[Shugart23]

I am wondering if anyone has experience with using these at the 3 or 4 level (or even with weak jump overcall starting with 2Spades) and what they think....

As a preempt, one gives up the natural 3C and 3D bid, but on the other hand, provides a lot of room for partner to ask questions (and sometimes you actually end up opening the bidding in the Opponent's suit). I assume the GCC does not allow a 2NT opening bid to show Diamonds.

I think maybe 3NT needs to be reserved for some form of Gambling



I'm intrigued by the concept and wonder if anyone has tried this method and how it worked out.

Strictly only interested in Matchpoint scoring, btw

[steve2005]

Since you, rnentioned GCC 3♣/3♦ as transfer preempts aren't allowed. 4♣/4♦ are.

You say it gives lots of space to investigate, you get one extra bid the step in between the transfer bid and the natural suit. I wouldn't call this a lot of space but could be useful.

On the downside your minor preempts are messed up either doing at a level higher or using an artificial 2♠/2N or both which is not gcc and uses up other useful bids.

Plus if the opponents have discussed how to counter your transfer preempts there are all sorts of things they can do to take advantage.

[mikeh]

I've played them. A good friend and frequent partner loves them. I don't. I think they are fundamentally unsound for two reasons.

1. Your pre-empts are less space-consuming. For example, you open 3♦, showing spades. LHO can bid 3♥, an option unavailable over the 3♠ acton at all other tables.

2. You give the opps two chances to bid. Thus over 3♦, the opp can pass with borderline hands and then reopen with a double and double directly, since it will be very rare that responder will pass the opening pre-empt. Had you opened 3♠, the opp is under pressure with the borderline hand. if he passes, we may steal the hand and if he doubles, he may be in trouble


There are upsides, of course. We use the inbetween response to show a good hand, invitational in opener's suit, which call isn't available over an immediate natural pre-empt, but in my experience this doesn't offset the flaws.

Having said that, I suspect that the gadget will be reasonably effective against non-expert opps, simply because they won't usually recognize how to exploit it's weaknesses very well.

[Shugart23]

mikeh, on 2015-January-04, 12:57, said:

I've played them. A good friend and frequent partner loves them. I don't. I think they are fundamentally unsound for two reasons.

1. Your pre-empts are less space-consuming. For example, you open 3♦, showing spades. LHO can bid 3♥, an option unavailable over the 3♠ acton at all other tables.

2. You give the opps two chances to bid. Thus over 3♦, the opp can pass with borderline hands and then reopen with a double and double directly, since it will be very rare that responder will pass the opening pre-empt. Had you opened 3♠, the opp is under pressure with the borderline hand. if he passes, we may steal the hand and if he doubles, he may be in trouble


There are upsides, of course. We use the inbetween response to show a good hand, invitational in opener's suit, which call isn't available over an immediate natural pre-empt, but in my experience this doesn't offset the flaws.

Having said that, I suspect that the gadget will be reasonably effective against non-expert opps, simply because they won't usually recognize how to exploit it's weaknesses very well.

Thanks...I checked the GCC and as previous poster suggests, this can't be done 'legally' as an opening bid unless club director goes along with it....About 6 months ago, I have started playing in the ABA which is a lot less restrictive as to what is allowed...eg.multi-2D as one example. ACBL rules suck sometimes

[whereagles]

The multi 2♦ is a difficult opening to defend against. In fact, it is only legal for historical reasons.

[Shugart23]

whereagles, on 2015-January-05, 08:12, said:

The multi 2♦ is a difficult opening to defend against. In fact, it is only legal for historical reasons.

it
I actually don't think 2D is legal in GCC events......I think might not be legal for the reason you suggest (difficult to defend) but maybe more so that the ACBL can keep 90% of their more casual players happy and dues paying members.

It would be nice to play where anything goes (with full disclosure) and let the 'marketplace' decide what bidding makes sense and what doesn't.

Imagine if the Chess Federation disallowed opening Queen's Gambit as most people don't know how to defend it and find it difficult....

AH, but I am probably preaching to the choir.....

[whereagles]

Queen's gambit is not the best example. Try the Evans

[Shugart23]

whereagles, on 2015-January-05, 13:40, said:

Queen's gambit is not the best example. Try the Evans

lol

[phoenix214]

Well for transfer preempts in general you have your pluses and minuses.
+ is that you do rightside the contract more often(weak onesuited in dummy so less info is revealed)
+ is that you do get a second bid, which means, that you should be taking advantage by the fact, by including some strong hands
- is that LHO gets a second bid as well, and hence can show more hand types as well
- spade preempt does allow opps to show hearts on the same level, so spade preempts loses value.

If you want to play them, the + should be a higher value for you then the -, so you have to decided that for yourself

[the hog]

Transfer pre empts give a competent pair so many more options, including penalty Xs. I love it when opponents play these.

[sfi]

whereagles, on 2015-January-05, 08:12, said:

The multi 2♦ is a difficult opening to defend against.

It's really not if you're used to it - it's lack of familiarity that is the real problem. Beginners at our club play multi-twos and others play much stranger things. I taught my partner an effective defence in 5 minutes for her first national event 10 years ago and we've never seen the need to change it. In a new partnership among two good players, the discussion of a defence is generally much shorter than that. My feeling is that the incidence of strange (brown sticker) two-level openings has actually dropped in Australia over the years because most pairs handle them quite well now.

Of course, you could use the defence of one top US player, where page 26 had the chapter title of 'Doubles in fourth, sixth, and eighth positions.' Anything can be made complicated if you try hard enough.

[whereagles]

Well, designing the methods is the easy part. Judgement on when/how to use them is what's difficult.