Another dumb bridge idea?

[hrothgar]

What's the point of gifting away points to the opponents?

 

One of these days, you will hopefully learn that the singular of data is anecdote.

Isolated, cherry picked examples are not interesting.

[Cyberyeti]

Folks, its doing away with super-accepts altogether. How is the opener supposed to differentiate between the hand in the OP and this one?

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt9haj95dkqjcqj5&w=sa86hkq32dt52ca97&n=sj3ht8764d43ckt42&e=sk7542hda9876c863&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1n(15-17%20HCP)p2d(Transfer)p]399|300[/hv]

If West passes in tempo, by super-accepting you have just succeeded in getting your side into an even higher unmakeable contract. The defence is going to win 6-tricks, 2 in ♠, 2 in ♥, 1in ♦, and 1 in ♣. What's the point of gifting away points to the opponents?

 

So I dialled -100 in 3♥ when the rest of the world lost 110 in 2♠, and if I bid 3♥ over 2♠ I went for 300, seems OK to me.

[nige1]

In my youth, I played "Automatic Aces" e.g. over 1N - 2♦ -; ??

• - 2♥ = 2-3 ♥
• - 3♥ = MIN 4+♥ (or no keycards).
• - 2N = MAX 4+♥ 3433
• - 2♠/3♣/3♦ = MAX 4+♥ 3/1/2 Key cards (4 As and ♥K)

We played a weak notrump. If you play a strong notrump, you can increment the key-card requirements. I was persuaded that this method leaked too much information :(

[Lord Molyb]

Would you super-accept with a transfer to hearts with ♠KT9 ♥QJTx ♦AKTx ♣Kx? What if you turn a small diamond into the jack?

[manudude03]

I've always felt that when it comes to superaccepts, showing doubletons is going in the wrong direction. I prefer to show where my tricks are (and 2NT if there is no particular trick source). So with Lord Molyb's hand, I would superaccept by bidding 3H as a trick source in diamonds (I never bid 3D).

[johnu]

Superaccepting gains 0% of the time and loses 100% of the time

 

Maybe you and 32519 could write a book about this dumb idea. You could make up 1000 examples where superaccepting gets a bad result. 1 made up example doesn't prove anything, but 1000 made up examples pretty much makes the case.

[akwoo]

Would you super-accept with a transfer to hearts with ♠KT9 ♥QJTx ♦AKTx ♣Kx? What if you turn a small diamond into the jack?

 

My preference for a super-accept system is to bid a good second suit. As a general system rule, I prefer systems that show strengths rather than weaknesses. (For example, I don't like help-suit game tries.) The weakness information is more useful to the defense (especially on opening lead) than the strength information, and for partner they are about equally useful.

 

In this case, playing such a system, I bid 3♦ red and 2♥ black. (Qxxx♦ and a black ace from partner gives me a good enough odds for game red but not black.) If the T♦ is a J, I bid 3♦ at any color.

[32519]

IMO the merits or flaws of superaccepts are irrelevant on the deal given.

One of these days, you will hopefully learn that the singular of data is anecdote.Isolated, cherry picked examples are not interesting.

Maybe you and 32519 could write a book about this dumb idea. You could make up 1000 examples where superaccepting gets a bad result. 1 made up example doesn't prove anything, but 1000 made up examples pretty much makes the case.

I think all of you are missing the gist of my post. When partner has a bust (as in hand 2) you are just gifting the opponents the plus score with your super-accept.

When partner's hand has life, he can invite by lifting 2M to 3M.

With a reasonable hand as in the OP, partner can bid 3NT as a choice of places to play. Unfortuneately, as already pointed out, on the actual hand 3NT scores worse than 4♥.

That's all part of the game.

[chasetb]

Superaccepting gains 0% of the time and loses 100% of the time

Maybe you and 32519 could write a book about this dumb idea. You could make up 1000 examples where superaccepting gets a bad result. 1 made up example doesn't prove anything, but 1000 made up examples pretty much makes the case.

John, I think kuhchung meant on THIS HAND that Superaccepting gains 0% of the time and loses 100% of the time. Of course, nobody should super-accept with the hand given.

 

32519, you need to understand that points are not the be-all end-all in hand evaluation. In a suit contract, shape and quality/location of points is far more important than having the points. 4333 hands should generally be downgraded a point. If partner shows shape, Aces and Kings (your Quick Tricks) are far more valuable than Queens and Jacks. If you change the example 1NT hand (which I would open 1NT, because of the Major suit spots) to something like ♠AT9 ♥AJ95 ♦KQJx ♣xx , it's a clear super-accept. Despite ONLY 15 HCP, you have 4-card support for partner, you have a ruffing value, and you have both quick tricks and tricks that easily develop.

 

Like some of the posters, I also have assigned meanings to my super-accept bids. I only use 3 of them though - 2NT to show a maximum hand (not HCP, controls + 4-card support) with a worthless doubleton, 3M-1 to show a super-accept that wants partner to declare (like the example hand I gave), and 3M to show a non-maximum super-accept.

[32519]

So I dialled -100 in 3♥ when the rest of the world lost 110 in 2♠, and if I bid 3♥ over 2♠ I went for 300, seems OK to me.

You're also missing the point. In the second hand, move the ♥Q (or ♥K) into the East hand and 2♥ makes. Say you are playing in a team-of-4 match and your team has reached the knockout stages. There is one board left to play and the two teams are neck-and-neck, who goes through all hinges on the result of the last board. You are in the open room with the hand in the OP, partner transfer to ♥ and you super-accept going down 1 in 3♥. In the closed room the opponents are more disciplined, the transfer is done into 2♥, passed all round and made. How do you intend defending yourself before your very angry teammates in the closed room?

 

A dumb bridge idea got your side eliminated!

[chasetb]

I think all of you are missing the gist of my post. When partner has a bust (as in hand 2) you are just gifting the opponents the plus score with your super-accept.

When partner's hand has life, he can invite by lifting 2M to 3M.

With a reasonable hand as in the OP, partner can bid 3NT as a choice of places to play. Unfortunately, as already pointed out, on the actual hand 3NT scores worse than 4♥.

That's all part of the game.

East screwed up by NOT interfering - (s)he can easily show Spades and a minor suit (I use X of the transfer to show that). You are also forgetting (or ignoring) that you DO NOT SUPER-ACCEPT WITH THAT HAND because of the reasons listed in my post. Coming from someone who doesn't attack you, I think you should listen.

[johnu]

John, I think kuhchung meant on THIS HAND that Superaccepting gains 0% of the time and loses 100% of the time. Of course, nobody should super-accept with the hand given.

 

I'm sure kuchung can clarify his own remarks. This might be a lousy hand to superaccept, but even on the hand above that post, the superaccept may keep the opponents out of spades which would be a measurable gain above 0%. And if partner had a hand just short of an invitation, game is a possibility which again would be a measurable gain above 0%.

[johnu]

I think all of you are missing the gist of my post. When partner has a bust (as in hand 2) you are just gifting the opponents the plus score with your super-accept.

When partner's hand has life, he can invite by lifting 2M to 3M.

With a reasonable hand as in the OP, partner can bid 3NT as a choice of places to play. Unfortuneately, as already pointed out, on the actual hand 3NT scores worse than 4♥.

That's all part of the game.

 

Don't the opponents ever have a part score or even game their way when you open 1NT and partner has a bust and you have a 9+ card fit? Have you heard of preemptive bids?

 

Partner may have life, but can't move after you accept the transfer because their hand isn't worth a game try without a known very good trump fit.

 

If partner has an invitational hand, what do you lose by superaccepting?

[Antrax]

Folks, its doing away with super-accepts altogether. How is the opener supposed to differentiate between the hand in the OP and this one?

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt9haj95dkqjcqj5&w=sa86hkq32dt52ca97&n=sj3ht8764d43ckt42&e=sk7542hda9876c863&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1n(15-17%20HCP)p2d(Transfer)p]399|300[/hv]

If West passes in tempo, by super-accepting you have just succeeded in getting your side into an even higher unmakeable contract. The defence is going to win 6-tricks, 2 in ♠, 2 in ♥, 1in ♦, and 1 in ♣. What's the point of gifting away points to the opponents?

I can't believe you didn't go with my idea. Look how well it works:

2♥-(P)-P-???

S will usually have a weak 2 in hearts, so W couldn't act directly over it. N knows from his own hand that S has a 3=4=3=3 hand with less than 4 controls. Now E is in a bind. Should he balance and risk finding out S had the weak 2 variety and N has a lot of points and heart shortness? And even if he wanted to balance, what with? 2♠ shows both minors and X is keycard in clubs as per the suggested defense. He could bid 2NT showing 5-5 in the higher unbid suits but what if west is 2=3=2=5?

This is much better for N/S than the "standard" auction. They end up a level lower and in a single round of bidding, putting tremendous pressure on the opponents.

[gwnn]

John, I think kuhchung meant on THIS HAND that Superaccepting gains 0% of the time and loses 100% of the time. Of course, nobody should super-accept with the hand given.

No, he is referring to this post:

Let me say it again: My side gains 100% and your side 0%.

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/64559-introducing-a-new-convention-lee-two-diamonds/page__p__776016#entry776016

 

For future reference, if someone in a thread of 32519's says something incredibly asinine, chances are they are quoting some past post of his.

[StevenG]

I choose to cut superaccepts out of my game at MPs. I'm not at all sure why they are such a good idea.

 

In an uncontested auction, as long as responder invites game on any hand where he would have bid game after superacceptance, you have lost nothing.

 

People are quoting competitive auctions where the bidding goes 1NT - (pass) - transfer - (pass) - transfer completion/superaccept, and then opponents compete and find a good contract. That rarely happens in my world. In fact I have no recollection of it ever happening. Does it at elite level? How often?

 

On the other hand, superaccepting frequently takes you too high on hands where you have nothing and you lose big. Perhaps this is to some extent related to the fact that I play in a weak NT environment. I suppose that with a strong NT, you are more likely to be getting to a playable contract at the three level, even if responder is weak.

 

I appreciate that the ridicule heaped on the idea of never superaccepting may be based on who the OP is, but I'd like to see a more reasoned debate.

[helene_t]

Well superaccepting has many benefits. It allows you to bid games opposite a shapely 6-7 count (9-10 if you play weak NT). And it clarifies the 4-card support which is cool for slam bidding.

 

But I take your point that opps don't bid over your 3M that often anyway. Maybe, especially at MPs, we should superaccept in spades only with really juicy hands, but in hearts (where opps might have a good sac in spades) more aggressively.

[32519]

I choose to cut superaccepts out of my game at MPs. I'm not at all sure why they are such a good idea.

 

In an uncontested auction, as long as responder invites game on any hand where he would have bid game after superacceptance, you have lost nothing.

 

People are quoting competitive auctions where the bidding goes 1NT - (pass) - transfer - (pass) - transfer completion/superaccept, and then opponents compete and find a good contract. That rarely happens in my world. In fact I have no recollection of it ever happening. Does it at elite level? How often?

 

On the other hand, superaccepting frequently takes you too high on hands where you have nothing and you lose big. Perhaps this is to some extent related to the fact that I play in a weak NT environment. I suppose that with a strong NT, you are more likely to be getting to a playable contract at the three level, even if responder is weak.

 

I appreciate that the ridicule heaped on the idea of never superaccepting may be based on who the OP is, but I'd like to see a more reasoned debate.

There yer go all you wannabe self-proclaimed experts. I've given this guys post an upvote. :)

[32519]

Well superaccepting has many benefits. It allows you to bid games opposite a shapely 6-7 count (9-10 if you play weak NT).

Agh please man! Who plays transfer bids opposite a weak NT? By far more popular is to play 2♣ as game invitational Stayman, 2♦ as game forcing Stayman, with 2♥ and 2♠ natural.

[Zelandakh]

Agh please man! Who plays transfer bids opposite a weak NT?

As it happens I do. As does almost everyone in the Acol Club. It is true that most of the Weak NTers here in Germany play 2-way Stayman though. The point of transfers here is not right-siding so much as getting a more efficient use of the available bidding space. In my strong club system it also means that the same system can be used over all of 1NT ... 1♣ - 1♦; 1NT ... and 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥ - 1♠; 1NT, which is nice on the old brain cells in an otherwise (fairly) complicated system.

[gordontd]

Agh please man! Who plays transfer bids opposite a weak NT?

Almost all tournament players in the UK, the home of the weak NT.

 

By far more popular is to play 2♣ as game invitational Stayman, 2♦ as game forcing Stayman, with 2♥ and 2♠ natural.

You make the mistake of thinking that what is true in your own little world is universal.

[rhm]

Folks, its doing away with super-accepts altogether. How is the opener supposed to differentiate between the hand in the OP and this one?

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt9haj95dkqjcqj5&w=sa86hkq32dt52ca97&n=sj3ht8764d43ckt42&e=sk7542hda9876c863&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1n(15-17%20HCP)p2d(Transfer)p]399|300[/hv]

 

Superaccepting gains 0% of the time and loses 100% of the time

I choose to cut superaccepts out of my game at MPs. I'm not at all sure why they are such a good idea.

 

In an uncontested auction, as long as responder invites game on any hand where he would have bid game after superacceptance, you have lost nothing.

 

People are quoting competitive auctions where the bidding goes 1NT - (pass) - transfer - (pass) - transfer completion/superaccept, and then opponents compete and find a good contract. That rarely happens in my world. In fact I have no recollection of it ever happening. Does it at elite level? How often?

 

On the other hand, superaccepting frequently takes you too high on hands where you have nothing and you lose big. Perhaps this is to some extent related to the fact that I play in a weak NT environment. I suppose that with a strong NT, you are more likely to be getting to a playable contract at the three level, even if responder is weak.

 

I appreciate that the ridicule heaped on the idea of never superaccepting may be based on who the OP is, but I'd like to see a more reasoned debate.

Hands you open 1NT might be suitable for high level contracts or they might be not. They can be improved by finding a trump suit or they might not:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt9haj95dkqjcqj5&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1np2dp]133|200[/hv]

 

obviously does not. The 4 card heart suit is nice, but that's it

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sat92haj95dk52ca3&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1np2dp]133|200[/hv]

 

This one gets terrific and is now substantially worth more than 15-17 HCP, closer to 19.

 

Note that opposite

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sat92haj95dk52ca3&n=sj3ht8764d43ckt42]133|200[/hv]

 

game is quite reasonable. I would not bid game with the North hand opposite a super-accept because South does not need to be quite so suitable.

But make North slightly stronger say

 

[hv=pc=n&n=sk3ht8764d43ckt42]133|100[/hv]

 

and I would happily bid game opposite a super-accept. but would not dream of doing anything but pass over 2♥. Not only am I too weak opposite 15-17, the heart suit is terrible.

Unless you start to understand hand evaluation, you will never get anywhere in this game.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[kenberg]

I appreciate that the ridicule heaped on the idea of never superaccepting may be based on who the OP is, but I'd like to see a more reasoned debate.

 

First I am no expert and second I have not kept any data, but here is how it seems to me.

 

As I mentioned earlier, partner wants to play 3M super-accepts with almost any four card support. A direct 3M shows 4, a non-max and balanced, for example. My preference is to have the super-accept available but to use it sparingly. Maybe I have a 17 count with some tens, maybe I have a fine 16 count with a suitable (hopefully suitable) doubleton, something of that sort.

 

My experience is that when I do that I don't often go down and when I do go down the result is not all that bad. On the upside, partner sometimes bids game on a hand that is a bit short what he would usually invite with.

 

I agree with what I take to be your view that "If you have nine trump get to the 3 level immediately" has been seriously oversold. It's true that of we have nine cards in M then they must have 8 cards in some suit X, but having that fit and finding that fit are two different things. Hence my lack of enthusiasm for (almost) always super-accepting. But there are times it is useful and I do it.

 

I have not kept records of success/failure but it does not seem as if I have often regretted it.

 

If I were to agree that 1NT-2D-3C shows a super accept with a doubleton, I think I would like the doubleton to be xx. Partner can see exactly what xx is worth to him. If it could also be Qx, with correspondingly lesser values elsewhere, then the worth of the doubleton is harder to evaluate.

[aguahombre]

1N-2D

2H-2N

4H. I would do it at the table, and be pleasantly surprised later that our -1 outscored the thinkers in 3NT and pushed with the inspired who languished in 2NT. A polite well-done to anyone stopping in 3H.

[kuhchung]

thanks gwnn

 

edit: ugh Rainer took it literally too