[whereagles]

@hanp: thx. Really suprised the odds favor overbidding.

[gnasher]

It didn't need a simulation to tell us that the two-suited overcall increases the chance that we have a red-suit fit.

A priori, RHO will on average have 3.25 spades. The Michaels cue bid tells us that he has at least five. If RHO has an above-average number of spades, that reduces the number of red cards that we can expect him to have. Some of those red cards will go to partner.

The same argument applies to the club suit (with less certainty because RHO might have diamonds).

However, this effect also increases LHO's expected red-suit length. That is, they increase the chance that our suits will break badly. The practical effect of this is that after a two-suited overcall it becomes a lot more important to find a nine-card fit. Hence this conclusion:

Quote

the odds favor overbidding.

is rather suspect.

[Cascade]

The best way to explore for our 9-card fit is to bid our six-card suit immediately.

When this is non-forcing it also limits the amount of trouble that we can get into if we happen to have a misfit.

My simulations showed that we had around 15% chance of having no fit.

[gwnn]

yay learned how to use the deal program. thanks for the little intro hanp.

[ewj]

well this thread is the same hand as
http://forums.bridge...showtopic=40146

we should probably have lost the match as the other table bid 3♦ on the responding hand but for some reason the opener merely bid 5♦...

feels like transfers after michaels are quite a nice idea

[hanp]

Cascade, on Jul 5 2010, 05:45 PM, said:

The best way to explore for our 9-card fit is to bid our six-card suit immediately.

When this is non-forcing it also limits the amount of trouble that we can get into if we happen to have a misfit.

My simulations showed that we had around 15% chance of having no fit.

Could you show your specifications? That's big difference with my 9%.

[gnasher]

ewj, on Jul 6 2010, 07:33 AM, said:

feels like transfers after michaels are quite a nice idea

I don't think you need treat Michaels auctions as a special case. I just play the same after

  1♠ (2♠) showing hearts

as after

  1♠ (2♥) showing hearts

(except for the meaning of double)

[hanp]

You can do whatever you like gnasher, but that doesn't mean these auctions are similar.

[jdonn]

Yes I think it's a clear mistake to play those auctions the same.

[gnasher]

OK, so what are the arguments for playing different methods in those two sequences?

[jdonn]

You want to be able to penalize (which you do allude to by saying you play the double differently) since Michaels is often bid on light hands, it forces them to the 3 level, and the suits are usually just 5 cards.

You worry about being preempted since they have two possible suits.

You worry about preempting them since they can also bid Michaels on unlimited hands and they don't know one of their suits yet.

You have little need to show both minors at once over Michaels since they have a minor, but that is important to be able to do over 2♥.

[hanp]

To be fair, gnasher did say

Quote

(except for the meaning of double)

and at least two of your reasons are about double.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Jul 6 2010, 05:37 PM, said:

You want to be able to penalize (which you do allude to by saying you play the double differently) since Michaels is often bid on light hands, it forces them to the 3 level, and the suits are usually just 5 cards.

You worry about being preempted since they have two possible suits.

You worry about preempting them since they can also bid Michaels on unlimited hands and they don't know one of their suits yet.

You have little need to show both minors at once over Michaels since they have a minor, but that is important to be able to do over 2♥.

OK, so how should these factors lead to differences in your methods (apart from the meaning of double).

Or, looking at it from another perspective, how do your favourite methods in these two auctions differ, and why?

[pooltuna]

gnasher, on Jul 6 2010, 10:02 AM, said:

OK, so what are the arguments for playing different methods in those two sequences?

We get more diffentiation between types of hands that hold ♥?

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Jul 6 2010, 12:25 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 6 2010, 05:37 PM, said:

You want to be able to penalize (which you do allude to by saying you play the double differently) since Michaels is often bid on light hands, it forces them to the 3 level, and the suits are usually just 5 cards.

You worry about being preempted since they have two possible suits.

You worry about preempting them since they can also bid Michaels on unlimited hands and they don't know one of their suits yet.

You have little need to show both minors at once over Michaels since they have a minor, but that is important to be able to do over 2♥.

OK, so how should these factors lead to differences in your methods (apart from the meaning of double).

Or, looking at it from another perspective, how do your favourite methods in these two auctions differ, and why?

Essentially it argues for two things. Being able to penalize them (double) and bidding over the Michaels bid whenever you can feasibly do so (transfers) which lets you both preempt and avoid being preempted more effectively.

To be fair I rarely have played this, but I'm sure it's much better than playing new suits forcing and 2NT natural (perhaps you play it as a raise though).

[gnasher]

In both sequences I play:
- 2NT and 3♣ are transfers
- 3♦ is a good 3-card raise
- 3♥ is a good 4-card raise
- 3♠ is a weaker raise.

In both sequences I think that's superior to bidding naturally.

I'm not saying that exactly the same hands make the same bids in the two sequences. Obviously there are some hands that would double Michaels but transfer to a minor over a 2♥ overcall, and some hands that would bid 3♠ over Michaels but only 2♠ over 2♥.

The point I was making was that if you're going to switch from natural to transfers over a Michaels cue bid, you should also switch from natural to transfers over a 2♥ overcall, because the arguments for doing so are the same.

[MickyB]

I have been trying to work out why I feel instinctively that there is more advantage to playing transfers over 1S 2S than over 1S 2H.

There is no advantage to having a natural 2NT available on the first auction, so you aren't losing anything by definining it as a transfer. Hardly a big issue to give that up over 1S 2H too though, many already play it as a good 4-card raise, which you can just as easily use 3♦ as (or 3♥, as Gnasher does).

Playing transfers can wrong-side 3NT when responder has clubs and give oppo a double of our transfer bid. Maybe the wrong-siding is more of an issue on the natural auction, but it hardly seems unimportant on the Michaels auction.

In short, what I'm trying to say is that I think my instinct is wrong, and I should probably be playing transfers on both auctions.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Jul 6 2010, 12:59 PM, said:

The point I was making was that if you're going to switch from natural to transfers over a Michaels cue bid, you should also switch from natural to transfers over a 2♥ overcall, because the arguments for doing so are the same.

I thought I just pointed out that they aren't. Anyway I won't repeat myself.

[gnasher]

I used to have the same instinct - I have been playing transfers over Michaels since some time in the 1990s, but I only started playing transfers after 1S (2H) two years ago.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Jul 6 2010, 10:27 PM, said:

I thought I just pointed out that they aren't. Anyway I won't repeat myself.

You've described some differences between the two auctions, but I can't see any explanation of why the arguments for playing transfers don't apply to both sequences.

Let me put it this way:

(1) After 1♠ (2♠), transfers work better than natural methods because they allow you to show two different ranges of 3♣/3♦ bid, and they give you an extra way to raise to 3♠. Those benefits more than compensate for the loss of a natural 2NT bid. There is no obviously better scheme of three-level bids than transfers.

(2) After 1♠ (2♥), transfers work better than natural methods because they allow you to show two different ranges of 3♣/3♦ bid, and they give you an extra way to raise to 3♠. Those benefits more than compensate for the loss of a natural 2NT bid. There is no obviously better scheme of three-level bids than transfers.

Which of those statements do you disagree with?