[fromageGB]

I'm the oddball here. I can't really see that whether you have a max or a min makes any difference, as the 1NT range is pretty tight and partner may be any strength. Or does your partner have an agreed minimum to make a transfer?

Mine seem to have zero points upwards, usually nearer to zero than the upwards. I gave up super accept after looking at travellers to find that we went one more off than anyone else in the room.

The idea of preempting the opponents doesn't make much sense. They have both already elected to pass. The only reason for someone to come into the bidding later would be if they thought we had a good fit with length. Are they more likely to protect when we have a possible (and statistically probable) 7 card fit, or to protect one level higher when we have a guaranteed minimum of a 9 card fit? The latter, surely.

So as my answer is the oddball one and everyone likes to super accept, my I ask why?

[jdonn]

fromageGB, on Nov 8 2008, 04:11 PM, said:

So as my answer is the oddball one and everyone likes to super accept, my I ask why?

Because some hands become so good when partner transfers to the right suit, that they are now worth more than a 1NT opening bid in support of that suit and just bidding 2 risks missing game. AJT KQxx AKxx xx you are telling me when partner transfers to hearts you don't think you could miss game very easily by bidding 2♥? He won't pass with xxx Axxxx xx xxx? That he might pass a superaccept as well with that hand only further proves the point...

[fromageGB]

Thanks, but I'm not convinced. If he goes on to a winning game with xxx Axxxx xx xxx, will he not go on to the losing game with xxx Axxxx xxx xx ?

This is perhaps more useful in IMP scoring than matchpoints, I guess, and a variation on the Dicklont idea could be to superaccept by bidding the useless doubleton.

[pclayton]

fromageGB, on Nov 8 2008, 02:02 PM, said:

Thanks, but I'm not convinced. If he goes on to a winning game with xxx Axxxx xx xxx, will he not go on to the losing game with xxx Axxxx xxx xx ?

This is perhaps more useful in IMP scoring than matchpoints, I guess, and a variation on the Dicklont idea could be to superaccept by bidding the useless doubleton.

I don't think Josh's example is very convincing, but there's plenty of hands in the 5-7 point range that will gladly bid game over a super-accept but pass 2♥.

For Fromage's point to be valid, there needs to be hands that don't get overboard in 4M when pard super-accepts with a minimum.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Nov 8 2008, 04:35 PM, said:

fromageGB, on Nov 8 2008, 04:11 PM, said:

So as my answer is the oddball one and everyone likes to super accept, my I ask why?

Because some hands become so good when partner transfers to the right suit, that they are now worth more than a 1NT opening bid in support of that suit and just bidding 2 risks missing game. AJT KQxx AKxx xx you are telling me when partner transfers to hearts you don't think you could miss game very easily by bidding 2♥? He won't pass with xxx Axxxx xx xxx? That he might pass a superaccept as well with that hand only further proves the point...

Also, partner is entitled to have game-forcing values. I'm sure his possible interest in slam may be helped along if he knows that you have four-card support and good controls rather than Quacks. It is also a lot easier for partner when trumps are set.

The flip-side of the game-invite scenario is that Responder can more often safely pass at the two-level with tweener hands.

[Free]

I only super accept with maximum, 4-card support, and no wasted values in a specified doubleton (= Ax, Kx or xx).

[mike777]

Free, on Nov 9 2008, 01:40 AM, said:

I only super accept with maximum, 4-card support, and no wasted values in a specified doubleton (= Ax, Kx or xx).

great..great


1)
how do you know you do not have wasted values in specified xx.....wonderful...expert bidding.....

2) many seem to say a minimum is a max.hand....... cute........

[jdonn]

fromageGB, on Nov 8 2008, 05:02 PM, said:

Thanks, but I'm not convinced. If he goes on to a winning game with xxx Axxxx xx xxx, will he not go on to the losing game with xxx Axxxx xxx xx ?

This is perhaps more useful in IMP scoring than matchpoints, I guess, and a variation on the Dicklont idea could be to superaccept by bidding the useless doubleton.

It's very useful in all forms of scoring, I promise. He would pass a superaccept with that hand and miss game when it's making. The problem is he would pass 2♥ with even better hands.

BTW if he is Axxxx of hearts and (332) in the other suits, clubs is least likely doubleton since it's your shortest suit, and diamonds is most likely since it's your longest suit.

[kenrexford]

mike777, on Nov 9 2008, 02:30 AM, said:

Free, on Nov 9 2008, 01:40 AM, said:

I only super accept with maximum, 4-card support, and no wasted values in a specified doubleton (= Ax, Kx or xx).

great..great


1)
how do you know you do not have wasted values in specified xx.....wonderful...expert bidding.....

2) many seem to say a minimum is a max.hand....... cute........

Some people (not me) identify the doubleton by bidding it. That resolves that -- he asks partner if his guess was right.

[Free]

mike777, on Nov 9 2008, 08:30 AM, said:

Free, on Nov 9 2008, 01:40 AM, said:

I only super accept with maximum, 4-card support, and no wasted values in a specified doubleton (= Ax, Kx or xx).

great..great


1)
how do you know you do not have wasted values in specified xx.....wonderful...expert bidding.....

2) many seem to say a minimum is a max.hand....... cute........

1. You use a lot of points (but you don't have one) and talk like a drunk. And you're giving me advice like you're a world class player This is hilarious! Btw, this is 2/1 forum, not expert/advanced, so if you want to take a shot at me, do it in the right place "mister 8000+ useless posts".

2. A max is a max, not a min. Perhaps you change your agreed rules at the table, I don't.

[kenrexford]

For the strange skeptics...

If you have opened 1NT and partner has shown five spades, then how many cover cards do you see when you have the following hands?

♠KQxx ♥AKxx ♦Axx ♣xx? This looks like five honor covers plus a ruffing value.

♠KJxx ♥Jx ♦Axx ♣AKxx? This looks like four covers plus the same ruffing value. If the opponents have doubled the 2♥ transfer bid, that doubleton seems well-placed, and a 3♥ call seems to be likely if they can bid it.

♠AJx ♥AJx ♦AJx ♣Jxx? This looks like three covers with no ruffing values.

If you can easily have a fit but anywhere from three covers with no ruffing value up to five covers and a ruffing value, or up to 3 tricks more than a minimum, for the same 16-count, then a 1NT opening is not so tight a range.

[CSGibson]

My partner's have convinced me to play down 1 (superaccept to the 3 level with a minimum, show a doubleton with a max & 4, or bid 2N with a max 4-3-3-3). I am not at all convinced that this is good bridge, but they play so much of my crap that I feel compelled to play some of theirs.

[y66]

Quote

If you can easily have a fit but anywhere from three covers with no ruffing value up to five covers and a ruffing value, or up to 3 tricks more than a minimum, for the same 16-count, then a 1NT opening is not so tight a range.

Nice post Ken.

[fromageGB]

kenrexford, on Nov 9 2008, 03:16 PM, said:

For the strange skeptics...

Thank you Ken, you've persuaded me again. I 'll speak to my regular partners.