people pick out particular calls, instead of following correct procedure.

[awm]

I think I've made a clear case that over a canape transfer opening, you rather need a way to show the suit they are transferring to. Several people have suggested that the defense of overcalling their suit as natural and otherwise "bid as if they opened the suit they have." Here's why that's substantially worse than defending a natural opening.

(1) Suppose RHO opens 1♥ (showing spades) and I have a good hand with spades. If I overcall 1♠ natural then I'm vulnerable to going for a number if it's a misfit hand and LHO has values. If RHO had opened 1♠ natural, then it's their side that often goes for a number in an auction like 1♠-P-P-X or 1♠-P-1N-P-P-X and so forth. In other words often my way to "get in" later is to make a penalty-oriented double, not to bid my spades. But if I pass the 1♥ opening I could easily get 1♥-P-P to partner who's on a total guess and might pass it out (or at least rescue them from a misfit).

(2) Suppose RHO opens 1♥ and I double as "takeout of spades." Partner has a moderate hand with a stack of spades. If RHO had opened 1♠ natural, we would see 1♠-X-P-P and either opener sits (and goes for a number) or runs to an alternative suit which we can decide to double or not double based on our hands. However, RHO opened 1♥ and we see 1♥-X-P, and now partner has to guess whether my heart holding is sufficient for him to sit this double, or whether he should bid spades opposite my known shortage or what. Basically it's either a total poker game, or opponents just got completely off the hook. The situation is especially bad if I made my double on a "strong one-suiter" because the opponents could actually have quite a heart fit; we could be cold for game and defending 1♥X making. Note that this won't happen over the natural 1♠ because if we defend, it's based on partner's strong spade holding and not based on partner's "guess" of what my heart holding was for the double.

In other words, I think we're substantially worse off than if opponents had opened a natural 1♠. Perhaps there is some different defense that is better, but it really has to be a different defense. The "extra step" turned out to be illusory because we had to have a way to show their suit (which we didn't over the natural opening) so there's no obvious reason why it should be easier to defend the transfer call.

[Fluffy]

many people are banning my 2♦ opening to show 5-4 majors weak .

in fact under most of the rules I've seen here, what do people expect a 2♦ openign to look like? how do they plan to handle the 23 balanced hands? only with a complex 2♣ opening?

[TimG]

awm, on Apr 20 2010, 10:13 AM, said:

I think I've made a clear case that over a canape transfer opening, you rather need a way to show the suit they are transferring to.

I don't think you've made that case -- I think you've said it is so -- but I don't think you've made a case that the defending side will often need a way to show the transferred to suit.

It would be interesting (to me, anyway) to see how often a no-suit-quality-requirement four-card opening picks off the opponents' only game strain (or only partscore strain). You'd also have to factor in how often the opening reveals the correct line of play to declarer (whether playing the suit opener showed four-cards in or in another strain) which is rather difficult to do with a double-dummy analysis.

If your case has been made elsewhere, I apologize, but in this thread it seems your case amounts to:

Quote

The reason is this: when opponents open in a suit showing only four cards there (especially with canape style etc) there is a strong possibility that my side's best contract is in the suit they showed. It is important for us to have methods which allow us to reach this contract when it comes up.

[Stephen Tu]

Adam, I think you are vastly exaggerating the utility of being able to double a natural 1M for penalty. How often are you really playing 1s-x and 1h-x vs. natural systems these days? I go dozens of sessions without remembering playing those contracts.

I think you will still get plenty of times to double them after (xfer opening)-p-(1nt)-p-p-x, and (xfer opening)-p-(2M raise on 3)-p-p-x. Yes, the xfer opening pair can occasionally fix your side by passing the xfer opening, but I think way more often they will fix themselves, being in a silly partial in your trump suit when no game your way.

Occasionally being fixed by opponent's weird different system is simply part of bridge IMO. I don't see anything special about xfer opening being worse than getting fixed by some other unusual currently legal method.

[jdonn]

Additionally Adam your comparison should be between transfer canape openings and normal canape openings, not 'standard' openings.

Sorry as I go back and read maybe you were doing that.

[awm]

Stephen Tu, on Apr 20 2010, 11:49 AM, said:

Occasionally being fixed by opponent's weird different system is simply part of bridge IMO. I don't see anything special about xfer opening being worse than getting fixed by some other unusual currently legal method.

Of course to some degree this is true.

The point I am trying to make is that:

(1) There are many more ways to get fixed by a canape transfer opening than by a natural canape opening.

(2) It is not true that canape transfer openings are somehow automatically "easier to defend" than natural canape openings just because they are a step lower. There are substantial differences between defending these two methods, to a great degree because of the difference in the final contract if the opening passes out.

(3) The defense of "just do whatever you would do over a natural canape opening" is really not a good defense to the transfer canape opening. There are a substantial number of hand types where you will expect to get an inferior result against a transfer canape opening using this defense to the result you would've obtained against a natural canape opening.

With that said, it could be that transfer canape openings are "just better" or that there is some more involved defense against them which is extremely effective. But I see a number of people arguing that "natural canape openings are allowed, this is a step cheaper so it is easier to defend, what's the problem" and I do not think their point is a correct one.

[mgoetze]

awm, on Apr 20 2010, 07:13 PM, said:

(1) There are many more ways to get fixed by a canape transfer opening than by a natural canape opening.

Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention but I think you've mentioned... one?

[straube]

I see the problem when the transfer opening is passed out or when one makes a takeout double and responder passes.

I still think if I were defending this, I'd want to play transfers. Maybe against 1D, I'd need 2D to show my own better hearts, but I obviously am going to need a pretty good suit for this. I just can't see devoting my first bid to showing the enemy suit...especially if it is 4+ and not 4-only.

[akhare]

awm, on Apr 20 2010, 01:13 PM, said:

(1) There are many more ways to get fixed by a canape transfer opening than by a natural canape opening.

(2) It is not true that canape transfer openings are somehow automatically "easier to defend" than natural canape openings just because they are a step lower. There are substantial differences between defending these two methods, to a great degree because of the difference in the final contract if the opening passes out.

I think it will help to have a concrete example.

Since natural canape openings include 4-card majors, how about comparing playing against 1♥ = 4+ vs. 1♦ = 4+ ♥?

As I see it:

Vs. 1♥ (4+ natural, may have longer minor):
============

X: Takeout
1N: NT overcall
Others natural
2♥: Presumably Michaels type cue bid

Vs. 1♦ = 4+ ♥, may have longer minor:
===============

X: Power X
1♥: Limited takeout of ♥
1N: NT overcall
Others: Natural
2♥: Michaels type cue bid

If 1♦ get passed around, we can still presumably play X as takeout with 4+ ♦ (or a better hand) and 1♥ as takeout.

Of course, we have a slightly bigger problem defending against 1♠ = ♦, but I would rather play against it than 2♦ = intermediate, natural...

[straube]

akhare, on Apr 20 2010, 04:44 PM, said:

awm, on Apr 20 2010, 01:13 PM, said:

(1) There are many more ways to get fixed by a canape transfer opening than by a natural canape opening.

(2) It is not true that canape transfer openings are somehow automatically "easier to defend" than natural canape openings just because they are a step lower. There are substantial differences between defending these two methods, to a great degree because of the difference in the final contract if the opening passes out.

I think it will help to have a concrete example.

Since natural canape openings include 4-card majors, how about comparing playing against 1♥ = 4+ vs. 1♦ = 4+ ♥?

As I see it:

Vs. 1♥ (4+ natural, may have longer minor):
============

X: Takeout
1N: NT overcall
Others natural
2♥: Presumably Michaels type cue bid

Vs. 1♦ = 4+ ♥, may have longer minor:
===============

X: Power X
1♥: Limited takeout of ♥
1N: NT overcall
Others: Natural
2♥: Michaels type cue bid

If 1♦ get passed around, we can still presumably play X as takeout with 4+ ♦ (or a better hand) and 1♥ as takeout.

Of course, we have a slightly bigger problem defending against 1♠ = ♦, but I would rather play against it than 2♦ = intermediate, natural...

That's a good structure, but would you leave any provision for showing opener's suit? Adam is concerned that 1D will get passed out when he has a good heart suit.

[awm]

Perhaps Akhare's defense is a good one, it's hard to say.

But there are certainly hand types where he is worse off after the transfer 1♦ opening. The bad situations include:

(1) I have a decent hand with long hearts in direct seat (Straube mentioned this).
(2) I have a takeout double and partner is happy to defend 1♥X, but is left guessing over 1♦X.
(3) I have a "power double" and partner wants to defend 1♦X if my hand includes some diamonds (or 1♥X all the time) but we do better in my suit if I have a strong one-suiter.

Perhaps he gains enough on other hand types by distinguishing the strength of his takeout double vs. power double to compensate.

However, the point I'm trying to make is not that "there is no good defense" -- it's that the transfer opening is not inherently easier to defend than the natural opening. We have not yet seen a defense where the overcalling side is always "at least as well situated" as they would've been over the natural bid. In fact I suspect there is no defense. Yet a number of people have claimed that "cheaper bid which means the same thing" somehow automatically implies easier to defend, and I believe this is simply not true.

[straube]

awm said:

However, the point I'm trying to make is not that "there is no good defense" -- it's that the transfer opening is not inherently easier to defend than the natural opening. We have not yet seen a defense where the overcalling side is always "at least as well situated" as they would've been over the natural bid. In fact I suspect there is no defense. Yet a number of people have claimed that "cheaper bid which means the same thing" somehow automatically implies easier to defend, and I believe this is simply not true.

You've won your point as far as I'm concerned. I think that one could design a defense that approaches parity against a transfer 1D vs a natural 1D, but I'm not sure. I'm just not eager to have to develop such defenses...especially when the next pair plays a 2-under or 2-way opening. I think there's a place for regulation...at least for most events.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

That's a good structure, but would you leave any provision for showing opener's suit? Adam is concerned that 1D will get passed out when he has a good heart suit.

You can show opener's suit later in the auction except in the case where the transfer gets passed out.

You can't have everything. There's no guarantee that 1d is better for them anyway if partner passes it out. Perhaps partner has good diamonds! Opener's 2nd suit could easily be clubs/or spades, not diamonds. Perhaps at other tables, they opened some other suit, partner's hand overcalled hearts, and went down because of the bad break.

Of course Adam's bad board scenario *can* happen. I'm just unconvinced that it's particularly frequent enough to be a significant factor, and I think it is going to be more than compensated for by the times they go down in 1d down multiple tricks when hearts was better all along. Opener can have lots of hearts just as well as 2nd hand having a stack.

In principle, having more room gives you more options, and you should be able to do better on average IMO, it's just that the auction is unfamiliar and it will take a while to develop proper judgment on when to let 1d-p-p-? go and when not to, people don't have experience at it, and it will take awhile to get it right.

IMO the "ban xfer opening because it's difficult" is really just = "ban the unfamiliar".

[jdonn]

Stephen Tu, on Apr 20 2010, 05:53 PM, said:

You can't have everything.

I think that's the only point he is trying to make, and that thus it needn't be necessarily true that defending over a lower opening that shows the same hand is easier. I would like to say no one disagrees, but earlier in the thread someone said:

Quote

Over 1♥ 4+ you play a takeout double and naturalish overcalls etc (maybe Michaels or something for a cue-bid) say and PASS when you don't want to bid.

Over 1♦ 4+ hearts you play the same naturalish overcalls etc for 1♠ and above and then you have three calls PASS, DBL and 1♥ to do the work of two calls over the previous method.

We must be better off in the long run partitioning our hands into three sensible subgroups rather than the two that are available against a natural 1♥.

Therefore 1♦ must be easier to defend.

[Mbodell]

jdonn, on Apr 20 2010, 02:56 PM, said:

Stephen Tu, on Apr 20 2010, 05:53 PM, said:

You can't have everything.

I think that's the only point he is trying to make, and that thus it needn't be necessarily true that defending over a lower opening that shows the same hand is easier.

I think my proviso that a cheaper bid be legal if partner isn't allowed to pass it until opponents bid or you reach that "natural allowed" level ought to be even easier to defend and allows constructive transfer opening bids.