And yet another 6-level decision

[Finch]

Frances, you have gotten into a contradiction: first you argue one should always respect pard's judgement, and then you give an example of a hand where you'd bid 7. Where do you stand after all?

Let's see what I said:

 

I said "I might be able to construct a hand on which I'd bid 7 (Axx AK Axx AQxxx for example), but it would a very rare hand with lots of honours in partner's suits, not one where I know some of the honours will be wasted."

 

and then I said

 

"I'm going to do what I'm asked to do - chose between 6C and 6H - because I trust partner, and if a grand is making opposite this (good, but not exceptionally so) hand then partner would have gone more slowly"

 

There is no contradiction there at all.

 

I am a general believer in maintaining partnership discipline, but I can think of possible hands - maybe 0.1% of relevant hands, maybe even less - on which I might break discipline, but it's very, very rare. I wouldn't dream of over-ruling partner on a down-the-middle maximum such as this one which. The only time I would ever break discipline it is when I cannot construct a hand opposite, consistent with the auction, where grand won't be essentially cold.

[Finch]

Do you have any evidence to suggest that frequency of superaccept sequences opposite a micro or weak 1NT open differ in any significant way from super-accept sequences opposite a strong NT opening?

This is slightly off-topic, but FWIW I super-accept a major suit transfer MORE frequently over a mini than over a strong NT. This is because I think the pre-emptive effect of the super-accept is more important after a mini.

 

If I open a strong NT and I break the transfer and go off at the 3-level opposite nothing I might well have gone one off against nothing. If I have opened a 10-count they were probably making something.

 

To extent that further: I break after opening a strong NT on most decent hands with 4-card support (maybe 70% of 1NT openers). I only break after opening 2NT if I want to be in game opposite a hand that would have passed the transfer completion.

[whereagles]

1.

Whereagles is way off base when he uses, in support of his methods, reference to 1N 2♥ 4♠. I know of no good partnership that would incorporate that into their agreements.

 

2.

What whereagles misses is that the super-accept of a transfer is a necessity imposed on a partnership by the constraints of bidding space.

 

3.

the 2N opening as a slam killer.... it is a space consuming bid over which most casual partnerships have few and usually crude methods. Yet even for unsophisticated partnerships, there is a LOT of bidding space available for the exchange of information. It is this availability of bidding space that is critical.... and 'bidding space' is a concept that many non-expert players seem to under-appreciate. (...) When whereagles says that it is okay for the stronger hand to make unilateral decisions, it is because he does not understand bidding space and its use,

 

4.

or the inferences to be drawn from its non-use.

 

5.

Responder could have involved opener in the decision to an extent far beyond 'choice of small slams'. Responder could have used the available bidding space to collaboratively explore the placement of the final contract. When responder refuses to do so, opener has NO rights to do other than answer the simple choice of small slams question posed by the auction.

1. If your intention is to show disdain for my ideas, just say it fair and square. No need to use arguments out of context. Also, why do you speak of me in 3rd person? It sounds like you're in some court, speaking to a judge. Are you a lawyer or something?

 

2. Do you really believe I would forget that? Suppose that, for some obscure systemic reason, were forced to open 2NT on a balanced 15-17. Now pard transfers to a major. Would you ever superaccept that? Probably not, because you don't have neither the playing strength nor the total trumps for doing that. This is a case where space constraints force might incite you to make a superaccept but strength considerations inhibit you from doing it. See my point now (that you can mastermind a superaccept to 4 because you're strong), or are you going to evade the issue by saying "I'd never open 2NT on a balanced 15-17."?

 

3. Where did you get the silly idea that I don't know what bidding space is for? Of course I know how crucial bidding space is after 2NT. Do you think I agree with pard's bidding? Of course not.

 

4. Pick your favorite partnership. Are you 100% sure what the original auction shows? What inferences can you draw from it? I'm almost certain you can't much of the bid, apart from the fact that pard should have a void.

 

5. Mainstream conservative thinking, which I believe I left clear I don't fully agree with.

 

 

You know what? I believe the best argument against 7♥ was made by jdonn. He simply said in his experience bidding 7 under these circumstances led to bad scores, so he wasn't bidding 7. This comment isn't scientifically backed; yet is probably worth 200 pages of discussion.

[whereagles]

1.

There is no contradiction there at all.

 

2.

I am a general believer in maintaining partnership discipline, but I can think of possible hands - maybe 0.1% of relevant hands, maybe even less - on which I might break discipline, but it's very, very rare. I wouldn't dream of over-ruling partner on a down-the-middle maximum such as this one which.

1. Well, I think there is, but ok, you clear it out below.

 

2. So basically you agree with me in that you can break discipline with special hands. It's just that your judgement of how close the original hand is to being special is different than mine. I don't find this hand to be "down-the-middle". Actually, I find it pretty special, but I certainly accept you don't agree with me.

 

Perhaps someone can calculate the chance of 2NT opener having this hand on the given auction. I bet it's below 0,1%!

[whereagles]

Do you have any evidence to suggest that frequency of superaccept sequences opposite a micro or weak 1NT open differ in any significant way from super-accept sequences opposite a strong NT opening?

Hum.. not sure what you mean, but if making the contract is your main concern, then you'd probably superaccept more often with strong hands than with weak ones. In practice it doesn't work that way, as there are other considerations, like the ones Frances mentioned.

[mikeh]

1. If your intention is to show disdain for my ideas, just say it fair and square. No need to use arguments out of context. Also, why do you speak of me in 3rd person? It sounds like you're in some court, speaking to a judge. Are you a lawyer or something?

When I am addressing myself to you, I write to you. When I am addressing my comments to that small proportion of BBF readers still reading this thread, I use the 3rd person in referring to your posts. Despite your desire to make this a personal correspondence between yourself and those of us who post disagreements with you, the truth is (I hope) that these posts, including all of the arguments and bald assertions will be read by some who will want to weigh the merits of the arguments (and discount the bald assertions)... it was to those that I addressed my third-person comments re your posts. Here, I am responding directly to you, hence I refer to 'you', not to 'whereagles'.

 

BTW, your reference to 'arguments out of context' is a device often used by those who cannot defend their position logically: if you find yourself unable to respond logically, you accuse the other of arguing out of context... you did it on an earler thread after I quoted several posts by you to show that you have a mastermind complex, you claimed that I had misquoted you... despite the fact that I had got every word precisely as you had written them. You may fool yourself, but you fool no-one else.

[luke warm]

maybe josh's argument was the only one that you can accept, but i can't figure out why it's hard to understand the partnership issue... to play a p'ship game, or at least to play it with the same partner, there *has* to be a level of trust there...

 

what if you'd been wrong? what if partner, going by your example, does the same thing next time and he's wrong? do you see mistrust building up? i do... i'd simply bid 6H on the given hand because that's what partner judges the hands to be worth... unless i think his judgments are, in general, very poor i can't see overruling him... even if they were poor i can't see it... it's a team game

[Blofeld]

Perhaps someone can calculate the chance of 2NT opener having this hand on the given auction. I bet it's below 0,1%!

Well if you mean 'this hand specifically' then of course it's far below 0,1% - but any hand would be!

 

If you mean 'a hand this good or better' (the sensible question, I think), I expect that the answer is somewhere between 1% and 10% ; we have at least one wasted king, and possibly two and/or a wasted ace. We don't have a brilliant fit for partner, either.

[Finch]

1.

I am a general believer in maintaining partnership discipline, but I can think of possible hands - maybe 0.1% of relevant hands, maybe even less - on which I might break discipline, but it's very, very rare. I wouldn't dream of over-ruling partner on a down-the-middle maximum such as this one which.

 

2. So basically you agree with me in that you can break discipline with special hands. It's just that your judgement of how close the original hand is to being special is different than mine. I don't find this hand to be "down-the-middle". Actually, I find it pretty special, but I certainly accept you don't agree with me.

 

Perhaps someone can calculate the chance of 2NT opener having this hand on the given auction. I bet it's below 0,1%!

I believe, based on your other comments and this hand, that you are more likely to consider a hand 'special' than I do. I suggested 1 in 1000 hands though it might be rarer. Mikeh also suggested a hand on which he might bid 7, and overall my thoughts are much the same as his.

 

Of course the chance of having this particular hand as a 2NT opener is very low; the chance of any particular 2NT opener is very low. For me to raise to the 7 level on this auction I would have to have:

 

- All 4 aces

- No heart loser, which means a holding such as AK, AKQ (possibly AKJ).

- No club loser, which effectively will mean AQxxx. AKxxx would also do, but Axx AK Axx AKxxx isn't a 2NT opener.

 

(you can swap hearts & clubs round, but then I'd have broken the transfer)

 

that seems to be exactly the hand I quoted, namely Axx AK Axx AQxxx. On reflection, that's a long way under 0.1%.

 

Perhaps part of what's causing so much opprobrium is that you seem to be in a minority in thinking this hand is exceptional opposite hearts and clubs. Obviously it's a nice hand, but at least one, possibly both, of the pointed kings is wasted; one of the pointed aces might be wasted and you only have 6 points in partner's suit. I would say it's a good enough hand that I expect slam to make: partner only needed a good enough hand to bid slam if it was going to be at least 50% or so.

 

Yes, you could be a lot worse, but with KQJx QJx AKQJ Jxx I wouldn't very surprised if the small slam went off.

[whereagles]

maybe josh's argument was the only one that you can accept, but i can't figure out why it's hard to understand the partnership issue... to play a p'ship game, or at least to play it with the same partner, there *has* to be a level of trust there...

 

(...) i'd simply bid 6H on the given hand because that's what partner judges the hands to be worth...

Sure, you have to give pard credit for knowing what he's doing. But I wouldn't demand pard to visualize such a well-fitting hand. I've underbid hands like this in the past, precisely because I thought "Pard knows what I have. He knows I can have this hand, so 6 must surely be the limit." Truth is, he cannot.

 

Unless the sequence "transfer + jump to 6" is an agreed bid, showing exactly this or that hand, I think one has the right to be a little inventive on such an independent hand as a 2NT opener.

[whereagles]

1.

When I am addressing myself to you, I write to you. When I am addressing my comments to that small proportion of BBF readers still reading this thread, I use the 3rd person in referring to your posts. Despite your desire to make this a personal correspondence between yourself and those of us who post disagreements with you, the truth is (I hope) that these posts, including all of the arguments and bald assertions will be read by some who will want to weigh the merits of the arguments (and discount the bald assertions)... it was to those that I addressed my third-person comments re your posts. Here, I am responding directly to you, hence I refer to 'you', not to 'whereagles'.

 

2.

BTW, your reference to 'arguments out of context' is a device often used by those who cannot defend their position logically: if you find yourself unable to respond logically, you accuse the other of arguing out of context...

 

3.

You may fool yourself, but you fool no-one else.

1. Why you would want to address to the "general reader" is beyond me. Especially when no one asked you for clarification. You have your reasons, I guess.

 

 

2. Which is exactly what you've done when you mentioned that no one uses a sequence such as 1NT-2H-4S... I've said

 

"For illustrative purposes, let's consider this bidding sequence: 1NT-2H-4S"

 

you said (not literally):

 

"But that's nonsense because no one uses that sequence."

 

What on Earth does one thing have to do with the other!?

 

 

3. I'm not trying to fool anyone. What's your point?

[whereagles]

Perhaps part of what's causing so much opprobrium is that you seem to be in a minority in thinking this hand is exceptional opposite hearts and clubs. Obviously it's a nice hand, but at least one, possibly both, of the pointed kings is wasted; one of the pointed aces might be wasted and you only have 6 points in partner's suit. I would say it's a good enough hand that I expect slam to make: partner only needed a good enough hand to bid slam if it was going to be at least 50% or so.

I admit that my bid was optimist. But at table I had this overwhelming feeling that 7 was right. What can I do? I sure ain't gonna fight my feelings. They're right more often than I am!

[jdeegan]

:P Bidding 7♥ is crazy. Partner has asked you a question, and you need to answer it. Plus, your hand isn't particularly good given the bidding. One or both pointed suit kings are useless and the heart J may add little. An extra good hand on this auction would be:

 

Axx

AQ10x

Axxx

AK

 

Despite the conditions of the problem, I do like the idea of bidding 6♦ as an invitation to 7♥.