[32519]

gordontd, on 2014-February-20, 02:48, said:

I look forward to seeing the dumb idea.

Vampyr, on 2014-February-20, 05:10, said:

I doubt you shall be disappointed.

Cyberyeti, on 2014-February-20, 04:15, said:

I don't see the point of this thread, so without the superaccept, this goes 1N-2♦-2♥-3N-4♥, what difference does it make ? Maybe you bid 3♣ on the way, but you're bidding game with the N hand.

gwnn, on 2014-February-20, 06:46, said:

Maybe we could start a little betting panel on what the dumb idea will be to pass time before the main entertainment starts?

I hope it's not just about doing away with superaccepts, that would be a bit of a bummer.

Antrax, on 2014-February-20, 10:34, said:

I'm with you. I mistakenly put it in a post that had Bridge content, though :(I think it fits well with the 2♦ bid and as this hand demonstrates, it works in 100% of the cases.

manudude03, on 2014-February-20, 06:48, said:

I think he answered it in the subtitle, the idea being that you should never superaccept.

Folks, its doing away with super-accepts altogether. How is the opener supposed to differentiate between the hand in the OP and this one?

---

If West passes in tempo, by super-accepting you have just succeeded in getting your side into an even higher unmakeable contract. The defence is going to win 6-tricks, 2 in ♠, 2 in ♥, 1in ♦, and 1 in ♣. What's the point of gifting away points to the opponents?

[kuhchung]

Superaccepting gains 0% of the time and loses 100% of the time

[billw55]

IMO the merits or flaws of superaccepts are irrelevant on the deal given. Holding the north hand opposite a 15-17 NT, I am perfectly happy to force to game 100% of the time no matter what opener does thereafter. I strongly believe I will show a profit versus any method of stopping below game with that hand.

[manudude03]

Hey, I got an idea, let's not do stayman on 1444 yarbs!

[akwoo]

This is a terrible hand to super-accept on.

First of all, I have a general rule: 4333 hands have 3 cards in every suit.

Okay - move one of the black cards into the other black suit.

This is still a terrible hand to super-accept. You've got all these defensive values, so the hand rates to be under total tricks. It's also not very good for suit play with all the losers in side suits.

Super-accepting is always a matter of judgement. You don't do it based on point count; you do it based on whether you can imagine partner having a 6 or 7 count opposite which you make game.

[hrothgar]

32519, on 2014-February-20, 12:33, said:

What's the point of gifting away points to the opponents?

One of these days, you will hopefully learn that the singular of data is anecdote.
Isolated, cherry picked examples are not interesting.

[Cyberyeti]

32519, on 2014-February-20, 12:33, said:

Folks, its doing away with super-accepts altogether. How is the opener supposed to differentiate between the hand in the OP and this one?

---

If West passes in tempo, by super-accepting you have just succeeded in getting your side into an even higher unmakeable contract. The defence is going to win 6-tricks, 2 in ♠, 2 in ♥, 1in ♦, and 1 in ♣. What's the point of gifting away points to the opponents?

So I dialled -100 in 3♥ when the rest of the world lost 110 in 2♠, and if I bid 3♥ over 2♠ I went for 300, seems OK to me.

[nige1]

In my youth, I played "Automatic Aces" e.g. over 1N - 2♦ -; ??

• - 2♥ = 2-3 ♥
• - 3♥ = MIN 4+♥ (or no keycards).
• - 2N = MAX 4+♥ 3433
• - 2♠/3♣/3♦ = MAX 4+♥ 3/1/2 Key cards (4 As and ♥K)

We played a weak notrump. If you play a strong notrump, you can increment the key-card requirements. I was persuaded that this method leaked too much information

[Lord Molyb]

Would you super-accept with a transfer to hearts with ♠KT9 ♥QJTx ♦AKTx ♣Kx? What if you turn a small diamond into the jack?

[manudude03]

I've always felt that when it comes to superaccepts, showing doubletons is going in the wrong direction. I prefer to show where my tricks are (and 2NT if there is no particular trick source). So with Lord Molyb's hand, I would superaccept by bidding 3H as a trick source in diamonds (I never bid 3D).

[johnu]

kuhchung, on 2014-February-20, 12:45, said:

Superaccepting gains 0% of the time and loses 100% of the time

Maybe you and 32519 could write a book about this dumb idea. You could make up 1000 examples where superaccepting gets a bad result. 1 made up example doesn't prove anything, but 1000 made up examples pretty much makes the case.

[akwoo]

Lord Molyb, on 2014-February-20, 17:20, said:

Would you super-accept with a transfer to hearts with ♠KT9 ♥QJTx ♦AKTx ♣Kx? What if you turn a small diamond into the jack?

My preference for a super-accept system is to bid a good second suit. As a general system rule, I prefer systems that show strengths rather than weaknesses. (For example, I don't like help-suit game tries.) The weakness information is more useful to the defense (especially on opening lead) than the strength information, and for partner they are about equally useful.

In this case, playing such a system, I bid 3♦ red and 2♥ black. (Qxxx♦ and a black ace from partner gives me a good enough odds for game red but not black.) If the T♦ is a J, I bid 3♦ at any color.

[32519]

billw55, on 2014-February-20, 12:59, said:

IMO the merits or flaws of superaccepts are irrelevant on the deal given.

hrothgar, on 2014-February-20, 13:47, said:

One of these days, you will hopefully learn that the singular of data is anecdote.Isolated, cherry picked examples are not interesting.

johnu, on 2014-February-20, 21:52, said:

Maybe you and 32519 could write a book about this dumb idea. You could make up 1000 examples where superaccepting gets a bad result. 1 made up example doesn't prove anything, but 1000 made up examples pretty much makes the case.

I think all of you are missing the gist of my post. When partner has a bust (as in hand 2) you are just gifting the opponents the plus score with your super-accept.
When partner's hand has life, he can invite by lifting 2M to 3M.
With a reasonable hand as in the OP, partner can bid 3NT as a choice of places to play. Unfortuneately, as already pointed out, on the actual hand 3NT scores worse than 4♥.
That's all part of the game.

[chasetb]

kuhchung, on 2014-February-20, 12:45, said:

Superaccepting gains 0% of the time and loses 100% of the time

johnu, on 2014-February-20, 21:52, said:

Maybe you and 32519 could write a book about this dumb idea. You could make up 1000 examples where superaccepting gets a bad result. 1 made up example doesn't prove anything, but 1000 made up examples pretty much makes the case.

John, I think kuhchung meant on THIS HAND that Superaccepting gains 0% of the time and loses 100% of the time. Of course, nobody should super-accept with the hand given.

32519, you need to understand that points are not the be-all end-all in hand evaluation. In a suit contract, shape and quality/location of points is far more important than having the points. 4333 hands should generally be downgraded a point. If partner shows shape, Aces and Kings (your Quick Tricks) are far more valuable than Queens and Jacks. If you change the example 1NT hand (which I would open 1NT, because of the Major suit spots) to something like ♠AT9 ♥AJ95 ♦KQJx ♣xx , it's a clear super-accept. Despite ONLY 15 HCP, you have 4-card support for partner, you have a ruffing value, and you have both quick tricks and tricks that easily develop.

Like some of the posters, I also have assigned meanings to my super-accept bids. I only use 3 of them though - 2NT to show a maximum hand (not HCP, controls + 4-card support) with a worthless doubleton, 3M-1 to show a super-accept that wants partner to declare (like the example hand I gave), and 3M to show a non-maximum super-accept.

[32519]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-February-20, 13:50, said:

So I dialled -100 in 3♥ when the rest of the world lost 110 in 2♠, and if I bid 3♥ over 2♠ I went for 300, seems OK to me.

You're also missing the point. In the second hand, move the ♥Q (or ♥K) into the East hand and 2♥ makes. Say you are playing in a team-of-4 match and your team has reached the knockout stages. There is one board left to play and the two teams are neck-and-neck, who goes through all hinges on the result of the last board. You are in the open room with the hand in the OP, partner transfer to ♥ and you super-accept going down 1 in 3♥. In the closed room the opponents are more disciplined, the transfer is done into 2♥, passed all round and made. How do you intend defending yourself before your very angry teammates in the closed room?

A dumb bridge idea got your side eliminated!

[chasetb]

32519, on 2014-February-20, 23:19, said:

I think all of you are missing the gist of my post. When partner has a bust (as in hand 2) you are just gifting the opponents the plus score with your super-accept.
When partner's hand has life, he can invite by lifting 2M to 3M.
With a reasonable hand as in the OP, partner can bid 3NT as a choice of places to play. Unfortunately, as already pointed out, on the actual hand 3NT scores worse than 4♥.
That's all part of the game.

East screwed up by NOT interfering - (s)he can easily show Spades and a minor suit (I use X of the transfer to show that). You are also forgetting (or ignoring) that you DO NOT SUPER-ACCEPT WITH THAT HAND because of the reasons listed in my post. Coming from someone who doesn't attack you, I think you should listen.

[johnu]

chasetb, on 2014-February-20, 23:28, said:

John, I think kuhchung meant on THIS HAND that Superaccepting gains 0% of the time and loses 100% of the time. Of course, nobody should super-accept with the hand given.

I'm sure kuchung can clarify his own remarks. This might be a lousy hand to superaccept, but even on the hand above that post, the superaccept may keep the opponents out of spades which would be a measurable gain above 0%. And if partner had a hand just short of an invitation, game is a possibility which again would be a measurable gain above 0%.

[johnu]

32519, on 2014-February-20, 23:19, said:

I think all of you are missing the gist of my post. When partner has a bust (as in hand 2) you are just gifting the opponents the plus score with your super-accept.
When partner's hand has life, he can invite by lifting 2M to 3M.
With a reasonable hand as in the OP, partner can bid 3NT as a choice of places to play. Unfortuneately, as already pointed out, on the actual hand 3NT scores worse than 4♥.
That's all part of the game.

Don't the opponents ever have a part score or even game their way when you open 1NT and partner has a bust and you have a 9+ card fit? Have you heard of preemptive bids?

Partner may have life, but can't move after you accept the transfer because their hand isn't worth a game try without a known very good trump fit.

If partner has an invitational hand, what do you lose by superaccepting?

[Antrax]

32519, on 2014-February-20, 12:33, said:

Folks, its doing away with super-accepts altogether. How is the opener supposed to differentiate between the hand in the OP and this one?

---

If West passes in tempo, by super-accepting you have just succeeded in getting your side into an even higher unmakeable contract. The defence is going to win 6-tricks, 2 in ♠, 2 in ♥, 1in ♦, and 1 in ♣. What's the point of gifting away points to the opponents?

I can't believe you didn't go with my idea. Look how well it works:
2♥-(P)-P-???
S will usually have a weak 2 in hearts, so W couldn't act directly over it. N knows from his own hand that S has a 3=4=3=3 hand with less than 4 controls. Now E is in a bind. Should he balance and risk finding out S had the weak 2 variety and N has a lot of points and heart shortness? And even if he wanted to balance, what with? 2♠ shows both minors and X is keycard in clubs as per the suggested defense. He could bid 2NT showing 5-5 in the higher unbid suits but what if west is 2=3=2=5?
This is much better for N/S than the "standard" auction. They end up a level lower and in a single round of bidding, putting tremendous pressure on the opponents.

[gwnn]

chasetb, on 2014-February-20, 23:28, said:

John, I think kuhchung meant on THIS HAND that Superaccepting gains 0% of the time and loses 100% of the time. Of course, nobody should super-accept with the hand given.

No, he is referring to this post:

32519 said:

Let me say it again: My side gains 100% and your side 0%.

http://www.bridgebas...016#entry776016

For future reference, if someone in a thread of 32519's says something incredibly asinine, chances are they are quoting some past post of his.