[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Sep 2 2005, 02:37 PM, said:

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?

Quote

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).

Quote

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]

inquiry, on Sep 2 2005, 09:58 PM, said:

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]

mikeh, on Sep 2 2005, 04:27 PM, said:

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.

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]

officeglen, on Sep 2 2005, 10:55 PM, said:

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.