neilkaz Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 Why would I super accept with a flat 16 count that is control poor and not well suited to a trump contract? I have no ruffing value and nothing more than the 16 count expected from my 15-17 NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 Why would I super accept with a flat 16 count that is control poor and not well suited to a trump contract? I have no ruffing value and nothing more than the 16 count expected from my 15-17 NT.That would be one of those rhetorical questions I would expect from Partner if I had super-accepted ---she wouldn't expect an answer, and I wouldn't have an excuse anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 I will say that: - I play transfers over a weak NT. I used to didn't, but I'm now playing Keri (which has serious disadvantages in a strong NT context, which mostly go away in a weak NT one), and transfers are required to make it work. Of course, we have a 2-level transfer to diamonds...The extra sequences are very useful, and seem to be worth the lower preemption inherent in the transfer. - The number of times they interfere over the transfer (either by doubling the transfer or bidding 2♠ over 2♦, or some combination that causes fifth-hand to bring in their suit on the second round) is quite high; how many times the direct bid would shut them out is arguable. I agree with Kuhchung, by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuhchung Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 I will say that: - I play transfers over a weak NT. I used to didn't, but I'm now playing Keri (which has serious disadvantages in a strong NT context, which mostly go away in a weak NT one), and transfers are required to make it work. Of course, we have a 2-level transfer to diamonds...The extra sequences are very useful, and seem to be worth the lower preemption inherent in the transfer. - The number of times they interfere over the transfer (either by doubling the transfer or bidding 2♠ over 2♦, or some combination that causes fifth-hand to bring in their suit on the second round) is quite high; how many times the direct bid would shut them out is arguable. I agree with Kuhchung, by the way. Wait, agree with what? Also, 2D transfer vs 2H natural doesn't exactly shut out 2S. I also really have no stake in this thread. I just posted that one initial reply because I thought it was funny and now I'm here discussing this argh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 I just think that the (long term) difference in playing strength between, on the one hand a minimum opener with doubleton support, and on the other hand an opener with an extra 2 HCP, 4 card support and side doubleton, is such a huge chasm that attempting to wrap up all invitational hands into a transfer accepted just places too great a burden on responder. Superaccepting increases the accuracy, but not to the level of perfection. No-one who superaccepts would claim that it always works. Constructing specific hands where it fails does nothing more than confirm what was never in dispute: that sometimes it fails. But that is not a reason to buck the longer term numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 I just think that the (long term) difference in playing strength between, on the one hand a minimum opener with doubleton support, and on the other hand an opener with an extra 2 HCP, 4 card support and side doubleton, is such a huge chasm that attempting to wrap up all invitational hands into a transfer accepted just places too great a burden on responder. Superaccepting increases the accuracy, but not to the level of perfection. No-one who superaccepts would claim that it always works. Constructing specific hands where it fails does nothing more than confirm what was never in dispute: that sometimes it fails. But that is not a reason to buck the longer term numbers.I don't understand the burden on responder. She invites or doesn't...and doesn't invite in the major after transferring with only 5 trumps. Meanwhile, the hand which is going to be declarer isn't giving free leakage for the times when it is unhelpful to responder. Our only concern, perhaps naive, is the hand which re-evaluates to 18 for the major opposite Responder who is just short of an invite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnu Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 I also really have no stake in this thread. I just posted that one initial reply because I thought it was funny and now I'm here discussing this argh Sorry, I thought you were kuhchung32519 or maybe kuhchung21. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 I don't understand the burden on responder. She invites or doesn't...Haven't you answered your own question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 Haven't you answered your own question?Yes, I guess I have. She invites with an invite, and it isn't a burden unless she doesn't have one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted February 23, 2014 Report Share Posted February 23, 2014 Yes, I guess I have. She invites with an invite, and it isn't a burden unless she doesn't have one. What you say has an element of truth. If her system forces her to make a stark choice between passing or inviting (or bidding game) opposite a hand with wide range of playing values, then she may not consider herself particularly emburdened. Just follow some rules, take an average minus, and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted February 23, 2014 Report Share Posted February 23, 2014 Yes, I guess I have. She invites with an invite, and it isn't a burden unless she doesn't have one. What you say has an element of truth. If her system forces her to make a stark choice between passing or inviting (or bidding game) opposite a hand with wide range of playing values, then she may not consider herself particularly emburdened. Just follow some rules, take an average minus, and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 23, 2014 Report Share Posted February 23, 2014 Meanwhile, the hand which is going to be declarer isn't giving free leakage for the times when it is unhelpful to responder. There need be no leakage. I believe that there should be just one bid used for all super accepts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted February 23, 2014 Report Share Posted February 23, 2014 There need be no leakage. I believe that there should be just one bid used for all super accepts.Yes, but that wasn't what one-eye was advocating. He was talking about different superaccepts, showing different things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted February 23, 2014 Report Share Posted February 23, 2014 Yes, but that wasn't what one-eye was advocating. He was talking about different superaccepts, showing different things. Eh? I didn’t address that issue at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 23, 2014 Report Share Posted February 23, 2014 Yes, but that wasn't what one-eye was advocating. He was talking about different superaccepts, showing different things. I mentioned leakage because you did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted February 23, 2014 Report Share Posted February 23, 2014 My original post contested (or attempted to) only the OP assertion, which seems to have some support in this thread, that all transfers should be accepted. On the subject of leakage, I spend most of my time playing with GIB, whose system does dictate leaking opener’s doubleton when superaccepting. This is a point where I generally psych by showing a doubleton in a 4 card side suit. It doesn’t seem to affect (as far as I can tell) whether CHO bids game. The intention is to put the defence off the scent. It might also inhibit a sac, although I have never known GIB to enter the auction late having previously passed. That said, I would find it hard to produce evidence that this psych creates misdefences. Jury still out on that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cthulhu D Posted February 24, 2014 Report Share Posted February 24, 2014 Wait, agree with what? Also, 2D transfer vs 2H natural doesn't exactly shut out 2S. I also really have no stake in this thread. I just posted that one initial reply because I thought it was funny and now I'm here discussing this argh Posting in 32519's threads loses 100% of the time, wins 0% of the time. Seriously that was the greatest quote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrecisionL Posted February 24, 2014 Report Share Posted February 24, 2014 I would NOT super accept, there is no side weak doubleton for an extra trick playing in hearts. In fact, I would not open this hand 1NT, it has too many quacks and not enought As & Ks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted February 24, 2014 Report Share Posted February 24, 2014 Wait, agree with what?...I just posted that one initial reply because I thought it was funny...Yep, and that's what I agree with. Sorry to "pull you back in". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunemPard Posted February 24, 2014 Report Share Posted February 24, 2014 My $2.02... Isn't a 0-4 HCP hand pretty rare opposite a 1NT opening where all others are passing? The more passes before the 1NT opening, the higher the odds of partner having some values. The purpose of a super-accept is to find decent games on shapely hands that fit well with fewer HCP. 5-8 points is pretty common, so if the shape/value placement are good this is what they are for. You also get a preemptive effect that may very well get you a great board at any scoring. Of course you will run into completely worthless hands that either lack values, shape, or good fit, but I have had far more good results from super-accepting than bad results. The point...every bid/system will fail on some hands. But if you are winning on a greater % and actually judging the hands properly you will gain big. Also, the better you are at declaring, the better your overall results will be. If you have bad judgment and bad declarer play, then definitely remove most bids like this that involve understanding a hands true value. And honestly...would you really stay out of game with these 2 hands? Even if you bid it as most would the bidding most likely goes... 1N-2D2H-3N or 1N-2D2H-2N3H/4H/3N-I can not see this player ever passing 3H with their hand. or 1N-2D2H-3Cnow you are already forced to game... I couldn't really imagine bidding less than game with the responding hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.