ATB

[aguahombre]

Responder does not get off scot free. Claiming 3n is the last makeable spot will only be right a teeny tiny % of the time.

With this partner, I agree. With a reasonable partner, passing 3NT will be right much more often.

[nekthen]

3♦ is definitely lame, some sort of super accept has to be correct.

I would like to know what 1N 3♦ means. I would think it is natural and stronger than 3♣, in which case it seems a better bid than 3♣

[mikeh]

For those advocating a super-accept, I think that is silly at mps, and not much better at imps.

 

One of the hand-types on which we will use a minor-suit transfer over 1N is a weak hand with a hope that we can make 3m, or fail by less than 1N, and/or pre-empt the opps out of a major.

 

Bidding voluntarily to the 4-level on maximum 1N openings, when we were likely to have done well in 1N or to have good defence, is nuts. Mps is a game of plus scores and when we are fated for a minus, the smallest minus possible.

 

The problem, of course, is the use of a method that doesn't allow opener to show a good hand and still play 3m.

 

Mps generally doesn't reward bidding aggressive, thin games, and really hammers voluntary minuses, when pluses were available, so if one were silly enough to play this method, I think opener just has to accept that the methods sucks and accept the transfer and hope partner guesses right.

 

Btw, this is entirely different from the concept of the super-accept of a major transfer, where we are forcing only to the 3-level with (for most of us) an assured 9 card fit. There is a huge difference in playability between 3M on a 9 card fit and 4m on a 9 or 10 card fit....because we rate to have top losers.

[cherdano]

I made a resolution to stop fighting with Mikeh a while ago, but this post summarizes everything that irritates me about his posting style, and I think he deserves to be called out for it.

 

To start with:

For those advocating a super-accept, I think that is silly at mps, and not much better at imps.

Of course Mikeh is above arguing with a specific posters. There are 2-3 posters of his class, that deserve to be called by name; everyone else is anonymous.

 

Next he insults those posters by explaining basic truths ina tone as if "those" posters didn't know them:

One of the hand-types on which we will use a minor-suit transfer over 1N is a weak hand with a hope that we can make 3m, or fail by less than 1N, and/or pre-empt the opps out of a major.

(...)

Mps is a game of plus scores and when we are fated for a minus, the smallest minus possible.

(...)

Mps generally doesn't reward bidding aggressive, thin games, and really hammers voluntary minuses, when pluses were available, so if one were silly enough to play this method, I think opener just has to accept that the methods sucks and accept the transfer and hope partner guesses right.

 

So the question becomes purely philosophical:

Bidding voluntarily to the 4-level on maximum 1N openings, when we were likely to have done well in 1N or to have good defence, is nuts.

 

The problem, of course, is the use of a method that doesn't allow opener to show a good hand and still play 3m.

 

Btw, this is entirely different from the concept of the super-accept of a major transfer, where we are forcing only to the 3-level with (for most of us) an assured 9 card fit. There is a huge difference in playability between 3M on a 9 card fit and 4m on a 9 or 10 card fit....because we rate to have top losers.

 

This is, of course, all bullshit. For example, we won't have many top losers on the given hand.

 

There are hands where bidding 3NT wins, because game is good and partner wouldn't dream of bidding it. There are hands where 3NT loses, because we will go down in 3NT or 4D when we could have made/go down one less in 3D. The only relevant question is whether the former is more likely than the latter. My case for bidding 3Nt is that there are many hands with 5-7 hcp of the former type, and that they are more likely than the latter.

 

I may well be wrong about bidding 3NT (I am only strongly convinced it is right at IMPs, don't have a strong conviction about it at MPs), but it's an empirical question (and I will post a simulation within the next two days), not a philosophical one.

[mikeh]

I made a resolution to stop fighting with Mikeh a while ago, but this post summarizes everything that irritates me about his posting style, and I think he deserves to be called out for it.

 

To start with:

 

Of course Mikeh is above arguing with a specific posters. There are 2-3 posters of his class, that deserve to be called by name; everyone else is anonymous.

 

Next he insults those posters by explaining basic truths ina tone as if "those" posters didn't know them:

 

 

Sorry, but I don't know how to quote the quotes around which your comments were embedded.

 

I suspect, and have long suspected, that the main reason you get so annoyed with me is that you impute to me an attitude which I don't actually have. I am not saying that you are 'wrong', in the sense that no rational person could draw the inferences I think you draw, but I do think that you are mistaken. The fault may well be entirely mine, and I recognize that my writing style is at least partly to blame, if not entirely.

 

I have never held myself out as an authority on bridge. I know that a number of readers pay attention to what I say, and that is gratifying, but I also know that I have made suggestions and comments that have attracted counter-arguments that have made me change my mind, so I see myself as learning here as well as offering advice. More importantly, and something that I have apparently mistakenly assumed was always understood.....whenever I express a view on a matter, that is always and only (unless I specifically claim otherwise) my own personal opinion, and all long time readers here have seen times when demonstrably my opinion was, on a good day, no more than second best and sometimes woefully wrong.

 

I do use 'imo' sometimes, but it seems that maybe I need to start everything I write with that disclaimer.

 

As for 'explaining basic truths in a bad tone', I make no apology because you have made a fundamental mistake in your reading of my post. I tend to write long posts. Over the years I have been here I have been told by a number of readers, some of whom never post, that they really like the fact that I give detailed, simple to understand, reasons for the opinions that I state. When I do so I do NOT intend that they be taken by anyone as insults. I intend them for the majority of the readers who do not post, and who may not have your or my experience of the game. I intend them to allow less-experienced players to see why I hold the views that I do. Of course, others may see my arguments as flawed and I welcome any rebuttals or debates, because I have learned from such disagreements in the past.

 

Your reading my recitation of reasons for my views as insults aimed at specific posters seems to me (i.e. imo) perhaps to arise from your antipathy to me, or my writing style, than to what I actually wrote.

So the question becomes purely philosophical:

 

 

This is, of course, all bullshit. For example, we won't have many top losers on the given hand.

 

For someone so hostile to another poster's style, I find this 'all bullshit' to be a little strange.

 

On the actual opening hand, I agree, we don't have a lot of top losers, other than perhaps in trump and we rate to hold enough of them that even missing AKQ, we probably lose only 2 tricks. And if your super-accept requires 1st round control of all side suits, then you have a point. I don't have experience with the notion of 3♣ transferring to diamonds...and I doubt that you do either, because the method sucks.

 

Would you consider AKxx Jxx Axx KQx to be a super-accept? If not, why not? Opposite say x xxx QJxxxxx xxx, how may mps would 4♦ get compared to 3♦?

 

You can argue about relative frequencies (for mps) and relative frequencies/size of gain (for imps) and do so by showing examples consistent with your views. That is a useful, informative debate. You can quite properly call out an opposing view using language such as 'bullshit' or 'silly'. However, the difference between you and me in that regard appears to be that I will then explain my opinion, while you don't.

 

There are hands where bidding 3NT wins, because game is good and partner wouldn't dream of bidding it. There are hands where 3NT loses, because we will go down in 3NT or 4D when we could have made/go down one less in 3D. The only relevant question is whether the former is more likely than the latter. My case for bidding 3Nt is that there are many hands with 5-7 hcp of the former type, and that they are more likely than the latter.

 

I may well be wrong about bidding 3NT (I am only strongly convinced it is right at IMPs, don't have a strong conviction about it at MPs), but it's an empirical question (and I will post a simulation within the next two days), not a philosophical one.

 

A simulation would be great, and had you done one before attacking me, then I'd feel less pissed off than I do. I look forward to the results, and assume that you will post the constraints?

[Fluffy]

Some poeple seem to thin 3♠ is a slam try. It is not. However it is true that any GF hand with a 6+ minor and a shortness has at the very least some slam potential opposite a maximum with no wastage, The basic of this convention is that opposite KQ10 3NT is your best spot for sure, but opposite AJx you will be between 5m and 6m

[cherdano]

I suspect, and have long suspected, that the main reason you get so annoyed with me is that you impute to me an attitude which I don't actually have. I am not saying that you are 'wrong', in the sense that no rational person could draw the inferences I think you draw, but I do think that you are mistaken. The fault may well be entirely mine, and I recognize that my writing style is at least partly to blame, if not entirely.

If I explain to XYZ very basic stuff, and then jumpt to the conclusion that they are wrong, then I am implying that this basic stuff already implies that they are wrong.

 

By explaining that very weak hands take out 1N to 3D, that superaccepting a transfer to 3m is different than superaccepting a transfer to 2M, you are implying that these basic principles already imply that making a superaccept with our given hand is wrong.

 

It also raises the suspicion that you have rejected the suggestion to make a superaccept with the given hand without having actually thought about it.

 

And indeed, if you had thought about it, I would find it hard to understand how you could write...

 

Would you consider AKxx Jxx Axx KQx to be a super-accept?

since to me it seems 100% clear that this is a much much worse hand for superaccepting than our actual hand; it's hard for me to imagine you not coming to the same conclusion. (Just as one example, we are extremely unlikely to make 3NT opposite ♦KQ-6th and out!)

 

To make a couple of bridge points:

- As Mikeh says I have almost no experience playing such a system. I am also not advocating a particular rule for superaccepts. All I am saying is that with this hand it's probably right to superaccept.

- It is more unlikely than usual that partner is very weak. The reason is simply that we have four small cards in partner's 6-card suit. (He is a 6/9 favourite to hold each of ♦A, K, Q, J. In fact, it is impossible for him to have 0 hcp.)

[m1cha]

[a] I may be mistaken but I think it was someone from this forum who reminded me some while ago (correctly) that people from the upgrade department should also know the downgrade department. In this sense, I find

- three aces: very good,

- a queen: not so good,

- 4333 distribution: not good at all,

- no honors in the longest suit: not good either.

To me this looks like a perfect 1NT opener particularly if the alternative includes the possibility of playing 1♣ in a 3-1 fit.

 

The 3♠ rebid in GIB is labeled "splinter, 9+ HCP". I have always considered this an attempt to find the best game contract. If this is the agreement, West, by bidding 3NT, answered a question and is not to blame. Although of course I agree that the West hand has meanwhile become pretty strong.

 

[c] Hereby I join the league of those finding the methods to blame. Or, to be precise, the partnership to blame for not having better methods. Short-term partnerships excluded, of course. Anyway, what I suggest and what I play in one of my regular partnerships is:

1NT - 2♠ = transfer to 3♣, 2NT is "superaccept" with fit and good values.

1NT - 2NT = transfer to 3♦, 3♣ is "superaccept" with fit and good values.

1NT - 3♣ = 5-5(+) in the minors, pass or correct.

If you do this, you can still play the transfers with weak hands; while in a slam-going case like here East gets enough information to continue with 4♦ Minorwood or whatever you prefer.

The downside of this approach is that 1NT - 2NT is not available for invitational hands a without 4-card major but actually this does not appear to be a downside at all. At least we were told in a different BBO forum some other while ago by someone with a simulation-backed study (sorry, I just don't recall the details) that pass-or-blast is superior to an invitation opposite a 1NT range of no more than 3.4, iirc. The upside of pass-or-blast is in avoiding 2NT-1.

[Flem72]

what I play in one of my regular partnerships is:

1NT - 2♠ = transfer to 3♣, 2NT is "superaccept" with fit and good values.

1NT - 2NT = transfer to 3♦, 3♣ is "superaccept" with fit and good values.

1NT - 3♣ = 5-5(+) in the minors, pass or correct.

If you do this, you can still play the transfers with weak hands; while in a slam-going case like here East gets enough information to continue with 4♦ Minorwood or whatever you prefer.

The downside of this approach is that 1NT - 2NT is not available for invitational hands a without 4-card major but actually this does not appear to be a downside at all. At least we were told in a different BBO forum some other while ago by someone with a simulation-backed study (sorry, I just don't recall the details) that pass-or-blast is superior to an invitation opposite a 1NT range of no more than 3.4, iirc. The upside of pass-or-blast is in avoiding 2NT-1.

 

Never understood the "in-between = like your suit" thing. Don't you miss the advantage to using the suit as opposed to the in-between when 5+-5+ minors and weak? IN-2N/3m-pass whichever.

[mikeh]

Never understood the "in-between = like your suit" thing. Don't you miss the advantage to using the suit as opposed to the in-between when 5+-5+ minors and weak? IN-2N/3m-pass whichever.

The main reason I like it is that it allows one to play that 2♠ is either clubs or an invite to 3N with no major.

 

Opener rebids 2N with all hands that would reject an invite, and there we play when responder has the invite, and he can bid 3♣ to play in 3♣ or anything else to show clubs and force one round (or game, depending on methods), and bids 3♣ with all hands that would accept an invite.

 

Doing it this way in clubs, because of the systemic gains, justifies doing it in diamonds, to ease memory work. The downside to not saying anything about clubs, but only hand strength, isn't enough to offset the huge gain from having the defence know so little about opener's hand should we reach 3N or play 2N. Compare this to the common alternative of using stayman and then 2N. By the time we reach either 2 or 3N, opener has given a lot of information about his major suit holdings.

[m1cha]

Never understood the "in-between = like your suit" thing. Don't you miss the advantage to using the suit as opposed to the in-between when 5+-5+ minors and weak? IN-2N/3m-pass whichever.

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly.

 

If you suggest using 1NT - 2NT for 5+m-5+m weak, I would think 1NT - 3♣ can do quite the same job, and the bid is free.

 

If you suggest using 1NT - 2♠ for 5+m-5+m, I would think you have a point because opener has to bid, so the sequence can be used for 5+m-5+m of any strength, if you like, though this may not be the standard. But then the same can be achieved in different ways also.

 

One possibility is 1NT - 3♣ = 5+m-5+m weak and 1NT - 2♠ (transfer) - 2NT (or 3♣) - 3♦ = 5+m-5+m forcing.

Another variant I used to play is the artificial sequence 1NT - 2♦ (transfer) - 2♥ - 2♠ = 5+m-5+m any strength. In that case for 5+M-5+M we bid 1NT - 3♦ if invitational or GF without slam interest.