[thepossum]

Hi all

There seem to be rare cases where it may be necessary to ignore transfer bids. I'm familiar with super accepts with am maximum or 4+ of the major. However I have occasionally been left in 2M when game was clearly on. Is it legitimate to ignore the transfer in this case and bid something else - eg NT, a different suit, invite or even jump straight to game in some situations etc

P

[ahydra]

If you've been left in 2M when 4M is there, partner is not bidding enough and/or it was just a perfect fit hand. Jumping straight to game can hardly be wise, given partner could have zero points for his transfer.

ahydra

[thepossum]

 ahydra, on 2019-April-06, 19:51, said:

If you've been left in 2M when 4M is there, partner is not bidding enough and/or it was just a perfect fit hand. Jumping straight to game can hardly be wise, given partner could have zero points for his transfer.

ahydra

Arent there situations where if you bid 1NT with a 5 card major and few losers that it is risky to just accept the basic transfer or is that covered by the super accept and should it then be ruled out by not bidding a good hand 1 NT in the first place. That is if you have a hand that you think could go to game over a transfer, then do not bid 1NT, bid 1M



P

[Stephen Tu]

If you open 1nt with 5cM and partner transfers showing 10 cd fit, you can super accept more lightly than you would with only 4 cd fit. This happens exceedingly rarely.

But don't expect to get every board right, bidding isn't a double dummy exercise. You can only try to be right most of the time opposite the average range of hands partner turns up with.

[thepossum]

I just had a hand in an IMP tourney where I accepted a transfer with 17 points and partner GiB passed with 8 points. Clear chance of 3NT or 4S in an IMP tourney

Therefore against GiB it often pays not to trust it

Things working out on average mean nothing if you arent even given a chance of going to game by partner, unless they are really weak. And its not about double dummy. Its what any normal person would bid

[hrothgar]

Quote

I have occasionally been left in 2M when game was clearly on.

When did you know that game was clearly on?
If the answer is "When partner made the transfer" then I have to wonder about the range of your 1NT openers.
If the answer is "when parner tables dummy", this is a whole different story...

Quote

Is it legitimate to ignore the transfer in this case and bid something else - eg NT, a different suit, invite or even jump straight to game in some situations etc

It would be helpful if you could provide an example of a hand where you have felt such a need.

I am trying to recall the last time that I opened 1NT, partner transferred to foo, and I wanted to bid game. If suppose that this is theoretically possible.

♠ KT9x
♥ AKxx
♦ K
♣ KJT9

If I chose to open this 1NT and heard a 2♦ xfer from partner, I might be tempted to bid 4♥ red at IMPs. Even here, I think that I would bid 3♦ instead.
In any case, I can't think of an occasion where I have ever made such a bid.

[hrothgar]

 thepossum, on 2019-April-06, 21:05, said:

I just had a hand in an IMP tourney where I accepted a transfer with 17 points and partner GiB passed with 8 points. Clear chance of 3NT or 4S in an IMP tourney

1. No bidding system is perfect. You should not expect to get to the perfect contract with every hand
2. Without see the hand in question its difficult to say whether this was "bad luck", a poor choice to pass by GIB, a poor choice to open 1NT by you, or a poor choice not to super accept by you.

Quote

Therefore against GiB it often pays not to trust it

No.

Quote

Things working out on average mean nothing if you arent even given a chance of going to game by partner, unless they are really weak.(

You had the chance to NOT open 1NT on your 17 count.
You may have had the chance to NOT make a simple completion of the transfer.
Show us the hands if you want a more informed opinion

Quote

And its not about double dummy. Its what any normal person would bid

Once again, you should not have any expectation that any bidding system will be perfect.

[thepossum]

Hi Hrothgar

If I put up a specific hand people will concentrate on that and the bidding by specific players rather than addressing the general question I asked which is what options are available other than completing a transfer

You have alluded to some options, implying that there is no obligation to accept a transfer of other options may be preferable or available.

Suffice to say that the hand I opened was a 3343 hand with 17 points and I play 15-17 NT. I may post an example later. The only alternative opening bid would be 1D with the hand I had. It was flat, KR only 16.9, Pavlicek gave it 18. Gib had 8 points
5224 shape
I should have considered a 2NT invite. I did not think you can superaccept with 3. Is that an option, to superaccept with just 3 or even 2 if you want to force.

Note, almost everybody missed out so score was flat. However it should have reached invite stage. Curiously those who bid game went down 1 and those in 2 made +2. One of those hands

I'm considering playing a flexible 13-16 NT range with Gib. However you have to be careful since it can't always accurately count its points in quantitative situations.

I guess what I'm also alluding to is trump contract evaluation after a 1NT and transfer. If partner opens 1S and I have 3 then I generally can evaluate game potential quite easily from losers, winners, points. After 1NT and transfer which could be very weak it is hard to evaluate so responder has to interpret the 2M or 3M accordingly. Using other hand evaluation methods how do we choose our transfer acceptance accurately, 2M, 3M or something else

Regards P

[Stephen Tu]

No, you should NOT have considered a 2nt invite. You have no idea whether partner is close to invite or close to broke. Breaking the transfer with fewer than 4 trumps is suicidal in the long run. You'll go down 1 (or more) when 2s was making far too often that it will wipe out your gains from a few extra games reached.

It is possible, maybe even probable, depending on the hand, that *partner*, with 5224 8 count, was supposed to invite with 2nt after the transfer. But if it was a bad 8, points in short suits, it might well have been percentage for GIB to transfer then pass (if not playing a 2c followed by 2s = invite 5cdS treatment which GIB doesn't; GIB plays this sequence as both majors I think). Yes, it misses game when you have a fitting max, but it also avoids the times you have slightly less max, accept and go down (in either 3nt or 4s), and also hands where you end in 2nt/3s, things break poorly and go down.

Sometimes in bridge, both players take reasonable percentage actions, but a good contract is missed. This usually happens when both players take justifiable actions, but both players happen to be bottom of range for an aggressive action and things fit poorly (thus overbid), or both players happen to be max for their conservative actions (thus underbid). On average this doesn't happen since one player being min is countered by the other player being max or vice versa.
But once in a while you just catch partner with the wrong hand, both players erred on the wrong side by chance, with perfectly justifiable bids. It just happens. You have to accept these. If you start thinking every good game can and should be bid, you start thinking about doing anti-percentage things like breaking the transfer just because max with only 2-3 trumps. This is a big loser on net when partner's range is 0-8.

Don't rate bids based just on where you want to be opposite just the dummy opposite on a single deal. Think about where you want to be opposite the entire spectrum of partner's range.


1nt opener is *not* the one that is supposed to evaluate whether game is in range. Partner is captain. 1nt is a narrow range. *Partner* of the 1nt bidder is responsible for deciding when to make game tries, not the opener. The opener only can chime in with super accepts, which work OK with 4 cd fit because opps normally can make something if you go down. With lesser fits, the problem is that more often you go down but the opps contract goes down also, fewer "total tricks".

[thepossum]

Thx Stephen

I think maybe sometime it's necessary to stretch a super accept.

I've read sometimes you can superaccept into a different suit?

Or I would need to adjust the opening bid

P

PS I guess part of the problem is what I mentioned higher. Evaluating NT hands. It seems there aren't the same kinds of methods available for evaluating NT hands (in NT or suit contracts) in the same way there are for suit fits. The hand that prompted this was a hand that would likely have resulted in 3S if bid as a major contract, despite having 25 points between the hands. Therefore the bid of 2S (+2) was correct. I think North evaluated the bid correctly. However it prompted the question about what the options are and what kinds of hands could lead to a superaccept. I know the theory is 4+ M but I'm thinking there are certain hands where it could be stretched to a 3M bid with only 3 trumps. Maybe they are few and far between. The hand I had, was 17 HCP, 3343, 3 of the major, and 7 losers. Suppose you had a 17 HCP no trump hand with 6 losers and 3 of the major. Does such a hand exist. And if you have such a hand is it likely to be too strong for 1 NT

[nullve]

I know Norwegian internationals Brogeland-Lindqvist superaccept, or at least used to superaccept, on some MAX hands without 4c support:

http://www.clairebri...d-lindqvist.pdf

(Look under 'How to break transfers (same principles as after 2NT)'.)

And if they do that, then there's a good chance it either already is or will soon be part of Norwegian expert standard 2/1, like almost everything else on their CC.

Personally, I don't even superaccept with 4M(333).

[hrothgar]

 thepossum, on 2019-April-07, 03:14, said:

Evaluating NT hands. It seems there aren't the same kinds of methods available for evaluating NT hands (in NT or suit contracts) in the same way there are for suit fits. The hand that prompted this was a hand that would likely have resulted in 3S if bid as a major contract, despite having 25 points between the hands. Therefore the bid of 2S (+2) was correct. I think North evaluated the bid correctly. However it prompted the question about what the options are and what kinds of hands could lead to a superaccept. I know the theory is 4+ M but I'm thinking there are certain hands where it could be stretched to a 3M bid with only 3 trumps. Maybe they are few and far between

As Stephen notes,

1. The only credible alternative to completing a transfer is to superaccept
2. Nearly all super accept schemes require 4+ trump to break the transfer
3. I am aware of a small number of examples in which people advocate super accepting with three card support and a max. I don't believe that any of these schemes are very popular. (nullve's example indicates that things might be different in Scandinavia. The treatment that a new suit at the three level shows 3 card support, a max, and a good side suit is an interesting alternative)

There are two important principles that you need to consider

1. Playing cards with GIB is not bridge. There's nothing wrong with tweaking what you're playing to get better scores playing with GIB, however, this will likely harm your bridge game
2. Playing any normal system, the 1NT opener has narrowly described their hand with the opening bid. They are not the captain. They should not need to be taking actions like "Hey I claimed that I had 15-17 HCPs. But really, I'm much better than that". If you do need to do so, then you probably want to be tightening up your NT opening to eliminate these hands rather than building in weird bidding exceptions.

[hrothgar]

 thepossum, on 2019-April-07, 00:52, said:

If I put up a specific hand people will concentrate on that and the bidding by specific players rather than addressing the general question I asked which is what options are available other than completing a transfer

You have alluded to some options, implying that there is no obligation to accept a transfer of other options may be preferable or available.

Having chosen to open 1NT, there is no credible option other than completing the transfer with a hand such as the one that you describe.

If you still believe that you should take some action other than completing the transfer, then you really should post the hand so we can find where the disconnect is occuring.

Alternatively, hold the 1NT opener constant, deal a few hundred hands consistent with a transfer response, and see how the auction develops.

[etha]

give the hand to jack wbridge or qplus. they will all bid it better than gib

[Stephen Tu]

You seem to be frustrated that you can't reach all your 17 vs 8 games. Well this can be fixed. Responder can be forced to invite with all 8 pt hands. Or you might make opener super accept 2nt with 17 + 3cd fit. Is this a good idea? You can find out. Keep in mind that if responder invites, while you get to all your games on 17 vs 8, you are getting to game on 16 vs 8 also. And playing 2nt/3M with 15 vs 8 instead of 2M.

So the things you can investigate:

• Given the actual responder hand (5224 8 count), was this hand was supposed to invite or not? Fix the responder hand, now deal random 15-17 bal opposite. Now play 3nt/4S opposite 16/17, 2nt/3s opposite 15. Carefully tally the IMPs (or MP) gained when game is both bid and made, vs the IMPs lost when game goes down or 2nt/3s goes down. This will tell you whether responder was supposed to invite this hand (blame going to *GIB*, not notrump bidder).
• Is it a good idea for responder to invite with 5332 or 5224 8 in *general*, not just a particular hand. Run similar simulation but randomize responder hand as well. Is it +EV to invite any 8, or only the better ones?
• Is super-accepting on 17+ 3 cd only fit +EV? Deal 17 pt NT hands with 3cd spade to south. Deal spade transfer hands to north that you judge would transfer and pass normally (~0-8 hcp 5 spades, not 4+H, also weaker hands with 6+/7+ spades not strong enough to invite). Again evaluate how many making games you get to vs failing games and failing partials.

[helene_t]

Playing with a human, you should trust partner to invite if he wants to be in game opposite a good 16. You could miss game if you have a 17 count and partner doesn't invite with his poor 8 or good 7, but that's life. Super-accepting with less than 4-card support leads to too many silly 3-level contracts when partner is broke.

You might, as a partnership, consider experiencing with a slightly narrower 1NT range to make it easier for partner to decide when to invite - say don't open 1NT with a good 17 count, or don't open 1nt with a poor 15 count. I wouldn't recommend this strategy as I think the 1NT opening works quite well as it is and I don't want to put any further pressure on the suit openings, but your mileage may vary.

You might also, as a partnership, consider playing a structure that allows responder to invite without forcing to the 3-level. Playing 2♦ as (mildly) invitational or stronger with a 5-card suit in a major, while playing 2♥/♠ as sign offs, is an option. Or you could play Keri. Somewhat less radical, you could agree that 1NT-2♣-2red-2♠* is a mild invite with five spades.

Playing with GIB, you know that your partner is very conservative and won't invite as often as they should. There's nothing you can do about this, and super-accepting with 3-card support is not a winning strategy. What you can do is you can compensate by opening 1NT with decent 14 to decent 16.

[thepossum]

 Stephen Tu, on 2019-April-07, 07:50, said:

You seem to be frustrated that you can't reach all your 17 vs 8 games.

I'm not frustrated Stephen. This thread is not about me. It is about investigating options in NT, major and transfer situations

It has nothing to do with me at all. I'm just exploring what options everyone in the world has to evaluate and adjust their bids to reach the right contract

It has nothing to do with point count expectations, double dummy or anything like that. We all know double dummy means nothing. Most good players (and me) are not stupid enough to think that is a goal of bidding. What I'm trying to explore is how you accurately and precisely evaluate the most reasonable contract. For example in this case I believe that 3S would be the "correct" contract so a 2S followed by pass bid was fine. However there are 4S contracts that would fall through the cracks because of different guidelines and evaluations used by different partners. In this case it seems that my partner's assessment to pass was acceptable although it probably should have invited with 8 points.

regards P

[thepossum]

Hi

Based on some of the above chat, and trying to work out a method for judging super-accepts in certain cases I ran a few hand generations through Bridge Base dealer

About 0.53% of hands are 15-17 HCP 4432 or 4333 hands (any order) opposite a 5+ card spade. No restrictions on points for partner but spades is longest suit. Note these are just for spades and single table orientation, and no interference. Very simplified. And I havent investigated semiBalanced hands

Of those approximately

10.3% have 17 HCP and 3 spades - usually do a regular 2S accept
6.8% had 17 HCP and 4 spades - fits the Bergen(??) criteria for superaccept
4.9% had 17 HCP, 3 spades, and less than 7 losers - this was my speculated subset of NT hands with 3 spades and possible superaccept

So they wouldnt be common as everybody says. I may try using losers next time I am unsure and dont have a clear superaccept. Even if it is such a small proportion of transfer situations

Thanks everyone
P

[Cyberyeti]

 thepossum, on 2019-April-07, 18:10, said:

I'm not frustrated Stephen. This thread is not about me. It is about investigating options in NT, major and transfer situations

It has nothing to do with me at all. I'm just exploring what options everyone in the world has to evaluate and adjust their bids to reach the right contract

It has nothing to do with point count expectations, double dummy or anything like that. We all know double dummy means nothing. Most good players (and me) are not stupid enough to think that is a goal of bidding. What I'm trying to explore is how you accurately and precisely evaluate the most reasonable contract. For example in this case I believe that 3S would be the "correct" contract so a 2S followed by pass bid was fine. However there are 4S contracts that would fall through the cracks because of different guidelines and evaluations used by different partners. In this case it seems that my partner's assessment to pass was acceptable although it probably should have invited with 8 points.

regards P

You need to look at whether you should have upgraded the 17 first time.

We play weak NT but break transfers with any non 4333 4 card support not just max.

The only time I ever break the transfer with 3 card support is when I'm looking at something like K10x, AKxxx, Kxx, xx and partner transfers to spades (effectively a hand where I feel the knowledge that partner has spades is likely to have made my hand worth more than a weak no trump). It matters what system of transfer breaks you play, we break to length, being able to show a maximum and hearts gives partner a decent chance to judge.

Over 2N-3red we break to suits to show 5 of the suit bid and 3 trumps with 3N and 4 of partner's suit to show 4 card support.

[thepossum]

 Cyberyeti, on 2019-April-09, 01:54, said:

You need to look at whether you should have upgraded the 17 first time.

Yes, that seems to be the consensus view that maybe the times you would consider superaccepting with 3M and 17 HCP, then maybe it was too strong for a 1 NT in the first place. I used to play weak NT too, and find that sometimes a strong NT can cause problems with borderline hands, especially against a cautious partner.

As others have suggested and I am considering I may change my NT range to 14-16 with this partner. And/or I will start looking at losers and other factors in the case of a transfer and major fit

Its quite interesting switching between the NT/major views of a hand, either as opener or responder

I'm very interested in finding ways to evaluate 1NT openers. I've read them discussed on other threads on this site. No trump seems to have fewer methods than suit fits other than quantitative evaluation - even they need to be adjusted a point or two sometimes

P