Multi at pairs

[Echognome]

Why then would we care if a 1♥ opening showing 4+♠ in the 10-15 range is forcing or not?

When the minimum gets to a certain point the non-forcing transfer opening is considered to be destructive or randomizing. ACBL (or those on the C&C Committee) do not want to risk crossing that point.

Right. And I know I'm preaching to the wrong people. I'm just asking how one can draw the line between a 1-level transfer opening that is "non forcing" and a 2-level mini-roman/flannery/precision opening that is "non forcing".

[awm]

A few points on transfers:

 

(1) Bids that show five cards in a particular suit are generally easier to defend than bids which show four cards in a suit. This is part of why ACBL has worked pretty hard towards banning "four card weak twos" or "assumed fit preempts" even though they are natural bids.

 

(2) Precision 2♦ denies length in diamonds, making it more or less a forcing bid. Flannery 2♦ shows two specific suits neither of which is diamonds (I suppose you could be 4540 precisely, but it's against the odds). So either of these bids won't have diamonds as a primary suit. This is different from a 2♦ opening showing "5-5 spades and another suit" or a 1♥ opening showing "4+♠ possibly longer hearts" either of which could contain the bid suit as a primary suit.

 

(3) Mini-roman is a weird exception that was kind of grandfathered in. While one could make a legitimate case that it shouldn't be allowed (which is rather similar to the legitimate case for disallowing multi), the fact is that mini-roman is such an ineffective convention that most people would be happy to have their opponents play it. So no one is really lobbying to get it taken off the general chart.

 

(4) I'd suggest that transfer openings at the one level which show five cards in the suit transferred to and a fairly wide range of strength are not particularly objectionable. In fact ACBL has approved the 1♥ showing a standard 1♠ bid for some mid-chart events. It's the combination of the "four-card major canape style" (which is allowed but already tough on some players to defend) with the "transfer opening style" which leads to a situation where opener might well have more length in the suit bid than the suit shown even though the bid is "artificial." Again we come to the point where an opening of 1♥ to show "an opening hand with either red suit, not forcing" is annoying to defend, an opening of 1♥ to show "four spades and a longer red suit" is not much easier, and it's hard to argue that an opening 1♥ to show either of four spades with any longer side suit or 5+♠ is easier to defend than the more restrictive opening that promised specifically four spades and a longer red suit.

 

With this said, I agree that one-level openings showing at least ten points and four plus in a known suit really should be allowed on the mid-chart, and that if they are to be disallowed it should be by rewriting the mid-chart rather than by refusing to approve a suggested defense.

[jtfanclub]

Again, I pose a simple question.

 

(1)Can one pass a Precision 2♦ opening?

(2)Can one pass a Flannery 2♦ opening?

(3)Can one pass a mini-Roman 2♦ opening?

 

If yes to any of the above, what is the difference, in particular with the last, which may or may not contain diamonds?

I added numbers to make life easier for me, hope you don't mind.

 

1. Yes, but only if responder has long diamonds.

2. Yes, but only if responder has long diamonds.

3. Yes, this is an exception, that should be Superchart by the logic on other bids.

 

If the bidding goes 2♦-P-P in which opener has shown long diamonds, that's OK by me.

If the bidding goes 2♦-P-P in which responder has shown long diamonds, that's OK by me.

If the bidding goes 2♦-P-P in which neither opener nor responder has shown diamonds, I've got a problem with it.

 

Luckily for me, the ACBL seems to be using the same principle I am here.

 

The Precision 1 club (and SAYC 2 club) bids don't apply because they're forcing.

Pretty easy to defend a forcing bid.

 

The 1 diamond fert is legal, IMHO, because Americans are used to defending against 1 of a minor fert bids (like opening 1 club with 2+ clubs). There isn't much destruction from a 1♦ opening anyway. Not like a 2♦ opening.

 

It really doesn't have anything to do with strength.

[Echognome]

Again, I pose a simple question.

 

(1)Can one pass a Precision 2♦ opening?

(2)Can one pass a Flannery 2♦ opening?

(3)Can one pass a mini-Roman 2♦ opening?

 

If yes to any of the above, what is the difference, in particular with the last, which may or may not contain diamonds?

I added numbers to make life easier for me, hope you don't mind.

 

1. Yes, but only if responder has long diamonds.

2. Yes, but only if responder has long diamonds.

3. Yes, this is an exception, that should be Superchart by the logic on other bids.

 

If the bidding goes 2♦-P-P in which opener has shown long diamonds, that's OK by me.

If the bidding goes 2♦-P-P in which responder has shown long diamonds, that's OK by me.

If the bidding goes 2♦-P-P in which neither opener nor responder has shown diamonds, I've got a problem with it.

 

Luckily for me, the ACBL seems to be using the same principle I am here.

 

The Precision 1 club (and SAYC 2 club) bids don't apply because they're forcing.

Pretty easy to defend a forcing bid.

 

The 1 diamond fert is legal, IMHO, because Americans are used to defending against 1 of a minor fert bids (like opening 1 club with 2+ clubs). There isn't much destruction from a 1♦ opening anyway. Not like a 2♦ opening.

 

It really doesn't have anything to do with strength.

Point #1) What hands do you think typically pass a transfer opening?

 

Point #2) Are you saying now that a bid being forcing or non-forcing dependent upon what the player actually holds in his hand has any bearing on conventions? By that argument if i held xxx xxx xxx xxxx and my partner opened a precision 2♦ and i made a "tactical" pass, then is my 2♦ opening illegal? I.e. what bearing does my actual hand have on the legality of the convention.

 

As almost an answer to #2, you might argue that that is what my pass "implies" and that's fine. There's no issue here about disclosure. I'm happy to discuss what hands my partner will typically pass with. But I think we'd be hard pressed to come up with any regulation dictating to me what my pass must show!

[TimG]

Again we come to the point where an opening of 1♥ to show "an opening hand with either red suit, not forcing" is annoying to defend, an opening of 1♥ to show "four spades and a longer red suit" is not much easier, and it's hard to argue that an opening 1♥ to show either of four spades with any longer side suit or 5+♠ is easier to defend than the more restrictive opening that promised specifically four spades and a longer red suit.

 

If your opponents are playing canapé, wouldn't you rather they open 1♥ to show 4+ spades (with the possibility of a longer side suit) than open 1♠ with that hand? They've handed you an extra bid, namely a 1♠ overcall. The transfer opening is easier to defend against, not in terms of familiarity but in terms of available bids.

 

With this said, I agree that one-level openings showing at least ten points and four plus in a known suit really should be allowed on the mid-chart, and that if they are to be disallowed it should be by rewriting the mid-chart rather than by refusing to approve a suggested defense.

 

You have hit upon a very frustrating item: those on the C&C Committee are legislating through their refusal to approve defenses or restricting the approved defenses to 12+ board segments. In my opinion, if a method is allowed under the mid-chart, a defense should be approved (as long as it is complete). And, the decision about which events to allow the method in should not be made by the C&C Committee, but rather by the organization that decides which convention chart will apply to which of their events.

[awm]

A number of people have claimed that using a cheaper bid to show some particular set of hands is automatically easier to defend. My point is that this simply isn't true.

 

If my RHO opens 1♠, there are a number of good hands where I have primary spades, and my standard action is to pass. These hands are unusual if RHO is playing five-card majors, somewhat more common if RHO is playing four-card majors especially canape.

 

The idea is that when I pass with this hand, usually LHO will take a bid. I will get an opportunity to bid my spades (or double something for penalty) later in the auction. If LHO chooses to pass, then partner (who often has spade shortness given my length and RHO's length) has an easy balancing double unless his hand is very weak, and I can pass 1♠X (or double something the opponents bid later, or bid my spades naturally later). If the hand does pass out then opponents are typically playing 1♠ in a poor fit with a bad break, and I can expect at least to go plus by taking them down multiple tricks.

 

If RHO opens 1♥ showing spades, then a similar pass is much less likely to work out. If the opponents pass the hand out, they are playing 1♥ which could easily be a good contract for them. If 1♥ passes to partner, there is no particular reason that partner is likely to have short hearts and find a balance. In fact it's quite likely that our best fit is in spades (the person passing 1♥ probably has some hearts and not very many spades in order to pass) and finding this fit may be awkward even if partner does find a balance.

 

Now obviously I do have an extra bid available (1♠) and maybe I should use this extra bid to show a good hand with spades (Josh Sher did some simulation indicating this is probably the most effective use). But this is counter-intuitive and also requires making use of the added bid just to get back to par on this set of hands (actually we may not even reach an average result, since 1♥ may be a better contract for opponents than anything they can reach over 1♠, and "the field" may be defending doubled our way).

[jtfanclub]

Point #1) What hands do you think typically pass a transfer opening?

 

Point #2) Are you saying now that a bid being forcing or non-forcing dependent upon what the player actually holds in his hand has any bearing on conventions?

Point #1...I haven't given my opinion about transfer openings, at any level or any strength.

 

Point #2...in short, yes. The ACBL doesn't want non-forcing bids which don't describe opener's hand. Given a choice between banning bids because they could be used destructively and allowing bids hoping they won't be used destructively, they've tended towards banning.

 

By that argument if i held xxx xxx xxx xxxx and my partner opened a precision 2♦ and i made a "tactical" pass, then is my 2♦ opening illegal?  I.e. what bearing does my actual hand have on the legality of the convention.

 

Well, since the odds of that coming up are about one in a million, I doubt anybody would care. But if you did it with all 9- less hands without a 4 card major, then I suspect that the ACBL would declare it a destructive method, same as if you opened 7NT without looking at your cards.

 

But I think we'd be hard pressed to come up with any regulation dictating to me what my pass must show!

 

Believe it or don't, doing something wildly stupid that usually ends up with bottoms but gets you occassional tops is actually illegal, if it's systemic and not just due to lack of skill.

[655321]

A number of people have claimed that using a cheaper bid to show some particular set of hands is automatically easier to defend. My point is that this simply isn't true.

 

If my RHO opens 1♠, there are a number of good hands where I have primary spades, and my standard action is to pass. These hands are unusual if RHO is playing five-card majors, somewhat more common if RHO is playing four-card majors especially canape.

 

The idea is that when I pass with this hand, usually LHO will take a bid. I will get an opportunity to bid my spades (or double something for penalty) later in the auction. If LHO chooses to pass, then partner (who often has spade shortness given my length and RHO's length) has an easy balancing double unless his hand is very weak, and I can pass 1♠X (or double something the opponents bid later, or bid my spades naturally later). If the hand does pass out then opponents are typically playing 1♠ in a poor fit with a bad break, and I can expect at least to go plus by taking them down multiple tricks.

 

If RHO opens 1♥ showing spades, then a similar pass is much less likely to work out. If the opponents pass the hand out, they are playing 1♥ which could easily be a good contract for them. If 1♥ passes to partner, there is no particular reason that partner is likely to have short hearts and find a balance. In fact it's quite likely that our best fit is in spades (the person passing 1♥ probably has some hearts and not very many spades in order to pass) and finding this fit may be awkward even if partner does find a balance.

 

Now obviously I do have an extra bid available (1♠) and maybe I should use this extra bid to show a good hand with spades (Josh Sher did some simulation indicating this is probably the most effective use). But this is counter-intuitive and also requires making use of the added bid just to get back to par on this set of hands (actually we may not even reach an average result, since 1♥ may be a better contract for opponents than anything they can reach over 1♠, and "the field" may be defending doubled our way).

You seem to me to be confusing 2 concepts. I understand you to be arguing that it is not fair for somebody to play a transfer opening against you, because you might not get the par result, and indeed that is true. A different auction may result in a different contract.

 

But that does not affect the ease of defending against a transfer opening. A typical and effective defence is: Double is takeout of the suit they have shown, bidding the suit they have shown is natural at the one level, and Michaels (or your normal meaning for the cue bid) at the 2 level. This works well in practice and is not in any way complex.

[the hog]

Adam, I really don't understand your argument above. You seem to assume that it is your "right" to achieve par on any given hand. Why should this be so? It is my job as your opponent to make life as difficult as possible for you while at the same time maximising my results. The two concepts cannot be divorced, which you seem to be trying to do.

 

Fwiw, it is a sensible idea to play (1H)* 1S as showing spades. I fail to see why this is counter intuitive; you are after all bidding your best suit.

* Where 1H = S

[jdonn]

Adam, I really don't understand your argument above. You seem to assume that it is your "right" to achieve par on any given hand. Why should this be so? It is my job as your opponent to make life as difficult as possible for you while at the same time maximising my results. The two concepts cannot be divorced, which you seem to be trying to do.

 

Fwiw, it is a sensible idea to play (1H)* 1S as showing spades. I fail to see why this is counter intuitive; you are after all bidding your best suit.

* Where 1H = S

I completely agree with your first paragraph, but I can certainly see how 1♠ to show spades when the opponents just showed spades might be counterintuitive for some people, who would probably misunderstand and take it as Michaels or something. Even then, is 2♠ better with spades, preemptive with spades, or Michaels? If someone has never played against this method before they probably won't have a clue. I do think it should be allowed though, just making the point.

[the hog]

Adam, I really don't understand your argument above. You seem to assume that it is your "right" to achieve par on any given hand. Why should this be so? It is my job as your opponent to make life as difficult as possible for you while at the same time maximising my results. The two concepts cannot be divorced, which you seem to be trying to do.

 

Fwiw, it is a sensible idea to play (1H)* 1S as showing spades. I fail to see why this is counter intuitive; you are after all bidding your best suit.

* Where 1H = S

I completely agree with your first paragraph, but I can certainly see how 1♠ to show spades when the opponents just showed spades might be counterintuitive for some people, who would probably misunderstand and take it as Michaels or something. Even then, is 2♠ better with spades, preemptive with spades, or Michaels? If someone has never played against this method before they probably won't have a clue. I do think it should be allowed though, just making the point.

Yes I take the point. It is especially hard for those who are not accustomed to play against stuff like this. You need to spend a bit of time discussing what to do, but it shouldn't take too long. We used to play 2S as Michaels here btw.

[Cascade]

A few points on transfers:

 

(1) Bids that show five cards in a particular suit are generally easier to defend than bids which show four cards in a suit. This is part of why ACBL has worked pretty hard towards banning "four card weak twos" or "assumed fit preempts" even though they are natural bids.

But curiously they allow three-card openings and two-card openings.

 

These are arguably even hard to defend against than four-card openings since we want to play in the opponents "suit" more often.

[Cascade]

Adam, I really don't understand your argument above. You seem to assume that it is your "right" to achieve par on any given hand. Why should this be so? It is my job as your opponent to make life as difficult as possible for you while at the same time maximising my results. The two concepts cannot be divorced, which you seem to be trying to do.

 

Fwiw, it is a sensible idea to play (1H)* 1S as showing spades. I fail to see why this is counter intuitive; you are after all bidding your best suit.

* Where 1H = S

I completely agree with your first paragraph, but I can certainly see how 1♠ to show spades when the opponents just showed spades might be counterintuitive for some people, who would probably misunderstand and take it as Michaels or something. Even then, is 2♠ better with spades, preemptive with spades, or Michaels? If someone has never played against this method before they probably won't have a clue. I do think it should be allowed though, just making the point.

You are allowed to discuss what you are doing in advance.

 

We have our standard defense against transfer openings which are legal in all open pairs events in New Zealand. For a few years I used to play some version of submarine symmetric. There are not many pairs playing transfer openings but occasionally we come up against them. Even though we have discussed a defense in advance we go to the trouble of reminding the key points before each round after the pre-alerts:

 

1. (Assuming their suit can be four) Bidding their suit at the one-level is Natural

 

2. Bidding their suit at the two-level is Michaels

 

3. After we overcall or make a takeout double bidding their suit is a cue-bid

 

It takes very little other than this to have an easy sensible game against these methods.

 

If their transfer shows a five-card suit then we replace one with a weak Michaels option.

 

Occasionally we play against pairs playing transfer pre-empts. We use the extra bid as a stopper ask:

 

(3♣*) 3♦ asks for a diamond stopper.

 

Pretty much the rest is judgement. I might double 1♥ with a weakish diamond holding and a minimum but occasionally on the same hand I would not double 1♦ in case they can play there.

[joshs]

A number of people have claimed that using a cheaper bid to show some particular set of hands is automatically easier to defend. My point is that this simply isn't true.

 

If my RHO opens 1♠, there are a number of good hands where I have primary spades, and my standard action is to pass. These hands are unusual if RHO is playing five-card majors, somewhat more common if RHO is playing four-card majors especially canape.

 

The idea is that when I pass with this hand, usually LHO will take a bid. I will get an opportunity to bid my spades (or double something for penalty) later in the auction. If LHO chooses to pass, then partner (who often has spade shortness given my length and RHO's length) has an easy balancing double unless his hand is very weak, and I can pass 1♠X (or double something the opponents bid later, or bid my spades naturally later). If the hand does pass out then opponents are typically playing 1♠ in a poor fit with a bad break, and I can expect at least to go plus by taking them down multiple tricks.

 

If RHO opens 1♥ showing spades, then a similar pass is much less likely to work out. If the opponents pass the hand out, they are playing 1♥ which could easily be a good contract for them. If 1♥ passes to partner, there is no particular reason that partner is likely to have short hearts and find a balance. In fact it's quite likely that our best fit is in spades (the person passing 1♥ probably has some hearts and not very many spades in order to pass) and finding this fit may be awkward even if partner does find a balance.

 

Now obviously I do have an extra bid available (1♠) and maybe I should use this extra bid to show a good hand with spades (Josh Sher did some simulation indicating this is probably the most effective use). But this is counter-intuitive and also requires making use of the added bid just to get back to par on this set of hands (actually we may not even reach an average result, since 1♥ may be a better contract for opponents than anything they can reach over 1♠, and "the field" may be defending doubled our way).

Well for the record I found that over TOSR transfer style openings (where you either have 5+ in the implied suit, or 4 and an unbalanced hand, and also with both majors you always show hearts first) that the following 2 defense were roughly equivalent at IMPS (and much better then all the other schemes I looked at):

 

Defense A:

x=takeout

1 level overcall in the opps suit=natural

other bids normal

 

and

 

Defense B:

x=the x-fer suit

1 level overcall in the opps suit=takeout

other bids normal

 

But I have to note the following things:

B was better at mps, for frequency reasons

 

At Imps, A was slightly better over a 1D opening showing hearts, and B was slightly better over a 1H opening showing spades, mostly since 1H opening denied holding 4 hearts, so having a heart overcall was more frequent in this case then in the other case (and also showing hearts is more important than showing diamonds).

 

So note for the record, what I use, and what I recommend is in fact defense B. Whichever you choose will gain on some hands and lose on others, so you will always find hands that you wish you were playing the other method...

 

Also, if we compare defending against:

a. A natural 1S opening that is potentially canape (5+S, or 4S and a longer minor)

b. The exact same hand types in a 1H opening

 

Clearly, no matter what defense you use, you get to immediately show 1 extra hand against the x-fer opener. Lets say you are playing defense B and hold:

KQ9xx Axxx Axx x

 

Over a natural 1S opening you pass for penalties, and then (predictably) here the auction:

1S-P-1N-P

2C(Canape)-?

And you have a perfect x now.

 

How are things different over a 1H openiong showing spades? Again it goes,

1H-P-1N-P

2C(Canape)-?

 

So really the issues are that

a. in either auction, responder might pass

b. in either auction the may end up in 2S on a 5-2 fit which you can hit

 

let me discuss a first:

 

Playing a canape stype, when does responder pass 1S? You really do not want to end up in a 4-2 fit, so normally:

1. with a balanced hand with 2 card support you usually bid 1N to ensure you are in a 7+ card fit

2. So the most common hand to pass is a weak unbalanced hand with 2-3 card support. Perhaps 2551 or 2461. You might also pass with something like 3442 or 3451 if you want to stay off the 2 level (very weak hand).

3. You would strain not to pass red with a singleton.

 

Further, if the auction happes to go 1S-P-P-x-

with 4-6 opener will rescue himself

and responder will rescue himself with the 2551 or 2461 type hands. So its hardly clear, you are getting rich from your penalty passes here, they will usually be in a 4-3 fit.

 

Over x-fer openings there are two styles out there.

 

In my methods pass shows 5+ cards in the x-fer suit, and a hand inappropriate for a bid (usually unbalanced). This creates some different auctions which might work out well for responder but lets compare the benefits:

 

If partner is known to have 4+S, and 0-3 hearts and you have no other information about his shape would you rather have the ability to

1. play exactly 1S

2. play exactly 1H

I think you will want to play 1S (and wit will be a winning spot) more often then 1H is. Passing 1H is a pretty random action even if you have 5 hearts and 1 only spade.

Consequently, for the defense, on average you will do better when a 1H x-fer bid is passed around to balancer than when a 1S opener is passed around to balancer. I hope this clear. Yes, when you had KQ9xx x Axxx Axx you are pretty unhappy to hear 1H all pass, but it is to your benefit more often then it is to your detriment.

(some might say if passing is bad for responder why does he pass. Well you pass when you have a higher expectation from passing then from bidding (given system constraints). Your action with the largest expectation might still have a negative expectation).

 

Finally, lets suppose the opps have a 5-2 fit and you have a penalty pass, and partner has some values. Playing natural opening bids you might defend 1S-x and you might defend 2S-x. Against x-fer openers you always defend 2S-x, since they have no way of stopping in 1S (the point of the methods is to use a 1S response to show strength, not to play).

 

So, I actually think the defense is better off over a x-fer opener (has one more hand to bid with, and does better when he passes) when it truely is there hand. While you do not do better on every hand, you do better more often then not, and on average. The main reasons to play x-fer openers are constructive reasons, so the x-fer openers gain when its Their hand.

 

p.s. I did not discuss the more random pass method over x-fer openers (3rd hand passes with all bad hands). Clearly thats nuts red. Personally I think it gives pretty significant negative expectation white as well, but depending on your followups, might be the best option. But the point is, all these random passes have negative expectation, so thats good for the defense....

[mycroft]

clearly that's nuts red?

 

1H-4 <= 4H=. 1H-5 > 4H+1 NV, but not V.

1H-6 < 6H=.

The fact that defence is harder than declaring, and you will some significant fraction of the time gain a trick in the wash, is just vigorish.

 

It's only nuts, even V, when it's a partscore battle; sure partner could have 14, which plus your 3 means that game is unlikely; partner could have 10-12 (8-12?), which plus your 3 means that game is pretty likely. Of course, if you get doubled and left, then you have to scramble, but you're probably both more familiar and more comfortable with "what does X mean" in the scramble, too...

 

And that's for your "constructive" 1H opening. "Rollin' dem bones" with any weak hand opposite a 6-10 without spades opposite 2D "5-5 with spades" is probably positive expectation, even vul, maybe even red on white. Even more so if you have Dxxx or so, where if you do catch partner with 5, you're in the right spot and one level down; if you don't, then you've picked off their suit, either for 3NT or 5/6D (okay, opener could be 5-5-3-0, but that's unlikely).

 

The biggest problem, however, as is the case with Multi 2H, is the disclosure issue. How do you answer "when do you pass the opening bid" fully? The right answer really is "when we're short in spades and think it's right"; responder either has diamonds and is happy even if opener is 5-5 blacks, or is short in diamonds, and it looks like a massive misfit, and getting out undoubled or at the 2 level is as good a win as we're going to get; or is weak with Dxxx and hoping; or...

[Cascade]

... and its not a whole lot different than passing a short club.

[matmat]

... and its not a whole lot different than passing a short club.

why do people expect rules to be logical?!