[kenberg]

I will give you a hand in a moment, but here is the setting. Rho deals and opens 3C, alerted as a transfer preempt in diamonds. If we are prepared, this gives us options that we do not have over a 3D opening. I can double immediately, I can bid 3D, I can wait and come in later, trusting that 3C is not likely to be passed out. And, of course, I can make the same 3H or 3S or 3NT bid, or others, that I would have made over an immediate 3D.

My question, in this situation and in others where the oppents use unusual transfers is how to take advantage of the opportunity.

Here is the hand that brought this up. Imps with everyone vul. The 3C is a transfer to diamonds.

---

I am not particularly asking what I should do here, I think any call might be right or wrong, I am asking, with this or other hands, how to take advantage of the fact that I have more options than would be available over a 3D opening.

For example, a double here could be used as a general strength showing bid, maybe more strength than this, but w/o showing any particular shape. We could sort through shape later.

This is intended as a pretty open ended question.

[mgoetze]

Double = takeout of diamonds
3♦ = Michaels

You can't allow yourself to get lured into not having a takeout double available, because when it goes 3♣-p-5♦ you will be sorry.

[hrothgar]

I am used to playing double = peanlty and cue = takeout.

With this hand, I would pass, and then double if 3D gets passed back to me

[Phil]

Standard defense is double = takeout, pass and then double is penalty.

So nice of them to give you an equal level cue bid. Seriously, transfer preempts are one of the worst things ever invented.

I'd probably x.

[1eyedjack]

hrothgar, on 2016-February-27, 18:57, said:

I am used to playing double = peanlty and cue = takeout.

I don't think that I would like to cue on a hand that partner would convert a t/o X. But I guess that you can't have everything, even if on balance you do have more than without the tfr.

[ggwhiz]

We've kept it simple along our multi defense lines since we rarely come across it.

Double is the strong notrump type of balanced hand, convertible and the 3♦ cue is takeout and I guess includes 2-suiters here since 2nt is not available.

[kenberg]

Phil, on 2016-February-27, 19:11, said:

Standard defense is double = takeout, pass and then double is penalty.

So nice of them to give you an equal level cue bid. Seriously, transfer preempts are one of the worst things ever invented.

I'd probably x.

Do I correctly conclude from this that you play an immediate 3D as first or second round control, presumably with a significantly stronger hand?


I am thinking (no promises) of writing up some sort of sheet of default meanings for bids in such situations. I won't say a lot for r against transfer preempts although it seems odd. You preempt to take away bidding space, using a transfer preempt gives the space back, at least partially. But only of the opponents have their act together. I was worried that an immediate undiscussed X might be taken as showing clubs so I passed. Lho bid 3D and this was passed out. I am sure I should not have passed, but I was having onoe of those days where whatever I chose to do I should have done something else. Partner might have doubled the 3D but presumably figured that if that were right then I would have a chance to do it myself. I didn't, I should have.

The full hands:

---

At the time E bid 3C, the three remaining hands could have been permuted in any of six equally likely ways, so it would be good to be able to handle any of these. Of course the cards might be arranged differently among the hands also, yes.

Anyway, I am interested in settling on what the agreements should be. I am stuck with my limitations of judgment. Doubling at my second turn, as long as it is not taken as penalty, seems right.

[PhantomSac]

They gave you an (almost) free t/o X, take it!

Obviously doubling a normal 3D opener for takeout carries more risk, when LHO has a strong hand you might just get buried. But when they open 3C and you double for takeout of diamonds, you are not in danger (unless they play pass shows clubs and LHO has both a very strong hand and very strong clubs, but in that case it sounds like you have a major suit fit).

I understand you didn't have any agreements but by far the most important default agreement is that X=t/o.

For instance, 2S p 2N asking, X=takeout of spades, that is normal obv. But 2H p 2S (asking), undiscussed, X=t/o of hearts, default rule. etc etc.

[Phil]

kenberg, on 2016-February-28, 13:36, said:

Do I correctly conclude from this that you play an immediate 3D as first or second round control, presumably with a significantly stronger hand?

No its still Michaels but now you have 3D and 4D available.

[kenberg]

Interchanging the S and W hands we get:

---

This, potentially, works well with the "Pass then X=penalty" agreement. Although I might be a little hesitant having not heard from partner. And a lot of tings are just right so 3NT may well roll in if the transportation can be handled. A bit tricky I think.

Of course first NS must have agreements, and that was in large part what i was getting at. For example, defending against a multi-2D I usually construe
2D-P-2H-P
P-X
as showing a hand that is on the light end for a take-out double, at least if an immediate 2D-2H shows a full strength take-out.

As mentioned, i am not on ny campaign about various methods, but I do think that part of the reason these methods are successful in I/A settings is that opponents have not discussed the meaning of their own bids over these actions.


With the transfer preempts, it seems that there are some pluses for the opponents even without discussion. Consider the auction 3C-X-3D. Fourth hand has an option that would be unavailble had the auction gone 3D-X-Pass. Namely Pass. Thus 3C-X-3D-3H should how some values. In situations such as this shape is often more important than highs, but maybe that 3H should be something like an 8 count, maybe with a decent suit. With less, Pass and see if partner doubles again.

I don't often encounter transfer preempts, but it interests me at least as an amusement. And who knows, maybe it will come up again?

[Tramticket]

We also play a double as take out and a pass then double as a penalty double.

One variation that we have encountered is a transfer pre-empt as a two-way bid: either a standard weak preempt or a strong two-suiter. Have others encountered this? We elected to base our defence on the assumption that the bid is weak (the strong two-suiter seems to be the rarely used option). Any thoughts?

[mgoetze]

Tramticket, on 2016-March-01, 14:01, said:

Have others encountered this?

Yes.

Quote

We elected to base our defence on the assumption that the bid is weak (the strong two-suiter seems to be the rarely used option).

Yes.

Quote

Any thoughts?

Good.

[kenberg]

As you can see by the title and my initail comments, I am encouraging other questions about other preempts of this transfer sort so i found the above very interesting.

[Zelandakh]

Tramticket, on 2016-March-01, 14:01, said:

One variation that we have encountered is a transfer pre-empt as a two-way bid: either a standard weak preempt or a strong two-suiter.

This is basically the normal form. For one well-known variation see Ben's New MisIry notes.