[bowbells]

1N - 2♦ > 3♥

On the basis of 1N=15-17hcp, 3♥ shows 4 card support and 17hcps as I understand it.

As transfers don't guarantee any number of hcp why would anyone want to raise level to 3 as you could be faced with less than 20hcp. Am i missing something here or do the laws of mathematics prove that 9 card fit and maybe less than 20hcp in total is still a good shot at 3.

Comments welcome..............

[inquiry]

This is based upon the "law of total tricks"... the assumption is that your partner, who transfers, has five trumps and if you have four trumps, you have a nine card fit (at least). So bidding up to 3♥ (the level of the fit), is a "good idea". Because when you have a nine card fit, the opponents usually do too.. and if you can't make 3♥ they will be able to make 3♠ or maybe more (9 tricks plus 9 tricks = 18). If this doesn't make sense, read more about LOTT on this bbs or better yet, get Larry Cohen's book, To bid or not to bid.

For what it is worth, my partner and I raise to 3♥ here with a four card fit AND LESS THAN maximum, and cue-bid something else (rather than complete transfer) with maximum and four card fit. So we get to 3♥ with minimum 1NT openings opposite maybe nothing. It works great so far.

Ben

[Free]

LOTT says it all. A simplified version which doesn't need you to count stuff is following (this is however not always correct):

"With around 20 HCP you can make an amount of tricks similar to the amount of trump cards your partnership has".

So when playing strong NT, super accept shows 17 HCP with 4 card support. That means you have at least 17 HCP (almost around 20) and 9 trumps.
It also gives partner the opportunity to reach a tight game when he wouldn't invite opposite a 3 card. Say he has 6-7 HCP and a 5 card ♥ in your example, a simple 4♥ will usually make...

[bowbells]

Thanks for your comments people

[Free]

Welcome to the forum btw didn't notice...

[Flame]

Bidding 3h with super max hand means you might get too high, but also means you might find a game you wouldnt otherwise. adding the LOTT into the equasion, you gain more then you lose.

[Rado]

Hi Bowbells and all,

Further the above comments a nice side-effect of super-acceptanse is to shut-out opps from finding their best part score or even game since is harder to bid after 3♥, than after 2♥

Regards
Rado

[1eyedjack]

bowbells, on Jun 8 2004, 10:16 AM, said:

1N - 2♦ > 3♥

On the basis of 1N=15-17hcp, 3♥ shows 4 card support and 17hcps as I understand it.

As transfers don't guarantee any number of hcp why would anyone want to raise level to 3 as you could be faced with less than 20hcp. Am i missing something here or do the laws of mathematics prove that 9 card fit and maybe less than 20hcp in total is still a good shot at 3.

Comments welcome..............

You open 1NT (15-17) on each of the following two hands on separate occasions and partner responds 2♦ (transfer to 5+ card ♥ suit) on each occasion. What do you reckon is the differential between the number of tricks that your side can contribute to a ♥ contract, contrasting the two hands?

Hand 1:

♠KQ2
♥A3
♦Q876
♣A543

Hand 2:
♠KQ2
♥Q876
♦AQ43
♣A3

Personally I can well imagine a 3-4 trick differential. To require responder to take all of the responsibility for inviting (especially to game, and to a more limited extent to slam) when opener can have such widely diverse hands places unnecessary stress on responder. Without playing super-accept, responder will assume that opener does not have either extreme (most systems of continuations allow responder only to distinguish invitational from other strengths, without splitting out invitational hands into strongly v weakly invitational). Responder will therefore fail to invite on some hands that make game, ie on those hands where opener is particularly well-fitting.

The only reason why you might NOT want to superaccept is because the 2 level is safer than the 3 level on those hands where responder is so weak as to have no game interest despite a well-fitting maximum opener. However, as others have pointed out the Law of Total Tricks shows that it is safe (it does not always work out that way, but it does a sufficient frequency).

Personally, in a partnership where I have discussed it I do not impose on opener a requirement to be maximum values in order to break the transfer (4 card trump support being the only requirement). There are a lot of bids between 2H and 3H to distinguish between max v min openers, as well as other features.

[dogsbreath]

Hi ..
another example from a recent tourney , but 12-14 NT this time..

Holding

---

..
you open 1NT and P bids 2S ..(transfer to C)

..if you dont super-accept (3S or 3D according to yr style) ..y can hardly expect p to find the excellent slam holding..

---

..esp as y now play it the right way up.
Rgds Dog

Quote

furnulum lani nolo

[1eyedjack]

dogsbreath, on Jun 9 2004, 12:16 AM, said:

you open 1NT and P bids 2S ..(transfer to C)

..if you dont super-accept  (3S or 3D according to yr style) ..

I think most styles (where 2♠ is a transfer to ♣) use one or other of 2NT and 3♣ as the "super-accept", allowing you still the option of playing in 3♣ if responder is very weak. If you use 2N as the super-accept then you still get the option as to who declares ♣.

[lucky_dom]

Isn't it approaching suicidal to use super-accepts along with a weak NT? You could have 14 points between the partnership, not something to be relished.

Dom

[1eyedjack]

lucky_dom, on Jun 9 2004, 02:14 AM, said:

Isn't it approaching suicidal to use super-accepts along with a weak NT? You could have 14 points between the partnership, not something to be relished.

Dom

Absolutely not. See messages above re. Law of Total Tricks.
Opponents have a combined 26 count and let us play (presumably doubled) in a 9 card fit at the 3 level? We stand to gain.

At red v white the sums are close. If you are going 2 down for 500 the opps are making 11 tricks in their 9 card fit, which does not quite make up for 500, a bad result at Matchpoints although broadly neutral at IMPs. If you go for 800 then "on paper" (according to the law) they have slam on although as opponents I would rather take the 800 at any method of scoring. That is something of a rarety and more than compensated for by the more accurate marginal game bidding our way when responder happens NOT to have a yarborough.

Second seat's failure to take any action over the 1NT reduces the likelihood of responder having a yarborough, and of course the 1NT opener may not have been dealer, which eliminates that possibility entirely.

[Free]

I don't like super accepts on weak NT. Too dangerous to go for -800...

[whereagles]

Nobody goes for -800 after a weak NT super accept. How can the opponents double you at the 3-level if they already passed three times??

[lucky_dom]

1NT - (P)* - 2!D - (P)** - 3!H - x

* A double at this point would show a strong balanced hand, if you have 14-15 HCP you don't double (well, no doubt some people do).

** A double here would often be understood as showing diamonds, or asking for a diamond lead, so not really attractive.

This leaves you in 3!H before they have had a real chance to double...

Dom

[whereagles]

Ok. Let me get this straight...You say one shouldn't double at the 1-level with 14-15 points, but that it is perfectly ok to do it at the 3-level, and after the opponents exhanged a lot of information.

Sorry, I cannot agree. This surely is very bad strategy.

[1eyedjack]

Free, on Jun 9 2004, 06:27 AM, said:

I don't like super accepts on weak NT. Too dangerous to go for -800...

So, you are happy to open 3-suit and play in what may be a 7 card fit against unlimited opponents, but not happy to play at the 3 level in a guaranteed 9 card fit after each opponent has declined at least one opportunity to speak? hmm.

[luke warm]

dogsbreath, on Jun 9 2004, 07:16 AM, said:

    Holding 

♠	Qxx
♥	Kxx
♦	A
♣	AKxxxx

 

---

i have to agree with free about super accepting with weak nt, but mainly because in the system i play it's always known whether or not a game force exists... even so, it would take awhile to reach slam with the given hand (and i admit, 6♣ would probably be wrong-sided here)... i actually don't think slam makes in my methods, if the opponents listen to the bidding (unless the ♥A is onside)

with 15-17 nt, i still haven't seen anything better than bergen's super accept with min hand, bid a doubleton to s.a. with max hand

[hrothgar]

Comment the first:

I think that there are much better response structures over 1NT than Stayman and Jacoby. I'd much rather plan SCANian, though apparantly I need to learn Keri.

Comment the second:

I am very happy to play Super-Accepts opposite a weak NT
I think that the gains more than outweight the costs.

Comment the second:

If I am playing Jacoby, I like the following structure
Note that the 3C/3D responses aren't LAW protected...

After 1N - 2D

2H = Either 2 or 3 Hearts, any strength
2S = 4 card Heart support, maximum hand, undisclosed doubleton
2N = 3=4=3=3 maximum
3C = 3 card Heart Support, maximum hand, 5 Clubs, concentrated values
3D = 3 card Heart Support, maximum hand, 5 Diamonds, concentrated values
3H = Preemptive Heart raise

[Fluffy]

whereagles, on Jun 9 2004, 12:38 PM, said:

Ok. Let me get this straight...You say one shouldn't double at the 1-level with 14-15 points, but that it is perfectly ok to do it at the 3-level, and after the opponents exhanged a lot of information.

Sorry, I cannot agree. This surely is very bad strategy.

I am not sure about weak NT (sadly I can hardly ever play against weak NT).

But I´ve played when I´ve been able (that is my partners´s agreeing with me)
That to double or bid against a preemtive (2♦-3♠) shows a strenght of 16+.

It has some advantages and some problems of course, you may think it is not the best strategy, but I wouldn´t say 'very bad strategy'