transfer super accept

[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]

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]

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]

>"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]

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".

 

[hv=s=saxxxxhxdxxckxxxx]133|100|Uncontested

1N(15-17)-2H

2S-??[/hv]

 

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.