[inquiry]

awm, on Mar 9 2005, 05:54 PM, said:

Question for Inquiry: since you started playing these transfer preempts, how many times have they come up in actual play (not in bidding practice or times you kibitzed other pairs)? Of these, how many were the "strong two suiter" variety?

From your description, it seems clear that you will frequently win when opener has the strong two suiter, but transfer preempts in general tend to lose on the weak hands because: (1) opponents have more opportunities to bid (2) responder can't always confidently raise the preempt. It seems to me that the weak hands will be MUCH more frequent than the strong ones, so you are accepting frequent losses on the preempt hands in order to have the occasional win on strong hands. Sure you can produce any number of two-suited monsters where the transfer preempt treatment is one of the few ways to get to slam, but it seems like I only hold such a hand once every few thousand boards, whereas "weak three" preempts happen (well in some suit) about once every 40-50 boards.

-- Adam

They come up fairly frequently, because I preempt a lot. The strong variety comes us less often. Let me show a strong version disaster from a TOP FLIGHT event this very week.

Scoring: IMP

West North East South

 -     -     Pass  Pass
 3♣!   Pass  3♦!   Pass
 4♥    Pass  6♣    Pass
 6♠    Dbl   Pass  Pass
 Pass  

---

What happened here is i responded to my partner's auction as if we were using the old rules (3♣ then 4♥ shows 3 losers or less with hearts and clubs), my partner was using correctly the new version, where 4♥ showed major two suiter with both majors, 3 losers. If I had realized 4♥ was a major two suiter, I would have to make a decision, to play 4♥ or 4♠. Turns out 4♠ makes, 4♥ is probably down. But I imagined same kind of hand but with spade suit = club suit. At this point, we were at table 2 with four hands to play in a swiss movement. We were plus 22 imps before this hand (over 9 hands). Clearly we can make 5♣ (if spades and clubs switched), the question was might 6♣ make? I decided that 6♣ would make anytime 3NT makes and thought it was a good shot to get to table one.. true we would have been down one in 6♣ as well if the black suits were reversed. Several pairs did manage to get all the way to 1♠... but they beat me. We ended up in fourth place, out of 40 in this event despite the nearly 15 imp disaster on this one... and it was all my fault.

I will pull up some of the more succeful hands if you like, but let me tell you about a few...

Partner opened 3NT showing minor preempt to 4, i passed with nothing not vul. We went down eight versus a slam for them.

I opened 4C (naymats), parnter bid laydown 6H,

We have also gotten to two games most people played at one level.

Ok, that is not a lot, but i haven't played that many hands with misho since we started playing this, and we quickly dropped it, as i insist on 2NT being natural, and have only recently changed back.

You do lose the ability to preempt with 3C with this method as well.

Ben

[inquiry]

I guess we should examine the plus and minuses of such bids.

Big minuses of this transfer preempt starting at 3♣
1) You can not preempt in clubs at three level (you could with multi 2D use 2S for this, but I don't)

2) If your partner has a heart preempt, you have trouble bumping it to the four level... where most tables would go 3H-P-4H (or even 5H), at your table, it will go 3D-P-3H, where you await the possible strong hand parnter holds. Of course, if you have diamonds, and willingness to play at the five level if he has the strong hand you can bump to 4♥

3) If you use these bids on hands with 5530 distrubition strong, your fit in the three card suit is hard to find.

4) If you have scattered values in the short suit, you may end up in four of a minor when 3NT would be better

A theoretical disadvantage is opponents might get in a preempt of their own against you before you show your suits. This has not been a problem yet. And if you do have a big two suiter, their bidding is not good for their health... if you ahve misfit, they are killed if not, you generally find your fit.

Still those are some mean disadvantages. What do you get back in the tradeoff?

1) The ability to open a forcing bid with strong two suiters and still stop safely in 3 of major.

2) The ability to limit your one opening bids fairly soundly. For example, I play hands equavalant to acol 2 bids are tied up in my 2D and 2C opening bid, these 4 loser or better two suited bids in opening 3 transfer preempts. So my jump rebids and jump shifts are more narrowly defined by the inability to use one of these bids earlier.

3) No opportunity to get passed out in one of a minor or major with strong two suiter that might make lucky slam.

4) The descriptive second bid by opener defining minimum number of losers (4, 3, 2 and yes 1), and the bidding tricks whereby responder can ask if singleton in on of opener's suits is worth two cover cards.

The minus are all related to disruptive bidding on opponents. This kind of bidding is important, but usually leads to small gains only if you take a sacrafice. The pluses lead to games and slams your way that might be hard to bid, and gives more clarity to your auctions when you open 1 of a suit and then jump in a new suit. This constructive bidding improvements can lead to some very large gains, especially if you bid a slam when half the field miss even game. Or after a 1 of a suit, then jump shift, your partner soft-pedals because he knows the really strong two suiters you would have started with a 3 level bid.

It will be interesting to watch and see if this is a net plus or minus. Frequency is on the side of the inability to make full pressure preempts, higher scoring hands ( but less frequent) in on the side of the more constructive use of the 3 bids.

Ben

[inquiry]

awm, on Mar 9 2005, 05:54 PM, said:

Question for Inquiry: since you started playing these transfer preempts, how many times have they come up in actual play (not in bidding practice or times you kibitzed other pairs)? Of these, how many were the "strong two suiter" variety?

From your description, it seems clear that you will frequently win when opener has the strong two suiter, but transfer preempts in general tend to lose on the weak hands because: (1) opponents have more opportunities to bid (2) responder can't always confidently raise the preempt. It seems to me that the weak hands will be MUCH more frequent than the strong ones, so you are accepting frequent losses on the preempt hands in order to have the occasional win on strong hands. Sure you can produce any number of two-suited monsters where the transfer preempt treatment is one of the few ways to get to slam, but it seems like I only hold such a hand once every few thousand boards, whereas "weak three" preempts happen (well in some suit) about once every 40-50 boards.

-- Adam

I have investigated your question. The fewquency of these hands is about 0.7%. You will have slightly more, but someone will open or preempt before you get to bid.

You said transfer preempt gives them more chance to compete. In actualitly it creates fewer chances, as they have to bid at the three level. It risk getting their partners overbidding if they do it too light. It takes away michaels and unusual 2NT, and it can lead to some juicy penalties if they and your big, especially if they do so beause they are short in your "transfer suit" as you will never hold that suit.

We still raise the preempt. All you need is a sure trick in one of the potential suits opener can hold. Let me show you a couple of hands that you played (you may have held any of the four hands).

Quote

========================================
C:\BRBR\awm.05.IMP-4.29665.txt
Produced by BRidgeBRowser on 3/29/2005
========================================
IMP-4                      Dlr: East 
Board      S AKQ94    Vul: N-S
              H AT       
              D A         
S 7532      C AJ876    S J86     
H K764                    H J985     
D KJT72                    D Q6543   
C          S T            C Q       
            H Q32     
            D 98       
            C KT95432 

Auction at table... there is a way to find 7C  This hand was played Jan 28, 2004

West    North    East    South     
                  Pass    Pass   
Pass    2C      Pass    2D!     
Pass    2S      Pass    3C     
Pass    4C      Pass    5C     
Pass    Pass    Pass   

1. game force

Opening lead: D4    Result: Made 7
Score: 640         

=======================================
  # Contr  Ld  Decl    Tr  Score  Pts
=======================================
  1 6CXX  N D3  --------- 13  2230  9.87       
  2 7N    N D3  v--------- 13 2220  9.60       
  3 7C    N D4  --------- 13 2140  8.47         
  4 7C    S S7  --------- 13  2140  8.47         
  5 7C    S S5  --------- 13  2140  8.47         
  6 7C    N D3  --------- 13  2140  8.47         
  7 6SX  N CQ  --------- 12  1660  0.60         
  8 6N    N D4  --------- 13  1470  -3.00         
  9 6N    N D4  --------- 13  1470  -3.00         
10 6S    N D4  --------- 1460  -3.00         
11 6C    N D3  ---------    13  1390  -4.33         
12 6C    N HJ  --------- 1390  -4.33         
13 6C    S S7  --------- 13  1390  -4.33         
14 6C    N D4  --------- 13  1390  -4.33         
15 5C    N D4  --------- 13  640 -13.80         
16 5C    N S6  ---------  640 -13.80         

C:\BRBR\awm.05.IMP-4.29672.txt
Produced by BRidgeBRowser on 3/29/2005
========================================
IMP-4                  Dlr: North
Board 2    S KQ643    Vul: N-S
            H QJ92     
            D 97         
S 872      C J5        S         
H 64                    H AK873   
D KT853                D A6       
C Q86      S AJT95    C AKT742   
            H T5       
            D QJ42     
            C 93       

West    North    East    South     
        Pass    1C      1S     
Pass    4S      5C      Pass   
Pass    Pass   

Opening lead: HT    Result: Made 6
Score: -420       

This was was played on jan 26, 2005
=======================================
  # Contr  Ld  Decl    Tr  Score  Pts
=======================================
  1 3S    E C9  C:\BRBR\awm.05.IMP-4.29672.txt
Produced by BRidgeBRowser on 3/29/2005
========================================
IMP-4                  Dlr: North
Board 2    S KQ643    Vul: N-S
              H QJ92     
              D 97         
S 872      C J5            S         
H 64                          H AK873   
D KT853                    D A6       
C Q86      S AJT95    C AKT742   
            H T5       
            D QJ42     
            C 93       

West    North    East    South     
        Pass    1C      1S     
Pass    4S      5C      Pass   
Pass    Pass   

Opening lead: HT    Result: Made 6
Score: -420       

=======================================
  # Contr  Ld  Decl    Tr  Score  Pts
=======================================
  1 3S    E C9  cmiycdk  5  200  11.80         
  2 1H    E DQ  franjane  9  -140  6.33         
  3 3C    E SA  swarriors12  -170  5.60         
  4 4C    E DQ  Ratok    12  -170  5.60         
  5 4C    E SA  aher11  12  -170  5.60         
  6 4C    E DQ  dchuprich13  -190  5.20         
  7 5C    E DQ  bluester 12  -420  0.53         
  8 5C    E SA  mustafa0212  -420  0.53         
  9 5C    E HT  seafish  12  -420  0.53         
10 5C    E DQ  Doug J  12  -420  0.53         
11 5C    E C9  jojogran 13  -440  -0.13         
12 4HX  E DQ  soho10  11  -690  -5.13         
13 5CX  E DQ  elleneski13  -750  -6.07         
14 6C    E SA  ragukrish13  -940  -9.33         
15 6C    E SA  rozi    13  -940  -9.33         
16 6CX  E SA  rom49    13 -1190 -12.27         

BTW, finding such hands (even if not by specific player) is piece of cake with bridgebrowser.

Ben

[awm]

My point about the opponents bidding was that opponents have more chances when you have the weak variety of hand. Suppose you open 3♣ showing diamonds or various strong hands:

Opponent in direct seat can double the 3♣, bid directly, or pass and then balance later. A simple treatment would be to play double as showing 15+, normally a strong notrump hand with at least some values in clubs, a direct bid as being on the weak side (not junk, but not super-sound). Passing and then bidding later is relatively safe with the strong hand because it is unlikely LHO can bump the preempt (since he cannot know partner has a preempt). Opponent in fourth seat will often be bidding over 3♦ when others might be bidding over 4♦ or 5♦, and also has the advantage of partner limiting his hand by failure to initial double. Lots of (more effective and complex) defenses to transfer preempts are out there -- the general theme is that you will lose when you open a transfer preempt with the weak hand.

I should note that you gave only two examples. In at least one of the two cases, my side did not hold the strong two suiter (the first example, from over a year ago, I don't remember which hand I held and the browser doesn't show declarer's name). Now I don't play as many hands on BBO as some people do, but in the course of over a year it has to be well over a thousand hands. In contrast, I'm sure that I have personally opened a weak three bid a lot more than twice on BBO in the last year.

I agree that the methods you describe will work well when opener has the strong two suiter. Acol twos also work great when opener has one. But the weak preemptive bids will be SO much more frequent, that even if the transfer preempt causes you to lose in one out of ten of them, you're probably coming out behind. I'm not eager to start playing a method that lets me find a tough-to-bid slam once a year or so, and gives me a half dozen bad scores on ordinary preempt boards in the same time period.

Another interesting note -- Fantoni-Nunes system would seem to have no problems bidding these hands. Just open the one suit (natural forcing) and then jump in the other. Couldn't be simpler. Whereas the problems of standard methods, and precision club, are well-documented.

[Free]

Jlall, on Mar 30 2005, 07:15 AM, said:

inquiry, on Mar 29 2005, 09:46 PM, said:

You said transfer preempt gives them more chance to compete. In actualitly it creates fewer chances, as they have to bid at the three level.

huh? If you have a 3D opener and open 3D, they also have to bid at the three level. I dont understand this argument. You give them more ways to bid at the 3 level if you open a 3D opener with 3C.

Opposite a preempt you have more chance to compete (Dbl and the transfer bid), but opposite a strong twosuiter, you won't be as tempted to intervene at 3-level, while the possibilities at 2-level are much more...

[whereagles]

Transfer preempts are obviously inferior from the point of view of preemption. Their redeeming factor is the possibility to dump strong hands into it, thus freeing the rest of the system from hands that are hard to bid otherwise.

Whether pros (strong variants) outweight the cons (three chances for opps to bid) is open for debate. I would say the cons win because the strong variants are like 5% of the bid, maybe less. When was the last time you held a 55 with 3 or 4 losers?? I can't remember

Still, the concept is worth to know. It might come in handy for some emergency in your pet system

[helene_t]

whereagles, on Mar 30 2005, 01:38 PM, said:

I would say the cons win because the strong variants are like 5% of the bid, maybe less.

I tend to agree. But if you play a strong-club system, two-suited hands that are too strong for a limited 1-level opening come up more frequently.

[inquiry]

awm, on Mar 30 2005, 12:28 AM, said:

My point about the opponents bidding was that opponents have more chances when you have the weak variety of hand. Suppose you open 3♣ showing diamonds or various strong hands:

Opponent in direct seat can double the 3♣, bid directly, or pass and then balance later. A simple treatment would be to play double as showing 15+, normally a strong notrump hand with at least some values in clubs, a direct bid as being on the weak side (not junk, but not super-sound). Passing and then bidding later is relatively safe with the strong hand because it is unlikely LHO can bump the preempt (since he cannot know partner has a preempt). Opponent in fourth seat will often be bidding over 3♦ when others might be bidding over 4♦ or 5♦, and also has the advantage of partner limiting his hand by failure to initial double. Lots of (more effective and complex) defenses to transfer preempts are out there -- the general theme is that you will lose when you open a transfer preempt with the weak hand.

I should note that you gave only two examples. In at least one of the two cases, my side did not hold the strong two suiter (the first example, from over a year ago, I don't remember which hand I held and the browser doesn't show declarer's name). Now I don't play as many hands on BBO as some people do, but in the course of over a year it has to be well over a thousand hands. In contrast, I'm sure that I have personally opened a weak three bid a lot more than twice on BBO in the last year.

I agree that the methods you describe will work well when opener has the strong two suiter. Acol twos also work great when opener has one. But the weak preemptive bids will be SO much more frequent, that even if the transfer preempt causes you to lose in one out of ten of them, you're probably coming out behind. I'm not eager to start playing a method that lets me find a tough-to-bid slam once a year or so, and gives me a half dozen bad scores on ordinary preempt boards in the same time period.

Another interesting note -- Fantoni-Nunes system would seem to have no problems bidding these hands. Just open the one suit (natural forcing) and then jump in the other. Couldn't be simpler. Whereas the problems of standard methods, and precision club, are well-documented.

Couple notes... to justin, yes.. if you open 3C when holding a diamond preempt it gives them an "extra" chance to compete. They can double 3C to show diamonds, and bid 3D as takeout, while if you open 3C they can just double for takeout (or penalty or as card showing, depends upon their agreement). I was discussing opening 3C with a strong hand with clubs and a major as opposed to opening 1M or 1C. It is harder for them to come in on so-so hands where they may have reasonable save. There is also a problem (it is unfair to spring this on people without a pre-alert)... is a 3D overcall after my 3C opening takeout of diamonds or diamonds? This is a big problem if they haven't decided, and which everyway they decide, it removes one weapon from their arsenal. If it shows diamonds, this could be bad if hte diamond bidder and I have all the diamonds. If it is takeout, this could be bad if I have the two suiter withut diamonds. On the other hand, if double of my 3C is lead directional/club, my partner may pass and if instead of diamonds I have clubs and another suit, 3Cx might become the final contract..

Now to the issue raised the post I am replying too....
The two hands I showed were from 2 days apart, in january of this year, so not over a year ago. I could have shown a lot more. Yes, one of those hands you were on defense, one offense. The 0.8% figure relates to all hands. So I guess your side will hold one of these strong hands and have an opporunity to open it only about once every 200 hands. But from Jan 1 2005 until feb 27 2005 (two months) you played at tables where this bid could have been opened by one side, or the other a total of --10-- times.. the two I showed in the earlier post were from the "main room". The other 8 times were from "tournaments" (or team games). The dates of these hand are, in order,,,, Jan 10, 11, 14, 16, 16, 29, and Feb 2, 7, 8). There is no March data in the online version of BridgeBrowser yet.

If you wanted to look at earlier dates, from LAte august 2004 until Dec 31, 2004 you played 74 hands in the main room, one of which qualified for this opening bid *dec 3). During same time period, you played 893 tournment hands, of which 12 hands qualified for the strong transfer opening bid. I can show all these hands, and I can go back even further to show more such hands if the number of hands both you. As you can see from these statitics, the 0.8% i quote is about right. 1 out of 74 is more than 1%, and 12 out of 893 is too, but I have looked at 100's of thousands of hands, and the 0.8% seems more accurate over the long run.

Let me show two of these 12 hands where you were the side with the big two suiter...

Scoring: IMP

Oct 4, 2004, IMP tourney


West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  1♥
 Pass  Pass  Dbl   2♣
 Pass  2♥    Pass  Pass
 Pass  

---

This or a similar auction was repeated at almost every table, as your partner felt she didn't have enough to respond to an normal opening bid. Most of those in the field that got to game, did so after Nothr made a "preemptive 3H" heart raise or EAST balanced and north then supported after passing initially. Playing the transfer advance, game is reached automatically via.. 3C - P- 3N - P - 4H - all pass

Scoring: IMP

Oct 4, 2004, IMP tourney


West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  1♥[/font]
 Pass  Pass  Dbl   2♣
 Pass  2♥    Pass  Pass
 Pass  

---

This was matchpoints, and while 6NT earned you a very nice score, 7NT or 7M would have been better still... East would open 3C and then show a major two suiter with two losers, and grand slam would be bid willy nilly.

Finally to Whereagles, you are right the bid strong bid is fairly rare, however, like precision where the strong 1C opening bid is used for all hands above a certain level, the fact that you DIDN"T make the strong biid will have dramatic affects on other auctions..... for instance, if the auction starts, 1D-1H-3C... the 3C bid has limits placed upon it (better defined) because an opening bid of 3D was not used, etc.

Ben

[awm]

The issue I have here, is with the -other- side of the equation. The results from my hand generator show that preemptive hands are roughly twice as frequent as strong hands. This is under the following definitions:

Strong two-suiters: any hand with 4 losers or fewer, and at least 5-5 in two suits
3-level preempts: Any hand with a 7 card (exactly) longest suit, 4-10 points, 7 or fewer losers

The 3-level preempt part of this depends a lot on partnership style -- some partnerships have a wider (or just different) point range, many will open some six card suits at the three level, most have some strict suit quality requirements (i.e. no preempt on Kxx x Kx xxxxxxx), and so forth.
Under these constraints strong hands are about 0.8%, as Ben says, and weak hands are about 1.6%, twice as frequent.

So now the question becomes, how often does the transfer approach win when the strong hands come up? Certainly some of the strong hands are relatively easy to bid to the right contract. Some of the strong hands may actually be losses when you can't find a fit in the third suit. You'll likely win on more strong hands than you lose, but assuming they are all wins wouldn't be accurate.

Of course, there is also the secondary question: how often does the transfer approach lose when the preempts come up? Again, it's certainly not all the time. Sometimes you will actually win by right-siding a contract, and there will certainly be wins against opponents who don't have good defensive agreements. But you can lose when opponents find a contract they wouldn't otherwise reach because of the added bidding space, or if it becomes easier for opponents to penalty double because of the added space.

These are not things I can measure via a hand generator. The best way to tell would seem to be playing hands against real competition and seeing how this method works out. Pulling random hands doesn't necessarily do it, because it's hard to see how the auction might develop (especially on the preempt hands) when the people who actually played the board weren't using these methods.

Maybe we should set up a tourney where all the first seat hands could open transfer preempts (weak bids about twice as often as strong) and get a bunch of people to play using various systems and methods, then see how they do...

[Free]

Jlall, on Mar 30 2005, 07:48 PM, said:

oh i see, you mean IF you have the strong variant (.7 % of your hands) its harder for them to come in. But the other 99.3 % of the times its easier for them to come in

If you have a strong hand and you open it 2♣ (or strong 1♣), opps can jam the bidding A LOT easier than they would after a 3-level opener, and you'll still be able to show your hand as it is!
If you have the preempt, you lose a little, but get real, how efficient are 3-level preempts anyway? And if opps let you play your contract, it will be the unknown hand playing, so you'll get some advantage over that as well.

The cons are waaaaaaaay too much overrated. Imo it's a good method, maybe less in theory, but in practice it just works...

[whereagles]

Free, on Mar 30 2005, 07:02 PM, said:

how efficient are 3-level preempts anyway? And if opps let you play your contract, it will be the unknown hand playing, so you'll get some advantage over that as well.

The cons are waaaaaaaay too much overrated. Imo it's a good method, maybe less in theory, but in practice it just works...

I can't believe an experienced player like you is asking a thing such as how efficient are 3-level preempts are We all know they work very well.

As for letting the strong hand declare, that's an advantage, but not as clear-cut as you might think. After all, when you open a preempt chances are you won't be playing the hand anyway. Even if you do end up playing it, a significant part of the time is doubled. In this case the weak hand's residue gets shown on table and everybody will know how many tricks they have to cash before switching to another suit Getting the strong hand to declare is an advantage only if your side is strong AND there's a hidden running suit AND opps fail to realize that.

Now the cons: if you take an afternoon to think about how to exploit the transfer weakness, you can come up with nice gadgets like this:

3C dbl = take-out double of clubs
3C 3D = majors 55 or a good 45 (with 54 double and bid S later)
3C 4D = clubs-major 55

3C dbl 3D dbl = responsive 44 majors. Compare with 3D dbl pass ?? Resp needs to guess which major to bid.
3C 3D dbl rdbl = bid hearts with 45, spades with 55

3C pass 3D pass
pass dbl = PENALTY

All these hands would be much harder to bid if you had only one time or one way to bid...

[inquiry]

Jlall, on Mar 30 2005, 02:48 PM, said:

oh i see, you mean IF you have the strong variant (.7 % of your hands) its harder for them to come in. But the other 99.3 % of the times its easier for them to come in

well.. a few flaws, I don't open all the other hands (99.2). In fact, let's guess they open half the hands, and half the hand they have the big two suiter, not me. So i open them (let's round off) to 0.5 hands as big two suiter. But of the other 49.5% of all hands, most are normal 1NT, 1C, 2D, 1H, etc openers. So in fact, the 99.2% number is non-sense even without taking other considerations into account. Assuming you are flexible with your 3 bids (sometimes five card suits, sometimes 7 card suits) you could open 3C/3D/3H/3S (these are hands that you are suited for the bid and no one else beats you by opening in front of you) about 1/2% of the time. I got this number by looking at 1 milllion hands using bridgebrowser and seeing how many opened 3C/3D/3H or 3S. (1,001,470 deals, 24,103 such preempts). Now if you are the most aggressive preempter in the world, you would preempt more than this. This comes out to be 2.4%, but half of those preempts would be by the other side, so again, we divide by two. So it is either 0.8 versus 2.4 or 0.4 versus 1.2... This second set of numbers represent the frequency "we" would get the thand out of all hands.

So I make it "easier" for them 1.2% of the time by giving them two shots. Ok, but lets look at one of your hands where you got a great result...

Scoring: IMP


West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  1♠
 2♠    3♠    5♥    5♠
 Dbl   Pass  Pass  Pass
 

---

Here South opened as everyone else did on this hand, 1S. Your partner, like many players looking at the vul, took advantage and made a shapely but weak michaels cue bid. You, made a great jump to five hearts. At this vul, your opponents had two generally losing decisions. First if they double you, you are down only two for minus 300 and if they bid 5S, your partner knows to lead a heart, and you collect two hearts and club ACE. You got a well deserved rich reward for your partners michales and your well timed 5H bid. Your partner added salt to the wound by doubling.

While I would like to think this would be the normal auction, in fact, some doubled 1S with your partners hand, but the ones who overcalled 2H or made michaels cue bid (6 other is all), no one but you found the favorable vul bid of 5H. But what would happen against a 3D opening bid. Surely your partner is not bidding now. South may have bunches of hearts so the bidding would be 3D-P-3H-P... now opener shows his hand with 3S. Ok.. your partner, know being fully aware that south has diamonds and spades, might choose to show his hearts and clubs. But the risk here is considerable. He has already shown a big hand and his distribution and his loser count. IF your partner bids, he might run into a misfit their way, and he forces you to bid at the four level, not the three. Mabye that isn't as big a deal but I think it is harder to bid here. But even if he does bid and you do bid 5H, now they will make the winning call of double (opener four loser, responder maximum of 1 cover... so you will be doubled... you still get a good result, just not the +12 imps you got, but rather 8 imps. )

What this example shows, is the unusual 2NT, the michaels cue-bid, the overcall structure 1NT, the very light one level overcall that finds gold when you open with a big two suiter are gone. And this is the kind of hands you run into. The long one suited (often in the suit you "promised") and the two suiters... these hands are now not NEARLY as easy to compete with. In addition, there is an extra risk of competiting when you bid over the preempt.. you might catch the opener with the big hand as well as his partner. People will still bid, as you are 3 times more likely to have the preemptive hand than the big hand, but there is more risk.

What this bid/don't bid arguement also covers up is the concept that when you don't open 3C/3D/3H and yet show a strong hand with two suits... This places limits on those kind of two suiters. Very useful limits.... especially for people like me who open very light. I have now removed strong three suiters (open 2C), strong 1 suiters (acol 2's - open 2D or 2C), and now strong two suiters. So all my opening bids are limited on the top end (can be 19 hcp or so but not with 3 suited or two suited hands).

Of course, I understand the downsides as well.. things like having the one suited hand as dummy so you can see which suits to attack. But even here there are tradeoffs.. like lead comng to the undefined hand.. .making it harder to get a count on the hand, or you could lead up to an honor. This is misho's idea and it is still a work in progress.. but so far, so good as far as I am concerned.

Ben

[cherdano]

I think what would worry me most is that LHO has both a penalty and a takeout double available, or maybe even penalty (X twice), cooperative (X first) and takeout (X when the bid comes back to you). I wouldn't make most of my preempts when I expect opps to double me most of the time when it is right. Also, I don't think the dangers of coming in for LHO will be that great, since I don't see how partner of the transfer opener can double for penalties opposite the strong hand. What do you play after, say, 3♣-(3♥ (natural))-?, Ben?

Still, I would be really curious of the results of this method against a pair who has agreed a reasonable defense. I can see that the benefits for constructive bidding are great.

Arend