[beatrix45]

Recently held:

Q62
KQ986
53
872

Partner opened a 15-17 NT. I Xfered with 2♦, and she bid 3♥. Is my hand good enough to bid 4♥ at matchpoints? Well, you can't fault a raise imo, but I'd really like more info. Why did partner have to jam the bidding so?

Why indeed? Why couldn't partner have bid her doubleton or, possibly, asked for my shortness in order to help untangle this mess. Has anyone been working on this? If so, what have they been up to?

Mike and Anders new hand evaluation theory absolutely begs for this kind of info, and as far as I can see their method seems to work.

[coyot]

Depends on what agreements you have.

I prefer to bid 3♥ with minumum and 4card (LOTT)
and show shape by bidding doubleton.

In that case, I'd probably pass, but not sure. If the bid shows maximum, no doubt about game.

I don't know what the odds for the game would be, but bidding [3HE] would be betting that partner has a working doubleton...

Another important factor in the decision would be what is the field like and whether we need to score or are happy with average on this board. In any aggresive-looking field, bid the game.

[Walddk]

You need an agreement about break of transfers. There are several ways of doing it, one of which is:

Transfer to hearts:
2♠: Worthless doubleton*), 4-card support, maximum.
2N: 4-card support, maximum, no worthless doubleton.
3♣: Worthless doubleton, 4-card support, maximum.
3♦: Worthless doubleton, 4-card support, maximum.
3♥: 4-card support, minimum.

*) Jx or worse.
Re-transfer applies when possible.
....

Transfer to spades:
2N: 4-card support, maximum, no worthless doubleton.
3♣: Worthless doubleton, 4-card support, maximum.
3♦: Worthless doubleton, 4-card support, maximum.
3♥: Worthless doubleton, 4-card support, maximum.
3♠: 4-card support, minimum.

Re-transfer applies when possible.

I am not saying that this is the best, but it's playable.

Roland

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I raise, it's clear at IMP's and I dont a lott different
playing MP.

Depending on the field, not everybody may play
Super Acceptance, in which case I may already be
to high.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Chamaco]

It seems to me that "shape-showing" superacceptance (e.g. worthless doubleton) MIGHT, 1 time out of 30, help bidding a miracle slam;
but, in my view, it i much more likely to help the defenders all the other times (where we stop in games), who will have a blueprint of declarer's hand already at trick 2, and they may use it to defeat the contract which would be otherwise difficult to break.

In general, especially in NT sequences, I hate to deliver information unless partner asked specifically for them: everytime they will be no use for him (most of the times), they will be more useful to defenders.

[whereagles]

Without any transfer break agreement, the super-accept feels naturally like a max hand. In this case I would bid 4.

[coyot]

Perhaps it would be worth NOT playing re-transfers here - when the declarer shows his worthless doubleton, seeing the strong hand as dummy might no longer give the statistical 1/4-1/2 trick to defense...

[Walddk]

coyot, on Aug 3 2005, 09:18 AM, said:

Perhaps it would be worth NOT playing re-transfers here - when the declarer shows his worthless doubleton, seeing the strong hand as dummy might no longer give the statistical 1/4-1/2 trick to defense...

I think it's better to let re-transfers be on, because the strong hand is more likely to have AQ and/or KJ tenace(s) to protect.

Roland

[helene_t]

Besides, even with re-transfer you can still just jump to game if you want to declare.

I agree with Mauro that showing doubletons help the opps more than it helps partner. I think opener should just bid the step (2♠ over 2♦, 2NT over 2♥) and then responder can show a singleton or concentration of strength or whatever you agree. I admit that the options are limited, if opener breaks 2♦ with 2♠ and 3♦ is re-transfer, only 2NT and 3♣ are available as game tries. That is a reason for not playing re-transfers.

[mike777]

1) Good grief you are closer to slam than pass
2) see point one
3) Play useful xx not useless.

[Chamaco]

helene_t, on Aug 3 2005, 07:40 AM, said:

Besides, even with re-transfer you can still just jump to game if you want to declare.

I agree with Mauro that showing doubletons help the opps more than it helps partner. I think opener should just bid the step (2♠ over 2♦, 2NT over 2♥) and then responder can show a singleton or concentration of strength or whatever you agree.

Perhaps a good compromise is to use a superaccept method that allows to convey an *undisclosed* worthless doubleton, which can be queried by responder via a relay.

E.g., something like that (I'm sure many people on this Forum can rework the scheme with better nuances, but you get the idea)

1NT-2D
-2H = "normal hand"
-2S = 4 card support max, undisclosed worthless doubleton, 2N asks
-2NT = *3 card support* max
- 3C= 4 card support MAX, no worthless doubleton
- ......
- 3H = 4 trumps, minimum

1NT-2H
- 2S = "normal hand"
- 2NT = 4 card support max, undisclosed worthless doubleton, 3C asks
- 3C= *3 card support* max
- 3D= 4 card support MAX, no worthless doubleton
- ......
- 3S = 4 trumps, minimum

===============================

I still think it's a big info delivered to opps, even if the doubleton is undisclosed, but it seems to me a better compromise

[1eyedjack]

My gut feel was to raise at IMP, pass at MP. LTC appears to be 8 opposite (expected) 6, suggesting raise. But something smells about that evaluation (possibly overvalues the S:Q, and not sure if the 5th Heart compensates). I can construct loads of 17 count 1N openers with 4 card support where game is poor. Would be interested to know what Zar recommends. I would not be surprised if Cobra recommends 3NT.

A regular partnership should of course make use of all bids up to 3H (3D being an arguable exception) to distinguish transfer breaks (which will of course still employ 3H as one of the options), but it is clear that there is no agreement here. Without an agreement it would be dangerous to assume that any bid other than 3H will be correctly interpreted. A doubleton is suggested, but he might just as easily be bidding a concentration of values (or even of weakness). Without agreement a blanket 3H raise with any maximum and 4 card support is a practical bid.

[Walddk]

Chamaco, on Aug 3 2005, 10:01 AM, said:

-2NT = *3 card support* max
....
- 3C= *3 card support* max

I think it's a bad idea to break the transfer with 3-card support.

Roland

[Chamaco]

Walddk, on Aug 3 2005, 08:07 AM, said:

I think it's a bad idea to break the transfer with 3-card support.

Could be, I have not enough experience about that.

After seeing some top italian players use 2NT as superaccept with a max and HHx trumps support (3 cards) , I have started to adopt it without disasters so far, in the last 1.5 year, but the sample is way too limited (it came out rarely) to be able to evaluate its effectiveness.

[000002]

1NT-2♦

4 card support max

-2♠ = S k or q ,MB a doubleton
-2NT = doubleton C or D, NOT S k/q
-3♣/♦ = NOT C/D k/q
- 3♥ = no doubleton, no side k/q

1NT-2♥ .....

Under 5-4 fit ,I think reponser's singleton as the same important to openner's doubleton. y?or no?



thanks ! & sry for my poor english !

[helene_t]

Walddk, on Aug 3 2005, 10:07 AM, said:

I think it's a bad idea to break the transfer with 3-card support.

I tend to agree. Especially playing strong 1NT with an unpassed partner since we may end up in slam in the wrong denomination.

[kgr]

After strong 1NT: Superaccept with 4-card support, minimum
Do top players play this? I know it supports LOTT, but I would think it gives you more disadvantages then advantages (going down on 3-level compared to opps that find a good bid if you don't superaccept)?
And certainly: 1NT-2H-3S Superaccept with 4-card support, minimum. What is the advantage of this?

[mikeh]

super-accept with 4 card minimum, catering to the Law, seems misplaced even at mps. You have already got by both opps by the time opener rebids after the transfer. And a simple acceptance, followed by a pass, conceals the extent of the fit, so 4th chair is unlikely to balance... these sequences are still probably the least competitive of any low level auction. Thus the cost of getting too high, voluntarily, probably outweighs the occasional successful preempt of the opps. This is especially true in ♠, where opener can compete to the 3-level later if need be. I have never seen an auction in which the opps can balance at the 3-level after a strong 1N and then compete to the 4-level! (I am sure such auctions have occurred, but I have not seen one) Even in ♥, where there is some risk of being outbid in♠, it is very unlikely that the opps, having both passed initially, will compete to 3♠: they are usually only too happy to have survived their push of you to the 3-level.

[hrothgar]

Couple quick comments

1. I really don't worry much "telegraphing" my weak doubleton to the defense. How often are the opponents going to be able to tap me when I'm in a 9 card fit. Hell, the whole reason to DESCRIBE the weak xx is to tell partner that we want to be ruffing the suit in question. The bid might telepgraph a trump lead, but thats likely to pick up the suit for us...

2. Its entirely possible that there are better treatments than showing a weak doubleton. Its trivial to derive treatments in which

A. Step = max NT, 4 card support and weak doubleton
B. Step + 1 <-> Step +3 = ???
C. Raise = main NT with 4 card support

The question quickly becomes: IF you don't want to use this bid to show a max NT opener with a weak doubleton, then what should the bid mean? Concentrated values in the suit? Help suit (xxx or xxxx in the suit)? O suspect that part of the appeal of the doubleton treatment is lack of a better alternative.

[Chamaco]

hrothgar, on Aug 3 2005, 09:27 AM, said:

Couple quick comments

1.  I really don't worry much "telegraphing" my weak doubleton to the defense.  How often are the opponents going to be able to tap me when I'm in a 9 card fit.  Hell, the whole reason to DESCRIBE the weak xx is to tell partner that we want to be ruffing the suit in question.  The bid might telepgraph a trump lead, but thats likely to pick up the suit for us...

The risk of "telegraphing" the weak doubleton to the defense is NOT to be tapped, but that they can read right away the location of the honors in the closed hand.

Quite often this is the key for defenders to decide whether or not making a risky return and defeat the contract.

Defenders will know the hcp range, that you have a 4432 shape, and that all the hcp are outside the announced doubleton.
That's quite a lot for good defender to get the max from their defense, and the number of times this is offset by the possibility to bid a miracle slam is negligible compared to the number of games that will be set thanks to such info.