Misho (MisIry) Transfer Openings

[inquiry]

OK, I'm trying to persuade a partner of mine to play MisIry. Does anyone have a simple way of memorising the strong hand continuations?

 

I managed to learn the symmetric relay by writing it all out, since there's a repeating pattern.

 

Any suggestions?

 

Mark

The easy way...

 

Strong hand can never have the "Preempt Suit" (the suit transferred to), and will ALWAYS have the opened suit (2NT = hearts). That part is very easy. So if you open 2NT you have hearts and spades or hearts and diamonds (NEVER CLUBS)

 

If you open 3C, strong hand is CLUBS and a MAJOR (never Diamonds)

 

If you open 3D, strong hand is DIamonds and SPADES or DIAMONDS and CLUBS (never hearts).

 

That part is easy. Yes?

 

To show two suiter, rebid SPADES or "suit opened" (Heart if you open 2NT) show spades and suit opened. Any other "rebid" shows the two suiter WITHOUT SPADES. (ONLY EXCEPTION, IF PARTNER BIDS NEW SUIT, YOUR RETURN TO "TRANFER TO SUIT" AND SIMPLE RAISE OF PARTNER SHOWS THE WEAK OPENING).

 

For level rebid, the higher the level, the fewer the losers. So the cheapest rebid shows 4 losers. After the cheapest rebid, the number of losers go down, with emphasis on the need or lack of need for a cover card in the cheapest side suit. This is only tricky at the four level. The rule is the higher you force responder to choose, the fewer the losers. If there are three options that allow choice at the some level, the cheapest shows 2nd round loser in the LOWER side suit (may have first round loser too). The second cheapest shows 1st round loser in LOWER side suit, and the highest shows no loser in the LOWER SIDE suit. If there is only two such bids (and that is the most with two suiter with ♠'s then the cheaper shows a non-specific need for a lower suit cover. This is only "tricky" at the four level. Higher than that, with spades you show yes or no for LOWER side suit, two suiter without spades above 4 level, always have the three step response. Example is easier than words...

 

Imagine HEART = SPADE two suiter

2NT - 3C - ?

  - 3H = ♥/♠ two suiter, 4 loser (cheapest bid)

   -3S = ♥/♠ two suiter, 3 loser, need a ♣ (non-specific)

   -4H = ♥/♠ two suiter, 3 loser, no need for ♣

   - 4S = ♥/♠ two suiter, 2 loser, need a ♣ (non-specific)

   - 5H = ♥/♠ two suiter, 2l oser, no need for ♣

 

NOTE, since 3♠ forces responder to bid 4♥ if he prefers ♥ it shows the same number of losers as 4♥. Since this are at the "same" level, it the cheaper 3♠ shows need in the lower side suit, the higher denies such need. Now imagine a SPADE two suiter without ♥'s.

 

3C - 3D - ?

  -> 3S = ♠/♣ two suiter, 4 loser

   -> 4♣ = ♠/♣ two suiter, 3 loser

   -> 4♠ = ♠/♣ two suiter, 2 loser need LOWER COVER

   --> 5♣ = ♠/♣ two suiter, 2 loser no need for Lower cover

 

Here 4♣ can not be used to separate between 3 losers with and without a need in the LOWER side suit, because there would be no second way to show 3 losers and still allow responder to choose between the suits at the four level. While 4♠ shows 2 loser and the diamond need, and 5♣ 2 losers without a ♦ need.

 

It is this, "how much room" do I have that determines if you show a cover is needed or not in the lower suit. For example, with a ♥/♦ two suiter, you can show need for King or Ace of clubs with three losers.... (openres rebids, 3H = 4 loser, 3NT =3 loser, need CK, 4C = 3Loser, need CA, 4D = 3 loser, no C needed). While with ♥/♣ two suiter you can only show need for non-specific ♦ at the two level (open 3♣ then rebid: 3♥ = 4 loser, 3NT - 3 loser, need a ♦, 4♣ = 3 loser, no need for ♣). And as noted above, with ♠/♣ two suiter, you can not show side suit need until you have 2 loser or less.

 

Note, even with the ♥/♣ two suiter where with three losers, you can not separate between the need for 2nd or 1st round side control, you can if you have 2 losers or less. Because... once you bypass 4♣, you have three bids to show that specific two suiter at or below 5♣, these are, 4♦, 4NT, and 5♣--- (remember 4♥ would show ♥/♠.

 

You can refigure these out in two seconds at the table. So memorization is not a problem. If they overcall or your partner bids something other than the transfer suit, the rules are just as simple.

[Guest Jlall]

A few comments:

 

1) I agree with Richard that your method of analyzing is very flawed. Most of these hands seem to deal with weak opposition, and against them you can play strong 3's and still win. Presumably you want to beat better players, and I don't think this bridgebrowser method helps in any way.

 

2) No one knows what the losses really are against a good pair. How much will giving them extra ways to get in over your preempts lose? I suspect a lot, giving the opps more accurate bidding against preempts is counterproductive and the gain needs to outweigh the loss which brings us to...

 

3) No one knows what the gains are of this method. You show a bunch of slams that you could bid, but who knows if a good pair would get there as well with more normal methods. No, I don't think bridgebrowser helps determine this. Obviously risk/reward can not be gained when neither risk nor reward is known.

 

4) Many of the "natural" auctions with these hands require good judgement calls to achieve par. Similarly, in your methods judgement will sometimes be required. The way you are analyzing it, the judgement is always perfect. I'm not saying you're giving unrealistic auctions, but at the table the auctions are not always so perfect, and a wrong judgement is made.

 

5) You lose on hands where you cannot preempt to the max because pard may have the strong hand type. Yes, I am aware sometimes you can preempt to the max and let partner worry about it if he has the strong hand becuase you will have support, etc, or sometimes you can just figure it out. But sometimes you can't, or will require good judgement to do.

[inquiry]

A few comments:

 

1) I agree with Richard that your method of analyzing is very flawed. Most of these hands seem to deal with weak opposition, and against them you can play strong 3's and still win. Presumably you want to beat better players, and I don't think this bridgebrowser method helps in any way.

I haven't analyzed anyhands with respect to the strength or weakness of the competition, so I am not exactly sure what you mean by this. I simply used BRIDGEBROWSER to find the hands. Period. That is, I didn't try to biases the results by "constructing hands". Others can use dealer or other program to deal the hand types they want. Sadly, I lack the ability to simulate hands, but luckily I have access to tens of millions of hands from okbridge and bbo, and an easy way to extract them.

 

2) No one knows what the losses really are against a good pair. How much will giving them extra ways to get in over your preempts lose? I suspect a lot, giving the opps more accurate bidding against preempts is counterproductive and the gain needs to outweigh the loss which brings us to...

 

Well, the "loser" estimate is based on the standard defination. Of course, if you think AKxxx is "one loser" you will be sorely disappointed if partner either lacks support for BOTH of your suits, as you could lose three tricks in this suit for instance. With misfit in both suits, of course, responder has to be extremely careful.

 

3) No one knows what the gains are of this method. You show a bunch of slams that you could bid, but who knows if a good pair would get there as well with more normal methods. No, I don't think bridgebrowser helps determine this. Obviously risk/reward can not be gained when neither risk nor reward is known.

 

There is one gain, no one has metioned yet, and one of the main reason people who play transfer preempts (or two under transfer preempt) choose to do so. That is, when you play the contract from the other side, on average, you gain about 1/3 of a trick per hand. Now, I did not say this, this was said by an author in Bridge World. But it is obvious that leads up to your partner will be more benifitial than leads through him when you play the hand. And his hand being hidden is more often helpful than the preempters (they can place side honor cards more acccurately when they see what he had).

 

4) Many of the "natural" auctions with these hands require good judgement calls to achieve par. Similarly, in your methods judgement will sometimes be required. The way you are analyzing it, the judgement is always perfect. I'm not saying you're giving unrealistic auctions, but at the table the auctions are not always so perfect, and a wrong judgement is made.

 

Well, judgement is a two way street. By removing the strong hands with two suiters from both opening one bids (the kind of strong hands) and 2♣ openers (the really strong hands), you simplify both your 1suit=bid=jump rebid and your 2C auctions (which no longer can include two suiters). I find, at least for my feeble mind, my judgement is much improved not only on non-competetive auctions, but even more so on competitive ones. It is like the rebid problem hand earlier today, if I can open 2♣ on that hand and have method to describe it accurately, it makes my rebids when I open 1H much easier (Since I have removed that type of hand from the mix).

 

5) You lose on hands where you cannot preempt to the max because pard may have the strong hand type. Yes, I am aware sometimes you can preempt to the max and let partner worry about it if he has the strong hand becuase you will have support, etc, or sometimes you can just figure it out. But sometimes you can't, or will require good judgement to do.

 

This is, in effect, a real world problem. However, if you have some cards in one of the suits your partner must hold if strong, you can freely jump raise. You are not going to blast an advanced save to the five or six level, this is certainly true. The jump raises so far in partnership bidding room, and looking at real world examples, mainly hurt in identifying magic fit slams. There is a situation that you didn't mention specific to the heart suit. Here, your partner open's 3♦ showing hearts or a strong suiter with diamonds and a black suit. Responder with some hearts might be on the fence, do I bid 4♥ to make, or bid 3♥. The problem hand is when you might make game based on heart fit, or else you need to stay low if partner had diamonds and a black suit. This hand type (I used bridgebrowser specifically to look for such hands) is the most problematic.

 

We may never know how well MisIry works if people don't try it out. The good news (for me at least) is several people are trying it. Non world class, but several very good players. It will take time to get the feedback on when they use the bid, but I also await how it works not only with the weak variety (as well as strong), but also how having the strong two suiters removed from their one bids and 2♣ openings, help their auctions. My experience has been that the improvement in normal bidding due to this change, will far, far outweigh the ability to raise the preempt immediately to five or six level.

[han]

I told Ben about the Bridge World quote, I read it recently. Unfortunately, I don't remember who said it, but I'm going through by bridge worlds now trying to find it. I vaguely remember that it was a challenge the champs contester who said it, but not absolutely sure.

[han]

My experiences with MisIry are very limited, they haven't come up very often. Perhaps either variation (weak or strong) has come up twice now while playing. I will refrain from making a further idiot of my myself by giving qualitative statements about the covention.

 

However, I will say this: the convention is not hard to learn. The follow-ups are very logical.

 

Also, the negative inferences are good. For instance, Ben plays 1H-1NT-3C as natural (5-5 or better) with about 4-5 losers, so non-forcing. This is somewhat like in strong club systems: jump shifts are descriptive and limited. I always liked that.

[inquiry]

I should add another advantage, if you open at the 2NT level or higher and happen to have the good hand, it is harder for your opponents to get in your way.

 

You have removed Unusual 2NT and michaels cue-bid for instance. You make it harder for them to overcall immediately and find a good fit (although one could argue that they might come in later, once you show two suits by showing the other two suits). I have obvserved a lot of hands where if you open one of your long suit at the one level the next hand would automatically overcall 1♠, but realistically never overcall 3♠

[han]

Found it! Here is the quote, from the January 2003 BW:

 

Choice Cuts, by Bart Bramley:

 

...

 

On this complex deal, Sidney Lazard wheeled out one of his pet conventions, a high-level transfer preempt:...

 

[deal is shown and transfer gets doubled]

 

... I accepted the transfer to gain advantage by declaring with the unknown hand. (Sidney estimates that this advantage is worth about a quarter of a trick per deal. My own observation, based on a more limited sample, is that the edge is even greater.)

[Al_U_Card]

I accepted the transfer to gain advantage by declaring with the unknown hand. (Sidney estimates that this advantage is worth about a quarter of a trick per deal. My own observation, based on a more limited sample, is that the edge is even greater.)

Quite likely cause Sidney gets a higher class of opps.....lol

[inquiry]

Zar has posted several large collection of hands that he has "analyzed" with two simple programs. One that mearly counts starting ZAR and GOREN points added to double dummy bridge solver for "what makes". For example, one file has hands with 27 combined high card points that can make GRAND SLAM (lucky lie of cards and double dummy play necessary on many).

 

This 27 hcp hand file contains 3407 hands. If someone would like to suggest a starting number from 1 to 3340 or so, we can pull up the first 20 hands that would be bid by misiry starting at that point and and see how the auction would go (YES RICHARD, I KNOW, just another "random test" that proves nothing to you.[1]) The thought being, the system is now well document (I Can send word file that is easier to read, or post it on the web BEFORE the challenge is accepted. The concept here is to show, for those who are interested, how the follow up auctions go after the intial opening and response. Or, you can pick a different one of ZAR files as a starting point. Ones that make small slam, ones with more hcp or less. The advantage of the grand slam (many very very lucky I might add) is that there is a high frequency of such hands (and anyone wanting to look into my strong three suiter methods, a lot of those too).

 

Anyway, I offer this as a way to display the bidding methods.

 

[1] Footnote, past challenges in this area have included all strong MisIry hands bid in all ACBL events in the next week, all strong MisIry hands played on April 1st 2005 on BBO in the main room, all MisIry hands played by a particular individual. None of these approaches were acceptable to the purist, who suggest alternatively that randomly choosen hands are not useful, becasue the sample size is not large enough, BBO selected hands are not good enough because of weak competittion (the idea is not what other people bid, it is whether the contract reached is reasonable, so this one has never made sense to me), or who cares what you do with the strong hands, there are SOOOO many weaker hands and you are nailed to the wall on the weak ones so any gains on the big ones is useless....

 

Let me say, in preemptive reply to these problems people will raise, 1-I don't care one whit about the quality of the field, it is rather the bidding with the strong hands is consitent and the quality of the contracts reached that I am interested in, 2-I lack the techical ability to design software to apply my simple bidding rules to randomly dealt hands and do a statisitical study of the results based upon singl dummy evaluation of the contract, so random hands and look is the only way I can go. By letting others (or random chance) choose the hands to look at, I am not biasing the results by selected hands that favor the method. 3-The purpose of this exercise is to show how the bidding might go if you were dealt the hands and playing misIry. I am willing at anytime for some to say, but what if EAST bid, somethign or doubled, how would it continue.

 

I got, for instance, this hand from a reader yesterday....

 

Hi,

I would be interested to know how you'd bid these hand to help me understand the developments of your system:

 

Ax

AQxxx

AK109xx

void

 

xxx

KJxx

Q

Axxxx

 

A beginning like 2NT 3♣ 4♣ 4♠ as denial and then ...

 

My reply, in blue follows. So the goal in this potential exercise is to show, for those interested, how the follow up works.

 

Ok.. a simple way would be...

 

2NT <<---- CLUBS weak, or HEART and SPADES, or HEARTS and DIA strong

3C <<--- PASS/CORRECT

3NT <<--- HEART/DIAMOND 2 suiter, 3 loser, need club

7HE <<--- Heart ACE, DIAMOND QUEEN, CLUB ACE = 3 covers, 3 losers.

 

Why 3NT? Because club ACE is working for you.

 

-----

 

But a purist would not like that auction. Why? Because you will miss the grand slam if your partner's club ACE was changed for the club two. So the "correct" auction is...

 

2NT - 3C

4C - 4S

4NT - 5S

7D - 7S

 

2NT - Clubs weak, or HEART/SPADES or HEARTS/DIAMONDS strong

3C - PASS/CORRECT

4C - DIAMOND/HEART, 3 loser, no need for club

4S <-- DENIES A SPADE CONTROL

4NT <-- missing spade not fatal, I am missing ♦ Queen (5♣ shows missing HQ, 5NT both missing queens)

5S <<--- ruffing value in spades useful (here CLUB ace counts)

7D <<--- yes, if I can ruff a spade

7H <<--- ok

 

Note, 4NT shows no concern about two spade losers, and that the ♦ Q

 

Note, also with two covers, responder always knew he was going to at least six,

 

Note, over 4NT, 5S is the asking for "distributional king". This is described on my webpage and or I can send a much easier text file via email. Even with xxx KJxx Q xxxxxx you want to be in grand, because you can throw your spades on partners AK of diamonds, and ruff his spade loser (as long as he has the spade ACE). Your partner knows you don't have the ACE so he is not accepting any grand try with it missing.

 

So the correct auction finds slam opposite the actual hand were responder has the club ace, or a hand where responder can throw away his little spades on your good diamonds, and then ruff the spade loser. I hope that helps and you can see the logic of 4NT and 5C showing one missing queen, and 5S looking for a slow cover in spades.

[hrothgar]

None of these approaches were acceptable to the purist, who suggest alternatively that randomly choosen hands are not useful, becasue the sample size is not large enough, BBO selected hands are not good enough because of weak competittion (the idea is not what other people bid, it is whether the contract reached is reasonable, so this one has never made sense to me), or who cares what you do with the strong hands, there are SOOOO many weaker hands and you are nailed to the wall on the weak ones so any gains on the big ones is useless....

The "purist" mistakenly thought that you were interested in objectively studying the merits of your method rather than just playing with your tool...

[Guest Jlall]

I don't understand why the focus is on the strong hands here.

 

1) It seems to consist of only 25-33% of your hands when you open at the 3 level (or 2N)

 

2) I contend you will likely lose when you have a preemptive hand and win when you have one of the strong versions. None of this is known obviously, and how much of a gain/loss it is is unknown.

 

3) You contend, certainly correctly, that you gain on openings like 1H when responder is able to make an inference because you did not open with a 3 level bid.

 

You say you do not care about the quality of the field, but this drastically affects how they handle the bids when you're just preempting. Remember, when you preempt it's likely to be their hand. The quality of your opponent is of huge importance when it's their hand and they need to deal with a preempt. This is, of course, the main loss of your method and all transfer preempt methods. To do a "study" you have to figure out what you gain or lose on preemptive hands, strong 2 suiters, and hands where you are able to make a limited jumpshift.

[inquiry]

I don't understand why the focus is on the strong hands here.

 

1) It seems to consist of only 25-33% of your hands when you open at the 3 level (or 2N)

Ok, I will try to explain in simple terms why I focus on the strong hands. IT is because when you open with the weak hands, the opponents can enter the bidding a lot of different ways (in fact, as everyone has pointed out, in more ways than they can if you open a normal preempt). Trying to figure out, at least for me, what SHOULD happen on those hands is a logistical nightmare. I much prefer people to try the preempt out and see how it works. For me, and a few people reporting back to me, the results have been at least ast good as if we had opened a normal preempt.

 

Experience will tell if the transfer preempt is unplayable, but so far, this is far from true. Now, how about agaisnt expert pairs prepared for it? Well, Ultimate club and tangerine club at least both use transfer preempts (two under at least in ultimate). While Rodwell and Meckstroth no longer play transfer preempts, they use to at teh very highest levels. If transfer preempts were a great deteriment they would not have (no doubt they changed back because it might be, as I have always admitted, a milld detriment). Clearly they were playing them at the very highest level. A hand quoted by LArry Cohen in Bridge World shows that Marty Bergen opened wtih transfer preempts (it was 2D transfering to 2S), and of course he is a champion of his two under preempts. (NOTE, amazingly multi 2♦ itself is a transfer preempt, yet we don't see everyone playing that running for the hills because of the weakness of transfer preempts). Nor does anyone complain about Rubens Advances starting with cue-bid up, where opener then bids the "transfer" suit if he would pass a non-forcing bid there. Seems that would suffer the same complains, yet since that article came out in the late 70;s or early 80's tons of people have successfully adopted that method.

 

2) I contend you will likely lose when you have a preemptive hand and win when you have one of the strong versions. None of this is known obviously, and how much of a gain/loss it is is unknown.

 

I agree with this statement, but I would add, I think I gain on any hand where I don't open with the preempt by removing one important hand type from the mix. Same thing iwth my stuffing acol 2 of a major in 2♣ and acol two of a minor into multi 2♦. Bidding is now EASIER when I don't open with these bids.

 

3) You contend, certainly correctly, that you gain on openings like 1H when responder is able to make an inference because you did not open with a 3 level bid.

 

Yes, see under 2.

 

You say you do not care about the quality of the field, but this drastically affects how they handle the bids when you're just preempting.

 

When I am fishing, errrr advertsing, for people to try MisIry, I ahve to convince them that they can bid their BIG HANDS better when they use it or I will not get far. So, it is not the RESULT versus the field, but the result with the hand (strong hand) that I push. And, I can't predict how the oppoents will bid their hands, but I can predict how the strong hand auctions will (or should) go. Misho still surprizes me with the occassional, "i am jsut goign to hope my cover works" jump to slams... but for the most part, the auctions are "automatic".

 

Remember, when you preempt it's likely to be their hand. The quality of your opponent is of huge importance when it's their hand and they need to deal with a preempt. This is, of course, the main loss of your method and all transfer preempt methods. To do a "study" you have to figure out what you gain or lose on preemptive hands, strong 2 suiters, and hands where you are able to make a limited jumpshift.

 

Well, that is the problem isn't it. How do you quantify all these options. The different ways the opponents might bid if you are weak, and if you catch them when you are strong. How well the strong version works. How well the weak jump shift works. And then one you haven't covered yet, if you open 2♣ your "two suiters" will never be 5-5 or 6-5, so openers second suit is never more than 4 cards. This is helpful as well, opener can return to his first suit and responder always knows opener never has more than in his second (under any circumstance). That is a lot to try to "calculate".

 

So my goal, as it was, is to find a way to convince people to give MisIry a try. And figure out how it also effects their other bids (their jump shifts for instance), and their 2♣ auctions. No doubt those reading these pages will spring transfer preempt on unprepared opponents, so at first it might do well because of that (sad, best to have prepared defense for your opponents). But as people start using it (if they do), maybe we can get some answers.

 

BTW, I fully prepared for someone with the skill and the methods to answer these questions using software tools and statistical analysis to have at it. I would be more than happy to review their findings....

[Guest Jlall]

OK, if your agenda is to prove that your method gains on your strong hands, that's fair. If your agenda was to prove it is a superior method then obviously you would need to examine the effects with weak hands too, but I understand this is very hard to do because so much is involved and how do you even do a simulation about it.

 

As I am not sure, but I do suspect, that your method is better for the strong 2 suiters I'll be interested in seeing the results of a "bidding challenge."

 

BTW, regarding multi and transfer advances. I do not play multi for the same reason, it is a much less effective preempt. Again, you need the gain on hands where you are able to open with 2M as something else, like a polish 2, to outweigh the losses you gain by being able to preempt less effectively when opening multi. I do not think that it does, but many do obviously. I think everyone would agree it is a worse preempt and it's advantage is freeing up 2M. As for transfer advances, these are not preemptive bids they are constructive. Yes, you allow them more room but you also allow yourself more room in a constructive auction. I view this as good, and play a form of transfer advances with my junior partner. The whole point of USP is you are able to transfer and pass or transfer and bid again, but with preempting you will presumably never transfer and bid again. Regarding Meckwell, they quit playing transfer preempts because they found the disadvantage of letting the opps in in more ways greater than the positional advantage (and advantage to transfer and bid again). But any of these pairs can play inferior methods and still compete at the highest level, they are just great players, so the fact that Marty Bergen was successful using transfer preempts does not prove anything. I think he was successful because he is Marty Bergen.

[the hog]

Some comments. Partner and I have decided to try this for a number of reasons:

*Fun

*They fit really well into our canape system

*Playing strong C, they offer some relief from haveing to open good 2 suited hands with 1C and getting pre empted out of it

 

One possible modification - as you have 3D as a H suit and 3H as a H suit available, we are considering playing 3D as a good 2 suiter only. This enables responder to bid 3N with stuffing in the Majors and being confident this will be a good contract unless opener is VERY strong.

[hrothgar]

Experience will tell if the transfer preempt is unplayable, but so far, this is far from true. Now, how about agaisnt expert pairs prepared for it? Well, Ultimate club and tangerine club at least both use transfer preempts (two under at least in ultimate). While Rodwell and Meckstroth no longer play transfer preempts, they use to at teh very highest levels. If transfer preempts were a great deteriment they would not have (no doubt they changed back because it might be, as I have always admitted, a milld detriment). Clearly they were playing them at the very highest level. A hand quoted by LArry Cohen in Bridge World shows that Marty Bergen opened wtih transfer preempts (it was 2D transfering to 2S), and of course he is a champion of his two under preempts. (NOTE, amazingly multi 2♦ itself is a transfer preempt, yet we don't see everyone playing that running for the hills because of the weakness of transfer preempts).

You're ignoring a few points here:

 

1. Many of the pairs that you cite adopted transfer preempts for very specific reasons. Case in point, Marty Bergen adopted a 2 under preempt style because his preempts were extremely undisciplined. 87643 was a good enough suit for a 2♠ opening. The two under style allowed partner the luxury of asking about the hand without bypassing 2♠.

 

2. Several pairs adopted transfer preempt styles because they thought that xfers were a winner in and of themselves. In theory, the gains of rightsiding contracts and allowing the undescribed hand to declare could outweigh the losses from providing the opponents with extra bidding space. For the most part, these pairs have abandoned this theory.

 

3. I don't konw many players who adopt a multi because they love opening 2♦ with a weak 2 in hearts or Spades. Rather, they they adopt a multi because there are are more valuable uses for the 2♥/2♠ opening bids than "traditional: weak single suit hands and they'd rather give up a weak 2♦ opening that sacrifice the 2♥/2♠ openings.

[inquiry]

You're ignoring a few points here:

 

1. Many of the pairs that you cite adopted transfer preempts for very specific reasons. Case in point, Marty Bergen adopted a 2 under preempt style because his preempts were extremely undisciplined. 87643 was a good enough suit for a 2♠ opening. The two under style allowed partner the luxury of asking about the hand without bypassing 2♠.

Well Richard, don't you think that I adopted transfer preempt for a very specific reason? To remove strong two suiters out of 1 Bids and 2♣ seems pretty specific for me. So this arguement is good enough for others but not me?

 

2. Several pairs adopted transfer preempt styles because they thought that xfers were a winner in and of themselves.  In theory, the gains of rightsiding contracts and allowing the undescribed hand to declare could outweigh the losses from providing the opponents with extra bidding space.  For the most part, these pairs have abandoned this theory.

 

Go back, check any of my post. I agree that when weak, the transfer preempt is a slight disadvantage in the long run. I have never argued against that point of view. Now I don't think it is a huge disadvantage, and I think that is supported bythe top players who still play it only in a weak version...(with a reason as you said in number 1).

 

3.  I don't konw many players who adopt a multi because they love opening 2♦ with a weak 2 in hearts or Spades.  Rather, they they adopt a multi because there are are more valuable uses for the 2♥/2♠ opening bids than "traditional: weak single suit hands and they'd rather give up a weak 2♦ opening that sacrifice the 2♥/2♠ openings.

 

Exaclty, and yet when they open 2♦ they do well enough so that when they use their other function 2♥ and 2♠ it is well worth it for them. Same with MisIry, when weak, the penalty for usisng transfer preempt is no where near big enough to out weigh the advantages of pushing the big hands in there too...

[hrothgar]

Well Richard, don't you think that I adopted transfer preempt for a very specific reason? To remove strong two suiters out of 1 Bids and 2♣ seems pretty specific for me. So this arguement is good enough for others but not me?

You've consitently cited the fact that third parties uses transfer openings as an excuse to sidestep analyzing the "costs" inherent with transfer preempts. (Well, that and the fact that you find such analysis tedious)

 

I'm merely noting that Bergen didn't adopt 2 Under preempts through any firm conviction that transfers are superior. Rather, it was forced on him...

[han]

I've read through the whole thread once again. I'm not convinced by Richard that MisIry is a terrible idea (although I didn't see him say that exactly) or by Ben that MisIry is a great improvement (I didn't see him say that exactly either). I'm getting a bit bored by this particular discussion, you are not?

 

I think that Ron hit the bullseye when he said why he was going to play these, clearly he is going to enjoy playing with it. Since when do we need to go through extensive research before we pick up a convention? In practice, you pick something you think might work well and that you think fits your style and system, and then you play it. If you start to dislike like it, you either make adjustments or you abandon it.

 

At least, that's what I've always done.

[mikeh]

I finally got the time to read this thread through. Ben, you are to be congratulated for a lot of effort.

 

My problem is that you are engaged in what, in legal terms, would be called 'special pleading'.

 

You are convinced that your method is superior. You assemble 'evidence' to support that pre-determined opinion. You focus virtually exclusively on hands on which your method shows well. And you compare its use on those hands to the performance of a largely random (and weak) field. I know that you also did a study of Hrogthar, but I lack information on the partnerships he was involved with (I see that he says that many of the hands were with pickup partners, so this comparison was unfair on your part).

 

But what is clear from your examples is that you have designed a system that handles strong 5-5 hands better than the average weak, usually pickup, partnerships prevalent on BBO.

 

Big Deal.

 

Maybe that is the best you can do in the circumstances. Maybe you do not have a ftf expert partner with whom you can try this method in top-level competition: against players who know who to defend against 2-under preempts.

 

If that is the case, then I think it is too bad: because no other approach will better test the validity of your method.

 

BTW, examples of your special pleading include:

 

1) claiming that the strong variants occur 1/3 rd of the time. Only careful reading reveals that you limit 3-level weak preempts to 7 card suits: a requirement very few top players play. And more careful reading was required to see that your strong 5-5 collection included hands quite different from the examples for which the system appears to work. So I believe that you have significantly overstated the real world ratio of hands

 

2)You ignore the reality that most top pairs are able to bid most strong 5-5 hands with considerable acuracy. Your method gains only on some unusual sub-sets of the strong 5-5 hands. A great example of this is the hand from a few posts back: opener had something like Ax AQxxx AKxxxx void and responder's key cards were KJxx♥ and Axxxx♣. You showed two sequences leading to 7♥. Well, I would not need any agreements with anyone I have played with in the last 15 years or so. 1♦ 1♥ 5♣ exclusion gets me to 7♥: and I do not play (in real life) with anyone who does not know and recognize exclusion. And with my more established partnerships, where we have proper responses to GSF, 1♦ 1♥ 5N 6♦ (if that is the step you use to show A or K with no extra length) 7♥.

 

3) you acknowledge that the transfer preempt style carries a cost but you come up with some not-so-plausible arguments, including setting up a bad defence to transfer preempts. I have played transfer preempts at high level competition, and am convinced that they are net losers on weak hands. I say so notwithstanding the Bramley quote, and I would be the first to admit that he is a far better and experienced player than me: I still remember, with pain, the thrashing he and Lazard laid on us in the 1st round of the playoffs in Lille in 98. But very few top plairs play transfer preempts, and it is not because they are tough to remember ;)

 

In the meantime, I wish you fun in playing this method, so long as you fully inform your opps (as I am sure that you do) and let them chat about defensive methods during the auction (if they have not had a chance to do so before).

 

If you start winning a lot, in decent comp, maybe the method will catch on.

[inquiry]

I finally got the time to read this thread through. Ben, you are to be congratulated for a lot of effort.

 

My problem is that you are engaged in what, in legal terms, would be called 'special pleading'.

 

You are convinced that your method is superior. You assemble 'evidence' to support that pre-determined opinion. You focus virtually exclusively on hands on which your method shows well. And you compare its use on those hands to the performance of a largely random (and weak) field. I know that you also did a study of Hrogthar, but I lack information on the partnerships he was involved with (I see that he says that many of the hands were with pickup partners, so this comparison was unfair on your part).

 

But what is clear from your examples is that you have designed a system that handles strong 5-5 hands better than the average weak, usually pickup, partnerships prevalent on BBO.

 

Big Deal.

 

Maybe that is the best you can do in the circumstances. Maybe you do not have a ftf expert partner with whom you can try this method in top-level competition: against players who know who to defend against 2-under preempts.

 

If that is the case, then I think it is too bad: because no other approach will better test the validity of your method.

 

BTW, examples of your special pleading include:

 

1) claiming that the strong variants occur 1/3 rd of the time. Only careful reading reveals that you limit 3-level weak preempts to 7 card suits: a requirement very few top players play. And more careful reading was required to see that your strong 5-5 collection included hands quite different from the examples for which the system appears to work. So I believe that you have significantly overstated the real world ratio of hands

 

2)You ignore the reality that most top pairs are able to bid most strong 5-5 hands with considerable acuracy. Your method gains only on some unusual sub-sets of the strong 5-5 hands. A great example of this is the hand from a few posts back: opener had something like Ax AQxxx AKxxxx void and responder's key cards were KJxx♥ and Axxxx♣. You showed two sequences leading to 7♥. Well, I would not need any agreements with anyone I have played with in the last 15 years or so. 1♦ 1♥ 5♣ exclusion gets me to 7♥: and I do not play (in real life) with anyone who does not know and recognize exclusion. And with my more established partnerships, where we have proper responses to GSF, 1♦ 1♥ 5N 6♦ (if that is the step you use to show A or K with no extra length) 7♥.

 

3) you acknowledge that the transfer preempt style carries a cost but you come up with some not-so-plausible arguments, including setting up a bad defence to transfer preempts. I have played transfer preempts at high level competition, and am convinced that they are net losers on weak hands. I say so notwithstanding the Bramley quote, and I would be the first to admit that he is a far better and experienced player than me: I still remember, with pain, the thrashing he and Lazard laid on us in the 1st round of the playoffs in Lille in 98. But very few top plairs play transfer preempts, and it is not because they are tough to remember :D

 

In the meantime, I wish you fun in playing this method, so long as you fully inform your opps (as I am sure that you do) and let them chat about defensive methods during the auction (if they have not had a chance to do so before).

 

If you start winning a lot, in decent comp, maybe the method will catch on.

Thanks for the comments Mike, I will just add, that I have always agreed that on average transfer preempts are a net loser with weak hands. There is no doubt about it (I have said this in print here at least a half a dozen times).

 

I also have little doubt that the major of strong major two suiters are bid routinely well by good pairs. I have no doubt about that either. Now, not all such hands are easy to bid even by expert partnerships, I am sure you will agree.

 

Board 73 of C_N_Echipe Diviizia A standza 5 isinteresting. Both pairs stopped in 6H. WithMisIry, grand slam is "automatic". Let's see why.

 

AQ9xx Kx

AKxxx QJxxx

A       Qxx

Qx       ATx

 

2N 3C

3H 4D

4N 5C

5D 6C

7H Pass

 

3H = four loser, Major 2 suiter

4D = denial, shows a club control

4NT = what kind of club control?

5C = club ace, do you missing a queen?

5D = yes,

6C = Distributional king useful?

7H = great news, pick major

PASS = hearts

 

You can find this one Vugraph on BBO..... there are ohter examples from world class play, but I will not bore you with them (many on my blog). There is even a challenge the champ hand in here that no one bid the grand in real world competition or in the challenge the champs.

 

I think the loss on the weak hands is more than made up on the strong hands, but even if they break roughly even I pick up (at least it is my belief) on the other auctions where the strong two suiters are removed my hand types.

 

But it is a new idea. It might not work (BTW, it is not even my idea, I "stole" it from Mishovnbg), time might tell if people try it out. One thing, it is fun, and I don't play it to "sneak up on opponents" they are free to discuss their defense at the table.... when I open this EVEN in online tourneys....

[glen]

What I don't see here are examples of these two key situations:

 

1) Opener has the weak preempt type, but responder does not want to risk bouncing the level;

 

2) Opener has the strong 5-5+ hand type, and responder bounces the bidding, assuming the weak hand type.

[inquiry]

What I don't see here are examples of these two key situations:

 

1) Opener has the weak preempt type, but responder does not want to risk bouncing the level;

 

2) Opener has the strong 5-5+ hand type, and responder bounces the bidding, assuming the weak hand type.

Hi Glen,

 

I have not put any of example 1 hands... There are a lot of example 2 hands, if not in this thread, in one of the others, and of course on my blogs.