jacoby superaccept

[jmcw]

[hv=pc=n&s=skqthkqj95dj5cat8&n=sj9752ha87d32cj32&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1np2hp3dp3hp3sp]266|200[/hv]

 

3♦ showed a max with dub ♦, 3♥ was a retransfer, whats your last call pass or 4♠?. Soft defence allowed 4♠ to make.

 

Some discussion afterward leads me to believe I need better methods for super accepts! any suggestions?

[mike777]

for starters have 4 card support 100% of the time.

 

Now you will always have a 9 card fit at the three level.

[Vampyr]

 

Some discussion afterward leads me to believe I need better methods for super accepts! any suggestions?

 

On frequency grounds, you may decide you need "worse" methods for super-accepts. My regular partner and I use only one super-accept (the next suit up, leaving 2NT for a super-suitable hand with HHx). Often the only thing responder cares about is whether there is a super-accept or not, and the other times you will be building a road map for the defense.

 

Also this method leaves a bid (2 in the case of a transfer to hearts) besides the re-transfer for responder to use as a game try. Opener should reject this on the basis of having only three spades and only one ace. Or responder could have decided that his flat shape (including duplicated diamond doubleton) was not suitable for a game try.

[jmcw]

for starters have 4 card support 100% of the time.

 

Now you will always have a 9 card fit at the three level.

 

I have played that way, but this hand just seemed too good!

[blackshoe]

It's good. It's not that good.

[ggwhiz]

By agreement we play that a new suit as in 3♦ here shows a max with a 5 card suit of some quality as in a side source of tricks with 3 trumps.

 

A jump to 3 of the transfer suit shows a max with 4 OR 3, suit oriented ie. with a poor doubleton.

 

2nt is a more generic max with 3.

 

We could choose 3 hearts (my preference) or 3 spades with this hand but should not get to game either way. If the super accept was 3 clubs showing a quality 5 bagger and 3 trumps it's closer but I'm still stopping.

 

By no means perfect but I really prefer the new suit to show a 5 bagger of some quality instead of the doubleton.

[jmcw]

It's good. It's not that good.

 

Perhaps, but game is good opposite The ♣K and a Major Ace.

or even ♣ shortage and a Major Ace.

 

However, I'm more interested in how these borderline games game be investigated.

It's when responder has a decent 6 or 7 that the superaccept will be most useful provided he knows if his values are well placed.

[mike777]

Perhaps, but game is good opposite The ♣K and a Major Ace.

or even ♣ shortage and a Major Ace.

 

However, I'm more interested in how these borderline games game be investigated.

It's when responder has a decent 6 or 7 that the superaccept will be most useful provided he knows if his values are well placed.

 

 

for starters with jx of d 5 great h and 16 high boys you might start 1h and not 1nt. I open alot of offshape nt hands but I like 1h here.

 

 

But ya this is a tough deal to bid.

[nigel_k]

There have been threads on this before. IIRC the consensus was that it's better to superaccept with the first step every time (here 2NT). This is because it conceals information about the declaring hand on the very large percentage of deals where responder will choose the level immediately on hearing of a superaccept opposite. If responder is still unsure they can make a further move/

 

On the three vs four card support issue (just my opinion not a consensus) I think three card superaccepts are fine. A good five card side suit is comparable to having a fourth trump, though the hand type is less common because with a maximum and good five card suit you would normally have upgraded out of the 1NT opening. It's not a situation to apply LOTT, firstly because LOTT doesn't work anyway and second because you have probably shut them out already so going down one at the three level when they could have made something is still a loss in all the cases where they would not have bid.

[the hog]

[hv=pc=n&s=skqthkqj95dj5cat8&n=sj9752ha87d32cj32&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1np2hp3dp3hp3sp]266|200[/hv]

 

3♦ showed a max with dub ♦, 3♥ was a retransfer, whats your last call pass or 4♠?. Soft defence allowed 4♠ to make.

 

Some discussion afterward leads me to believe I need better methods for super accepts! any suggestions?

 

South does not have anything like a superaccept on this hand.

For me a s/a ALWAYS shows 4.

3M min with4/5

2NT max with 4 chunky

3 another - or 2S over a t/f to H. Max with a small xx in the suit bid.

[wank]

if you feel the need to break on a 3 card suit, it means the hand was too strong to open 1NT in the first place, as here.

[whereagles]

Why are people annoyed at the lack of 4 card support? Give opener a 44 majors instead of 5-3 and it's the same thing. This isn't a game for bean-counters. It's for thinking heads and opener's superaccept is perfectly fine.

 

Anyway, 3S is an acceptable contract. Superaccepts will always be dangerous bids because you can find pard with squat. You can only solve this with highly unusual methods, like

 

1NT 2C = 4+ hearts. If 5 then can be weak. If 4 then inv+. Opener bids 2D if he would superaccept a transfer.

1NT 2D = 4+ spades. As above.

 

and even then you'd be opening holes elsewhere.

[jmcw]

for starters with jx of d 5 great h and 16 high boys you might start 1h and not 1nt. I open alot of offshape nt hands but I like 1h here.

 

 

But ya this is a tough deal to bid.

 

It's the hand type I think is tough.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skqthkqj95dj5cat8&n=sj9752ha87d6432c2]133|200[/hv]

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skqjhkqj95d75cat8&n=st9752ha87d32cq32]133|200[/hv]

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skqjhkqj95d75cat8&n=st9752ha87d32ck32]133|200[/hv]

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skqjhk52d75cakt84&n=st9752ha87d432cq3]133|200[/hv]

 

Game is good on 3 and has chances on the fourth. Can you bid them without a superaccept?

[mike777]

deal one, two and three I start:

 

1h=1s

2c=2h

2s=?

[Trinidad]

Why are people annoyed at the lack of 4 card support? Give opener a 44 majors instead of 5-3 and it's the same thing.

The reason is not the actual hand partner held. The reason is a hand like: ♠xxxxx♥xxx♦xx♣xxx (same distribution, but less HCP).

 

If you hold:

♠KQT5

♥KQJ9

♦75

♣AT8

you will probably go down about 2 in a 3♠ contract (losing 1 spade, 1 heart, 2 diamonds and 2 clubs). Meanwhile, the opponents are likely to have 0-1 losers in spades, 1-2 losers in hearts, no losers in diamonds and 1 in clubs. They can take about 10 tricks in diamonds. Conclusion: Bidding to 3♠ will probably lead to -100, which is better than -130. Therefore, 3♠ is ok.

 

If you hold:

♠KQT

♥KQJ95

♦75

♣AT8

(the actual hand) you are odds on to go down 3 in a 3♠ contract (losing 2 spades, 1 heart, 2 diamonds and 2 clubs). And in diamonds they will have about 1 loser in spades, 1 loser in hearts and 1 loser in the minors, like before. Again, they can make 10 tricks in diamonds. Conclusion: Bidding to 3♠ will probably lead to -150, which is worse than -130. Therefore, 3♠ is NOT ok.

 

Your five card heart suit only yields the same tricks as the extra trump if the opponents cannot take their tricks immediately, i.e. if responder has controls. But if responder has controls, he will usually not pass 2♠ and you will still be able to show your maximum after partner's invitation (or slam try).

 

Rik

[whereagles]

If you wanna bean-count, it's fine by me...

[aguahombre]

The reason is not the actual hand partner held. The reason is a hand like: ♠xxxxx♥xxx♦xx♣xxx (same distribution, but less HCP).

 

If you hold:

♠KQT5

♥KQJ9

♦75

♣AT8

you will probably go down about 2 in a 3♠ contract (losing 1 spade, 1 heart, 2 diamonds and 2 clubs). Meanwhile, the opponents are likely to have 0-1 losers in spades, 1-2 losers in hearts, no losers in diamonds and 1 in clubs. They can take about 10 tricks in diamonds. Conclusion: Bidding to 3♠ will probably lead to -100, which is better than -130. Therefore, 3♠ is ok.

 

If you hold:

♠KQT

♥KQJ95

♦75

♣AT8

(the actual hand) you are odds on to go down 3 in a 3♠ contract (losing 2 spades, 1 heart, 2 diamonds and 2 clubs). And in diamonds they will have about 1 loser in spades, 1 loser in hearts and 1 loser in the minors, like before. Again, they can make 10 tricks in diamonds. Conclusion: Bidding to 3♠ will probably lead to -150, which is worse than -130. Therefore, 3♠ is NOT ok.

 

Your five card heart suit only yields the same tricks as the extra trump if the opponents cannot take their tricks immediately, i.e. if responder has controls. But if responder has controls, he will usually not pass 2♠ and you will still be able to show your maximum after partner's invitation (or slam try).

 

Rik

Careful, Rik. The problem with your analysis (excellent, I might add), is that it is totally parallel to the logic of LOTT. And forum regulars have decided that LOTT doesn't work :rolleyes:

[TylerE]

I would suggest that (at least) one of the following is not true.

 

1. You play 15-17NT

2. This is a max hand opposite a ♠ transfer.

[nigel_k]

Careful, Rik. The problem with your analysis (excellent, I might add), is that it is totally parallel to the logic of LOTT. And forum regulars have decided that LOTT doesn't work :rolleyes:

It's not a matter of opinion. Double dummy analysis shows that total trumps is equal total tricks less than half the time when there are 18/19 total trumps. With more total trumps it is even worse. Most times you cannot afford to be off by a trick. For example, when they compete with 3♦ over your 2♠, you should continue to 3♠ if there are 19 total tricks but not if there are 18. If you rely on LOTT you are getting these hands wrong most of the time.

 

Of course it is easy to come up with hands where LOTT works, especially if you are allowed to include hands that are barely consistent with the auction and you get to simply stipulate how many tricks each side takes.

[the hog]

If you wanna bean-count, it's fine by me...

 

It is not "bean counting", Nuno. It is playing winning bridge.

[Trinidad]

Careful, Rik. The problem with your analysis (excellent, I might add), is that it is totally parallel to the logic of LOTT. And forum regulars have decided that LOTT doesn't work :rolleyes:

And they are absolutely correct... some of the time. The key is to know who is correct on the particular hand that you are playing. ;)

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

It's not a matter of opinion. Double dummy analysis shows that total trumps is equal total tricks less than half the time when there are 18/19 total trumps. With more total trumps it is even worse. Most times you cannot afford to be off by a trick. For example, when they compete with 3♦ over your 2♠, you should continue to 3♠ if there are 19 total tricks but not if there are 18. If you rely on LOTT you are getting these hands wrong most of the time.

 

Of course it is easy to come up with hands where LOTT works, especially if you are allowed to include hands that are barely consistent with the auction and you get to simply stipulate how many tricks each side takes.

I know, the LOTT is terrible.

 

Did you ever run such a double dummy analysis for the Milton Work count? You will see that it is considerably worse than the LOTT.

 

Does that mean that we should throw the HCPs out of the window? No, it doesn't. It just means that we should use our brains too. There is a reason why Walrusses are losing bridge players. But on some hands, the Milton Work count works nicely for its purpose. And on some hands (in fact more hands), the LOTT works nicely for what it was meant for. The key to good bridge is to realize what is wrong with the Milton Work count and what is wrong with the LOTT and then adjust your bidding accordingly.

 

I find it easy to first count our HCPs, evaluate how many tricks those are worth and then look whether I see reasons why I will take more or less tricks (i.e. how HCPs will be wrong). It certainly beats counting honor tricks, or "just guessing" without looking at HCPs.

 

In a similar way, I find it easy to estimate the total number of tricks using the LOTT and then look for reasons to be optimistic or pessimistic. For me, it works better than just going blind without considering the number of trumps.

 

Predicting something and having a good idea how your prediction is wrong is actually pretty good compared to not having any predicting tool at all.

 

Rik

[aguahombre]

Some people call those negative and positive adjustments.

[nigel_k]

The given hand has secondary honours in the long suits, no secondary honours (except ♣10) in the short suits, and a side source of tricks. Everything about the hand suggests that total tricks will exceed total trumps. If people are still saying a superaccept is wrong on this hand because there is no fourth trump, it doesn't sound to me as though any adjustments are actually being made. And the people proposing a rule that there is no superaccept without a fourth trump are obviously not using LOTT as merely a starting point.

 

The Milton Work point count is not comparable because it is used early in the auction when there is little or no information about the other hands. LOTT is used late in the auction to make a decision about whether to pass, bid or double when there is much more information about the other hands. The alternative of making the decision based on judgment and experience instead of a formulaic approach is better in the latter case but not the former.

[mike777]

The given hand has secondary honours in the long suits, no secondary honours (except ♣10) in the short suits, and a side source of tricks. Everything about the hand suggests that total tricks will exceed total trumps. If people are still saying a superaccept is wrong on this hand because there is no fourth trump, it doesn't sound to me as though any adjustments are actually being made. And the people proposing a rule that there is no superaccept without a fourth trump are obviously not using LOTT as merely a starting point.

 

The Milton Work point count is not comparable because it is used early in the auction when there is little or no information about the other hands. LOTT is used late in the auction to make a decision about whether to pass, bid or double when there is much more information about the other hands. The alternative of making the decision based on judgment and experience instead of a formulaic approach is better in the latter case but not the former.

 

 

I strongly disagree. If you think LOTT has any meaning below game level you superaccept with only 4 cards.

 

 

Fought the Law, Lawrence, I own but it never seemed to gain much traction in bridge lit.

 

 

OTOH if your argument is LOTT is not helpful and is in fact harmful in comp auctions then that is another thread.

-------------

 

 

 

IN any event I open 1h with this hand type not 1nt and I open 1nt offshape very very often.

 

 

 

W