[Winstonm]

sceptic, on Nov 19 2006, 07:04 PM, said:

Super Accepting a Major

2NT 3 card maximum 2 hi honors
3 of major,  4 trumps all side suits controlled
3 of new suit,  4 trump maximum losers in suit bid

example
1NT 2D *xfer to H
2S      4 card maximum with bad S etc.

The responder is able to re- transfer over 2NT super accept.


This is what I was shown for major transfers, playing 15-17  would it be any use with a weak NT

This makes no sense to me.

First, the object of a super accept is to get to sub-high-card-strength games, which means opposite the right 6/7 count if playing strong NT. This requires a 9-card fit and working shortness/fits between the two hands.

Second, I would abandon the idea that any 3-card support is ever worth a super accept. If you have a prime 17 then you have a 2N rebid not a 1N opener. The concept of super fit is that opener's hand can produce an extra trick in the suit contract with a trump lead. Suppose you have AKx of spades and xx in clubs opposite xxx in clubs. Trump lead and continuations still leave you with 3 losers; however, AKxx of spades can take care of that third club loser regardless of leads.
That is the object of a super accept - to show this added value in the hand - not to distinguish 15-16 point hands from 17 point hands with 3-card support.

I would use a direct 3-level as minimum with 4-card support.
With a genuine super accept, bidding the weakness of the hand has some merit but reponder needs to know if this is xx or xxx or xxxx. In the former, a holding such as xxx, xxxx is prefered, while in the last two cases responder needs to hold the shortness.

I would use this over strong NT only:

2S over 2D or 2N over 2H shows a 4-card super-fit with no weak doubleton (obviously a 4243 hand type with xxx or xxxx) and asks responder with game interest to bid his shortness or else sign off in the major.

2N over 2D shows a super fit and a weak doubleton spade and natural bids over 2H show a doubleton and a super fit.

[keylime]

Superaccepts is one of the three main reasons why I migrated over to Keri - with a superaccepts opener gets some rights in the auction when it comes to invite hands that with a super accept from opener will go.

When I play somewhat more normalish methods, I do the superaccepts with a worthless doubleton routine; i.e. bid the doubleton that is worthless with 2NT being the replacement bid for the xfer.

[1eyedjack]

Winstonm, on Nov 20 2006, 12:54 AM, said:

My concept of a super accept is simple - it is a hand that due to the bidding now exceeds its stated range - the only possible way for a NT hand to improve its range is by rufffing values and fit.  Ergo, super accept bids should show the location of the ruffing value for fit purposes.  A 4333 hand can never be better than it was originally, even if a 5/4 fit is uncovered.

And IMO, any 4333 or 5/3 fit can never be a super accept - if it is that good it was misbid with a 1NT opening.

I only apply these priciples to strong NTs.

There are hands, when responder has considerable distribution but a shortage of high cards, in which responder has game ambition only with adequate trump control.

This may not be a great example but it is just "off the cuff".

Uncontested
1N(15-17)-2H
2S-??

---

As responder, I submit that
1) You have game ambition if partner opener has 4 Spades
2) Opener's 4th Spade is more important to you than his points (although controls are more important than quacks)
3) The possibility that opener is 4-3-3-3 does not significantly deteriorate his hand - it is your distribution, not his, that will provide both the source of tricks your way and protection from defensive tricks.

Thus, I would not like to bar opener from superaccepting with 4333 shape, although 4333 quacky hand I can understand.

If my example is not the best to illustrate the point I have no doubt that a better one can be constructed.

[mikestar]

Robert,

What you are not grasping is the tradeoffs involved in playing transfers over weak and especially very weak notrumps.

You are quite correct that transfers conceal weakness better in that 1NT-2♥ (transfer) may be invitational or better while 1NT-2♠ (natural) reveals weakness.

Now let's put you South and West opens 1NT, partner passes and East either transfers to or bids spades.

In the transfer case you risk more intervening on doubtful hands, so you will have to pass more often--but you are sure to get another chance: West completes the transfer and East passes, its back to you and you can now make any bid you would have made directly over a natural 2♠. It is also very likely that there are hands where it is reasonable to bid immediately even though the enemy might be inv+. You also get a free double of 2♥ to show the suit--opponents are unlikely to leave it in and if they do you only need six tricks rather than the eight you would need if you had bid 2♥ (in a different auction). So all in all it is rather like having 2 1/2 chances--your partnership has two bids after responders strength is known, but three after his suit is known.


In the natural suit case, your side has two bids after responder's strength and suit are known. Its (1NT)-P-(2♠) to you and if you don't bid now the auction will be over if partner can't balance. If you intervene and balance agressively, you are unlikely to get doubled, but you will either miss making games or get to hopeless games because your ranges will be too wide.

So the reality is that natural suits are harder for the defense to bid over than transfers--not enormously harder, but significantly harder. So in my opinion, natural responses to 1NT are superior when responder is weak.

It may well be that the increased efficiecy in game and slam auctions more than pays for this disadvantage in weak auctions--in fact I am very sure it does over a 14-16 or stronger, I think it breaks about even over a 12-14, and fails to justify the cost over 10-12 or weaker. I could be wrong, but it is a mathematical fact that there will be more signoff auctions when the NT opener has 10 points than when he has 15. Also the advantage of making it a harder for the defenders to bid accurately is likely to be greater when opener has 8 points (they might have slam) than when opener has 17 points (partscore is surely their limit barring very freak shape.)

So while you disagree with the "no transfers over weak notrumps" school and may even be objectively correct in doing so, they are quite rational--they focus on a different set of tradeoffs than you do, and may well be objectively correct. The question cannot be answered analytically, it requires empirical evidence.

A large scale statistical study of this question would seem to be quite desirable.

[ArcLight]

When super accepting, is showing a doubleton really that important?

Maybe for slam bidding? Which is infrequent, and it gives away information about the strong hand in the more common part score and game contracts. (90% of the time you give away unneeded information)


What is so important about showing a doubleton? (Maybe a weak doubleton (no A or K) as mentioned somewhere in Bergens "More Points Schmoints"?

[P_Marlowe]

ArcLight, on Nov 20 2006, 08:27 AM, said:

When super accepting, is showing a doubleton really that important?

Maybe for slam bidding? Which is infrequent, and it gives away information about the strong hand in the more common part score and game contracts. (90% of the time you give away unneeded information)


What is so important about showing a doubleton? (Maybe a weak doubleton (no A or K) as mentioned somewhere in Bergens "More Points Schmoints"?

It works similar as a short suit game trial,
i.e. responder can judge if his values fit.
=> Thats why it may make sense to bid
a worthless doubleton, but you dont always
have a "worthless doubleton", but this may
be a reason to downgrade opener.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[ArcLight]

>"It works similar as a short suit game trial, i.e. responder can judge if his values fit."


I understand the concept, but is showing a doubleton really that valuable?
With a Short Suit game try (a singleton) you have just one loser and pard can downgrade a king or some other holding.

If pard has a doubleton, that doesn't seem so important. Maybe if its a worthless doubleton, and you have 0 in that suit, (2 sure losers) it might be useful.

What are the disadvantages? How beneficial is this to the defense?

Does it net out? Is it a very slight plus? Does it work against weak players because they don't listen to the auction but hurt against stronger players?

[MickyB]

mikestar, on Nov 20 2006, 10:19 AM, said:

So all in all it is rather like having 2 1/2 chances--your partnership has two bids after responders strength is known, but three after his suit is known.

Wrong - your partnership only gets one bid after responder's strength is known. Weak takeouts gain when you put pressure on a (potentially) strong hand in 4th seat, leading to opps failing to compete or getting too high. Transfers gain when 2nd seat wishes to compete for the part-score, but makes the wrong decision in a live auction. Therefore, I believe that transfers are clearly superior except over a 1st seat 1NT opening, when I still believe that they compare favourably with weak take-outs.

Regarding super-accepting (or, indeed, raising a weak take-out); 2S is much more likely to buy the contract than 2H, therefore you should be keener to super-accept over 2D than 2H. This is complemented by using 1N:2C, 2red:2S as a 5 card invite. I'll usually superaccept with 4 card heart support, whatever the NT range, but when partner has spades I need a good hand on the bidding so far.

[Robert]

Hi mikestar

MickyB appears to also 'not get it.'

I know that there are tradeoffs in using transfers. I feel that the advantages are more than worthwhile to use transfers.

I strive to play in doubled(redoubled) lead directing bids 'because' the score is much higher and 'my partnership' gets to decide when to play there.

Free lead directing bids are not 'free.' You might pay off to a very large redouble.
You might push us into another 'better' game or we might now select a partscore 'as a result' or the free double.

If you are not getting doubled after 1NT-2H*-2S-p-p- please allow for the fact that my partnership 'is not' at your table. You are trying to make nine(9) tricks with my partnership 'knowing' that one partner has 12-14HCP 'plus' 2+ cards in any suit that you bid.

"If" you have a legal system that allows a 1NT-2S bid 'only when partner is weak'
I have not read/heard about it. My methods and I both expect all 'other' legal methods show a range of @ 0-10HCP here. Opposite a 12HCP hand the average holding is 8HCP. This average gives my partnership @20HCP. The odds on holding a zero HCP hand are something around 1,800-1 against. Partner is normally hold @ 7-10HCP when he signs off.

I fully agree that there are tradeoffs involved. I pick transfers because of their IMHO superior bidding results. The 'school of free doubles' bidders have paid a large cost in most of the hands 'where my partnership' decided to 'make them pay.'

Thanks for the very detailed explanation. We generally agree(except of the 'costs' of doubling and 'not getting 'doubled' when you compete over a 'sign off bid 'by any method.

Best Regards,
Robert

[P_Marlowe]

ArcLight, on Nov 20 2006, 08:52 AM, said:

>"It works similar as a short suit game trial, i.e. responder can judge if his values fit."


I understand the concept, but is showing a doubleton really that valuable?
With a Short Suit game try (a singleton) you have just one loser and pard can downgrade a king or some other holding.

If pard has a doubleton, that doesn't seem so important. Maybe if its a worthless doubleton, and you have 0 in that suit, (2 sure losers) it might be useful.

What are the disadvantages? How beneficial is this to the defense?

Does it net out? Is it a very slight plus? Does it work against weak players because they don't listen to the auction but hurt against stronger players?

Hi,

other player bid values.
I dont think it does really matter
one way or the other.

Regarding strong / weak players:

Strong defenders will know the
complete distribution of the NT
opener fairly fast, since the NT opener
already is marked with a 4-4-3-2
pattern, ... one 4 card suit being known.

Addition: Unless you play retransfer,
the NT will become dummy.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mikestar]

Robert,

As you said, we are in general agreement but weight the tradeoffs differently.

I did not make my point about the double of 2♥ well (and it's a minor one). The term "free double"was a poor one--what I was refering to was the ability to double the transfer suit when you have the sort of hand where you want to overcall in the transfer suit: (1NT)-P-(2♥)-X where 2♥ is a transfer is at least as safe as (1NT)-p-(2♦)-2♥ where 2♦ is natural and it is most certainly safer than (1NT)-P-2♠-3♥ where 2♠ is natural.

I agree that a lead directing double or a double showing length but not having values is quite dangerous.

[Winstonm]

1eyedjack, on Nov 20 2006, 02:04 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Nov 20 2006, 12:54 AM, said:

My concept of a super accept is simple - it is a hand that due to the bidding now exceeds its stated range - the only possible way for a NT hand to improve its range is by rufffing values and fit.  Ergo, super accept bids should show the location of the ruffing value for fit purposes.  A 4333 hand can never be better than it was originally, even if a 5/4 fit is uncovered.

And IMO, any 4333 or 5/3 fit can never be a super accept - if it is that good it was misbid with a 1NT opening.

I only apply these priciples to strong NTs.

There are hands, when responder has considerable distribution but a shortage of high cards, in which responder has game ambition only with adequate trump control.

This may not be a great example but it is just "off the cuff".

Uncontested
1N(15-17)-2H
2S-??

---

As responder, I submit that
1) You have game ambition if partner opener has 4 Spades
2) Opener's 4th Spade is more important to you than his points (although controls are more important than quacks)
3) The possibility that opener is 4-3-3-3 does not significantly deteriorate his hand - it is your distribution, not his, that will provide both the source of tricks your way and protection from defensive tricks.

Thus, I would not like to bar opener from superaccepting with 4333 shape, although 4333 quacky hand I can understand.

If my example is not the best to illustrate the point I have no doubt that a better one can be constructed.

I agree...but opener with less than a super accept + 4-card support in my methods bids 3 of the major.