[hrothgar]

whereagles, on May 29 2006, 05:45 PM, said:

That is a misconception, which I hope I have dispelled two posts above. The point is 2NT is only a statement about hand pattern and hcp strength. There is still a lot to be said about the hand, especially since it's such a strong one.

I'd like to focus in on the example of the 2NT opener since this provides a very nice illustration regarding some of the problems with your core approach.

Lets consider 3 different NT ranges:

1. A mini NT showing ~10-12 HCP
2. A "standard" NT showing ~15-17 HCP
3. A standard 2NT opening showing ~20-22 HCP

I'd argue that each of these hands types is opened on (approximately) the same hand patterns. Each of these hand types shows the same 3 HCP range. Most people would argue that the NT opener has (approximately) the same number of bits of information to convey regardless of the range of his opening.

Please note: I readily admit that the people play very different response structures over mini-NTs than they do over strong NTs. However, this is (essentially) related to wanting to avoid transfers during part score auctions.

[whereagles]

hrothgar: I mentioned relay precision as in the Truscott Symmetric Relays variation. I played that particular scheme for a while, which had "strong hand asks" the principle, and was quite pleased with the results.

There are, of course, more modern relay schemes. But the principle that the strong hand can take charge if it wants, is, as far as I know, always there.

About the similarities between miniNT, 1NT and 2NT. It is true that the information conveyed by the opening is roughly the same. But you seem to be missing my point: the 2NT opener is much more independent. A 20-22 hcp hand can withstand the 4-level with moderate fit, whereas a 1NT opener can't. In other words, it would be a huge overbid to superaccept

1NT 2♥
4♠

whereas superaccepting

2NT 3♥
4♠

is much more normal.

[FrancesHinden]

whereagles, on May 29 2006, 03:45 PM, said:

pclayton, on May 29 2006, 04:29 AM, said:

On this hand, you have boxed your hand rather tightly with a 2N opener.

That is a misconception, which I hope I have dispelled two posts above. The point is 2NT is only a statement about hand pattern and hcp strength. There is still a lot to be said about the hand, especially since it's such a strong one.

On the original occasion I felt I had the right to bid 7 because pard didn't let me tell what was left to say about my hand.

The thing is, you can interpret -and act on - partner's jump to slam in two different ways. Either

"I'm going to bid 7 because partner didn't let me describe my hand properly and I feel I have extra values"

or

"I'm going to do what I'm asked to do - chose between 6C and 6H - because I trust partner, and if a grand is making opposite this (good, but not exceptionally so) hand then partner would have gone more slowly"

The first of these feels like you are saying "I can evaluate your hand better than you can. You thought there was no serious chance of a grand making but even though I can't see your hand, and my hand is not particularly unusual for a 2NT opening opposite hearts and clubs, you are wrong."

The transfer super-accept is different: partner doesn't have room over 2NT to let you describe your hand's suitability for spades; if you bid 3S he can pass so you break to 4S to say "I think we'll have play for game opposite a hand that was going to pass 3S". Here, partner had plenty of room but didn't utilise it.

The fact that grand turned out to be the right contract indicates that possibly bidding grand is correct opposite a random partner who can't evaluate their hand very well and doesn't dare do anything slow such as transfer to hearts and bid clubs in case you think 4C is Gerber... but not in a regular partnership.

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on May 29 2006, 06:37 PM, said:

About the similarities between miniNT, 1NT and 2NT. It is true that the information conveyed by the opening is roughly the same. But you seem to be missing my point: the 2NT opener is much more independent. A 20-22 hcp hand can withstand the 4-level with moderate fit, whereas a 1NT opener can't. In other words, it would be a huge overbid to superaccept

1NT 2♥
4♠

whereas superaccepting

2NT 3♥
4♠

is much more normal.

From my perspective, the major difference between the auction

1N - 2♥ - 4♠

and

2N - 3♥ - 4♠

is the amount of bidding that is being consumed. In the first case, the jump to 4 Spades burns 10 steps of bidding space. In the second, the super accept burns 5 steps of bidding space. There's no point in comparing the two sequences unless you can demonstrate that the difference in frequency is a function of the hand strength rather than the marginal value of the extra 5 steps of bidding strength (throwing examples like this out raises some doubts about your credibility)

What might be interesting is comparing super accept sequences over different strength 1NT openings. You claim that strong hands are better positioned to take control of the auction. If so, we would expect to see systemic differences in the frequency of super accept sequences when comparing 10-12 HCP 1NT openings with 15-17 HCP 1NT openings.

I've never seen any kind of analysis supporting this.
You might be able to point to something...

[mikestar]

I have some sympathy for 7♥ in the context of an erratic partner whose bidding may not be reliable. You are on a guess anyway, but the cards you hold seem to indicate that the aggressive guess is more likely to win than the conservative guess.

This is practical bidding if you are playing with a partner who isn't as good as you are and is never going to be. It's quite wrong with someone whose bidding you can trust. It's not good with someone whose bidding you can't trust yet but whose game is evolving--you can set them back, winning the battle but losing the war.


Perhaps if the problem were presented as "partner really has little idea of how to bid slam hands, but he isn't a wild overbidder", I would be advocating 7♥ in context.


In an established partnership, this type of sequence should be defined. There are two rationally defesible ways to play this that I can see:

• I'm pretty sure of the small slam but my value are such that I have nothing else to show and the wrong hand to ask. Feel free to bid the grand with a perfecto. (Picture Bidding/Slow Arrival)
  
• Taking a shot at slam, feel free to bid the grand if you're insane. (Fast Arrival)

[whereagles]

Frances, you have gotten into a contradiction: first you argue one should always respect pard's judgement, and then you give an example of a hand where you'd bid 7. Where do you stand after all?

[whereagles]

hrothgar, on May 29 2006, 04:37 PM, said:

From my perspective, the major difference between the auction

1N - 2♥ - 4♠

and

2N - 3♥ - 4♠

is the amount of bidding that is being consumed.

Well, to me there is another, more fundamental difference. In the 1st case you have to make 9 tricks, whereas in the 2nd case it's more like 10 tricks

Only a strong hand can try and contract for 10 tricks when pard may be broke. To me that's the main difference.

[whereagles]

mikestar, on May 29 2006, 04:58 PM, said:

I have some sympathy for 7♥ in the context of an erratic partner whose bidding may not be reliable. You are on a guess anyway, but the cards you hold seem to indicate that the aggressive guess is more likely to win than the conservative guess.

This is practical bidding if you are playing with a partner who isn't as good as you are and is never going to be. It's quite wrong with someone whose bidding you can trust. It's not good with someone whose bidding you can't trust yet but whose game is evolving--you can set them back, winning the battle but losing the war.


Perhaps if the problem were presented as "partner really has little idea of how to bid slam hands, but he isn't a wild overbidder", I would be advocating 7♥ in context.


In an established partnership, this type of sequence should be defined. There are two rationally defesible ways to play this that I can see:

• I'm pretty sure of the small slam but my value are such that I have nothing else to show and the wrong hand to ask. Feel free to bid the grand with a perfecto. (Picture Bidding/Slow Arrival)
  
• Taking a shot at slam, feel free to bid the grand if you're insane. (Fast Arrival)

mikestar: indeed, this is also a problem of playing your pard. Obviously, if the leap to 6♣ showed by agreement, say, a void and no more than 1 ace, then 7♥ would be nuts.

But I think no one here has detailed agreements as to what an auction as this one shows, so the point was to see how would people evaluate their hand on this particular sequence, as it happened at table.

[mikeh]

Whereagles is way off base when he uses, in support of his methods, reference to 1N 2♥ 4♠. I know of no good partnership that would incorporate that into their agreements.

What whereagles misses is that the super-accept of a transfer is a necessity imposed on a partnership by the constraints of bidding space. When one partner picks up a weakish hand with a 5+ card major and hears partner open 1 or 2N, regardless of range, he has to cater to the possibility that partner is minimum with no real support.... he has to cater to getting out cheaply. Opener, on the other hand, may hold an 'in context' great hand with a big fit, and so must cater to partner having a maximum in context, hence the super-accept... protected, in the case of 1N opening bids, by the implications of the LOTT should partner pass the super-accept.

All of this changes should responder have slam ambitions after any notrump opener. Whereagles is not far wrong in describing the 2N opening as a slam killer.... it is a space consuming bid over which most casual partnerships have few and usually crude methods. Yet even for unsophisticated partnerships, there is a LOT of bidding space available for the exchange of information.

It is this availability of bidding space that is critical.... and 'bidding space' is a concept that many non-expert players seem to under-appreciate.

When whereagles says that it is okay for the stronger hand to make unilateral decisions, it is because he does not understand bidding space and its use, or the inferences to be drawn from its non-use.

Responder could have involved opener in the decision to an extent far beyond 'choice of small slams'. Responder could have used the available bidding space to collaboratively explore the placement of the final contract. When responder refuses to do so, opener has NO rights to do other than answer the simple choice of small slams question posed by the auction.

Now, on the actual hand, it is apparent that responder also lacks an appreciation of the use of bidding space... so if one is playing in a one-shot random partnership, with no intention of playing with that partner again, and one likes to indulge one's sense of power, without regard for partner, then one could take a shot at 7♥. Personally, I would never do it... and my ego is as strong as mosts (many would say less polite things about my ego )

[hrothgar]

whereagles, on May 29 2006, 08:03 PM, said:

hrothgar, on May 29 2006, 04:37 PM, said:

From my perspective, the major difference between the auction

1N - 2♥ - 4♠

and

2N - 3♥ - 4♠

is the amount of bidding that is being consumed.

Well, to me there is another, more fundamental difference. In the 1st case you have to make 9 tricks, whereas in the 2nd case it's more like 10 tricks

Only a strong hand can try and contract for 10 tricks when pard may be broke. To me that's the main difference.

In general, when analyzing a problem its useful to hold as many factors as possible constant. I think that its a very big mistake to be comparing superaccept sequences following a 2NT opening with those following a 1NT opening.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that frequency of superaccept sequences opposite a micro or weak 1NT open differ in any significant way from super-accept sequences opposite a strong NT opening?

[FrancesHinden]

whereagles, on May 29 2006, 05:59 PM, said:

Frances, you have gotten into a contradiction: first you argue one should always respect pard's judgement, and then you give an example of a hand where you'd bid 7. Where do you stand after all?

Let's see what I said:

I said "I might be able to construct a hand on which I'd bid 7 (Axx AK Axx AQxxx for example), but it would a very rare hand with lots of honours in partner's suits, not one where I know some of the honours will be wasted."

and then I said

"I'm going to do what I'm asked to do - chose between 6C and 6H - because I trust partner, and if a grand is making opposite this (good, but not exceptionally so) hand then partner would have gone more slowly"

There is no contradiction there at all.

I am a general believer in maintaining partnership discipline, but I can think of possible hands - maybe 0.1% of relevant hands, maybe even less - on which I might break discipline, but it's very, very rare. I wouldn't dream of over-ruling partner on a down-the-middle maximum such as this one which. The only time I would ever break discipline it is when I cannot construct a hand opposite, consistent with the auction, where grand won't be essentially cold.

[FrancesHinden]

hrothgar, on May 29 2006, 06:18 PM, said:

Do you have any evidence to suggest that frequency of superaccept sequences opposite a micro or weak 1NT open differ in any significant way from super-accept sequences opposite a strong NT opening?

This is slightly off-topic, but FWIW I super-accept a major suit transfer MORE frequently over a mini than over a strong NT. This is because I think the pre-emptive effect of the super-accept is more important after a mini.

If I open a strong NT and I break the transfer and go off at the 3-level opposite nothing I might well have gone one off against nothing. If I have opened a 10-count they were probably making something.

To extent that further: I break after opening a strong NT on most decent hands with 4-card support (maybe 70% of 1NT openers). I only break after opening 2NT if I want to be in game opposite a hand that would have passed the transfer completion.

[whereagles]

mikeh, on May 29 2006, 05:16 PM, said:

1.
Whereagles is way off base when he uses, in support of his methods, reference to 1N 2♥ 4♠. I know of no good partnership that would incorporate that into their agreements.

2.
What whereagles misses is that the super-accept of a transfer is a necessity imposed on a partnership by the constraints of bidding space.

3.
the 2N opening as a slam killer.... it is a space consuming bid over which most casual partnerships have few and usually crude methods. Yet even for unsophisticated partnerships, there is a LOT of bidding space available for the exchange of information. It is this availability of bidding space that is critical.... and 'bidding space' is a concept that many non-expert players seem to under-appreciate. (...) When whereagles says that it is okay for the stronger hand to make unilateral decisions, it is because he does not understand bidding space and its use,

4.
or the inferences to be drawn from its non-use.

5.
Responder could have involved opener in the decision to an extent far beyond 'choice of small slams'. Responder could have used the available bidding space to collaboratively explore the placement of the final contract. When responder refuses to do so, opener has NO rights to do other than answer the simple choice of small slams question posed by the auction.

1. If your intention is to show disdain for my ideas, just say it fair and square. No need to use arguments out of context. Also, why do you speak of me in 3rd person? It sounds like you're in some court, speaking to a judge. Are you a lawyer or something?

2. Do you really believe I would forget that? Suppose that, for some obscure systemic reason, were forced to open 2NT on a balanced 15-17. Now pard transfers to a major. Would you ever superaccept that? Probably not, because you don't have neither the playing strength nor the total trumps for doing that. This is a case where space constraints force might incite you to make a superaccept but strength considerations inhibit you from doing it. See my point now (that you can mastermind a superaccept to 4 because you're strong), or are you going to evade the issue by saying "I'd never open 2NT on a balanced 15-17."?

3. Where did you get the silly idea that I don't know what bidding space is for? Of course I know how crucial bidding space is after 2NT. Do you think I agree with pard's bidding? Of course not.

4. Pick your favorite partnership. Are you 100% sure what the original auction shows? What inferences can you draw from it? I'm almost certain you can't much of the bid, apart from the fact that pard should have a void.

5. Mainstream conservative thinking, which I believe I left clear I don't fully agree with.


You know what? I believe the best argument against 7♥ was made by jdonn. He simply said in his experience bidding 7 under these circumstances led to bad scores, so he wasn't bidding 7. This comment isn't scientifically backed; yet is probably worth 200 pages of discussion.

[whereagles]

FrancesHinden, on May 29 2006, 05:33 PM, said:

1.
There is no contradiction there at all.

2.
I am a general believer in maintaining partnership discipline, but I can think of possible hands - maybe 0.1% of relevant hands, maybe even less - on which I might break discipline, but it's very, very rare. I wouldn't dream of over-ruling partner on a down-the-middle maximum such as this one which.

1. Well, I think there is, but ok, you clear it out below.

2. So basically you agree with me in that you can break discipline with special hands. It's just that your judgement of how close the original hand is to being special is different than mine. I don't find this hand to be "down-the-middle". Actually, I find it pretty special, but I certainly accept you don't agree with me.

Perhaps someone can calculate the chance of 2NT opener having this hand on the given auction. I bet it's below 0,1%!

[whereagles]

hrothgar, on May 29 2006, 05:18 PM, said:

Do you have any evidence to suggest that frequency of superaccept sequences opposite a micro or weak 1NT open differ in any significant way from super-accept sequences opposite a strong NT opening?

Hum.. not sure what you mean, but if making the contract is your main concern, then you'd probably superaccept more often with strong hands than with weak ones. In practice it doesn't work that way, as there are other considerations, like the ones Frances mentioned.

[mikeh]

whereagles, on May 29 2006, 01:11 PM, said:

1. If your intention is to show disdain for my ideas, just say it fair and square. No need to use arguments out of context. Also, why do you speak of me in 3rd person? It sounds like you're in some court, speaking to a judge. Are you a lawyer or something?

When I am addressing myself to you, I write to you. When I am addressing my comments to that small proportion of BBF readers still reading this thread, I use the 3rd person in referring to your posts. Despite your desire to make this a personal correspondence between yourself and those of us who post disagreements with you, the truth is (I hope) that these posts, including all of the arguments and bald assertions will be read by some who will want to weigh the merits of the arguments (and discount the bald assertions)... it was to those that I addressed my third-person comments re your posts. Here, I am responding directly to you, hence I refer to 'you', not to 'whereagles'.

BTW, your reference to 'arguments out of context' is a device often used by those who cannot defend their position logically: if you find yourself unable to respond logically, you accuse the other of arguing out of context... you did it on an earler thread after I quoted several posts by you to show that you have a mastermind complex, you claimed that I had misquoted you... despite the fact that I had got every word precisely as you had written them. You may fool yourself, but you fool no-one else.

[luke warm]

maybe josh's argument was the only one that you can accept, but i can't figure out why it's hard to understand the partnership issue... to play a p'ship game, or at least to play it with the same partner, there *has* to be a level of trust there...

what if you'd been wrong? what if partner, going by your example, does the same thing next time and he's wrong? do you see mistrust building up? i do... i'd simply bid 6H on the given hand because that's what partner judges the hands to be worth... unless i think his judgments are, in general, very poor i can't see overruling him... even if they were poor i can't see it... it's a team game

[Blofeld]

whereagles, on May 29 2006, 01:17 PM, said:

Perhaps someone can calculate the chance of 2NT opener having this hand on the given auction. I bet it's below 0,1%!

Well if you mean 'this hand specifically' then of course it's far below 0,1% - but any hand would be!

If you mean 'a hand this good or better' (the sensible question, I think), I expect that the answer is somewhere between 1% and 10% ; we have at least one wasted king, and possibly two and/or a wasted ace. We don't have a brilliant fit for partner, either.

[FrancesHinden]

whereagles, on May 29 2006, 07:17 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on May 29 2006, 05:33 PM, said:

1.
I am a general believer in maintaining partnership discipline, but I can think of possible hands - maybe 0.1% of relevant hands, maybe even less - on which I might break discipline, but it's very, very rare. I wouldn't dream of over-ruling partner on a down-the-middle maximum such as this one which.

2. So basically you agree with me in that you can break discipline with special hands. It's just that your judgement of how close the original hand is to being special is different than mine. I don't find this hand to be "down-the-middle". Actually, I find it pretty special, but I certainly accept you don't agree with me.

Perhaps someone can calculate the chance of 2NT opener having this hand on the given auction. I bet it's below 0,1%!

I believe, based on your other comments and this hand, that you are more likely to consider a hand 'special' than I do. I suggested 1 in 1000 hands though it might be rarer. Mikeh also suggested a hand on which he might bid 7, and overall my thoughts are much the same as his.

Of course the chance of having this particular hand as a 2NT opener is very low; the chance of any particular 2NT opener is very low. For me to raise to the 7 level on this auction I would have to have:

- All 4 aces
- No heart loser, which means a holding such as AK, AKQ (possibly AKJ).
- No club loser, which effectively will mean AQxxx. AKxxx would also do, but Axx AK Axx AKxxx isn't a 2NT opener.

(you can swap hearts & clubs round, but then I'd have broken the transfer)

that seems to be exactly the hand I quoted, namely Axx AK Axx AQxxx. On reflection, that's a long way under 0.1%.

Perhaps part of what's causing so much opprobrium is that you seem to be in a minority in thinking this hand is exceptional opposite hearts and clubs. Obviously it's a nice hand, but at least one, possibly both, of the pointed kings is wasted; one of the pointed aces might be wasted and you only have 6 points in partner's suit. I would say it's a good enough hand that I expect slam to make: partner only needed a good enough hand to bid slam if it was going to be at least 50% or so.

Yes, you could be a lot worse, but with KQJx QJx AKQJ Jxx I wouldn't very surprised if the small slam went off.

[whereagles]

luke warm, on May 29 2006, 07:12 PM, said:

maybe josh's argument was the only one that you can accept, but i can't figure out why it's hard to understand the partnership issue... to play a p'ship game, or at least to play it with the same partner, there *has* to be a level of trust there...

(...) i'd simply bid 6H on the given hand because that's what partner judges the hands to be worth...

Sure, you have to give pard credit for knowing what he's doing. But I wouldn't demand pard to visualize such a well-fitting hand. I've underbid hands like this in the past, precisely because I thought "Pard knows what I have. He knows I can have this hand, so 6 must surely be the limit." Truth is, he cannot.

Unless the sequence "transfer + jump to 6" is an agreed bid, showing exactly this or that hand, I think one has the right to be a little inventive on such an independent hand as a 2NT opener.