[Antrax]

---

What do you bid now?

[wyman]

4♦. I'm no longer in charge.

[aguahombre]

 wyman, on 2013-January-10, 12:50, said:

4♦. I'm no longer in charge.

This is the easy part, IMO. Next, I fully expect partner to sign off in 4H; but if the best she could do is cue my AK suit, she must have AKQ of hearts and the diamond king with length, so I will drive to six after the 4H signoff.

Pls don't tell me later that 4C was really not a cue, but Gerber and I blew the response

[kenrexford]

First, what would 3NT by partner have shown? That seems rather important.

If, for instance, 3NT would have been serious, then partner has a non-serious hand with at least two spades (he does not have a control) and with a stiff in clubs (he has a control, but I have Ace-King). He also is only mildly interested in slam, but he is interested in slam nonetheless.

The second questuon is whether you play Smolen. Most who play Smolen would have started with Stayman if 4♠/5♥. I would also like to know what he would do with 6♥/4♠. But, this question lets me know something about his likely shape. Let us assume Smolen.

I would guess, then, that partner has something like 3-5-4-1 shape with mild interest. Maybe ♠Q x x ♥ A K Q x x ♦ K x x x ♣ x? That seems like too much stuff for only mild interest, and that is not a great hand for slam if you remove something. I expect less for non-serious, and thus I want to sign off. Granted, expecting spades to be only three in length means that the club King is a good replacement for the club Jack, and my diamond Queen seems like a good card, but the trump suit just seems so lousy.

So, if 4♣ was non-serious, I will bid 4♠.

If 4♣ was serious, and thus 3NT frivolous, I bid 4♦. I feel obligated, even if hesitant.

If 4♣ was neither, and 3NT would have been to play, I sign off on GP that too much of my hand is wasted in clubs.



BTW -- I hate the structure.

[kenrexford]

 aguahombre, on 2013-January-10, 13:33, said:

This is the easy part, IMO. Next, I fully expect partner to sign off in 4H; but if the best she could do is cue my AK suit, she must have AKQ of hearts and the diamond king with length, so I will drive to six after the 4H signoff.

Pls don't tell me later that 4C was really not a cue, but Gerber and I blew the response

Are you out of your mind?!?!?


You actually think that partner has ♠xx ♥AKQxx ♦Kxxxx ♣x, will hear you super-accept hearts and then cuebid 4♦, and then will bail out at 4♥?!?!? Wow! I would move toward slam that way if partner super-accepted a transfer playing a WEAK notrump, even if he made the WEAK SUPER-ACCEPT (needing only an 11-count Axx-Jxxx-AQx-xxx for slam). I don't think that a weak 11-count super-accept and a strong super-accept 17-count are basically the same hand.

[aguahombre]

I am no more out of my mind than if I had brought out the possibility of serious/nonserious for responder after Opener has defined his hand narrowly already.

3NT would indeed be slammish, as was 4C in this case. They both are serious, just with different meanings. My meaning of 3NT would be lack of any control in two outside suits, allowing opener to cheaply cue clubs.....something like XX AKQXXXX X XXX, or maybe even an eighth heart too powerful for Texas.

[Cyberyeti]

Hate the method (I would show 4-4M and max with a super accept of 2♠), no clue what to do as you've neatly minimised how much you've told each other with the system.

[kenrexford]

 aguahombre, on 2013-January-10, 13:50, said:

I am no more out of my mind than if I had brought out the possibility of serious/nonserious for responder after Opener has defined his hand narrowly already.

The underlined section is plain wrong, IMO.

Consider a simple situation to see why. If Opener has ♠AKx ♥AJxx ♦xxx ♣KQx, then he has a very narrow 4-card raise with a very narrow 17 HCP. However, he has not "defined his hand narrowly" in any manner that is important.

Suppose Responder has some 5-4-3-1 pattern with 9 HCP.

If his hand is ♠Qxx ♥Kxxxx ♦Axxx ♣x, the five-level is in serious jeopardy, as a diamond lead is messy.

With, however, ♠Qxx ♥Kxxxx ♦x ♣Axxx, you are a favorite for 12 tricks.

What has changed? Opposite the first hand, Opener has 3 cover cards. Opposite the second, Opener has 5 cover cards.

Thus, this one hand could be looked at as having 3-5 cover cards. That seems like quite a large range.

If you assume that Opener usually has 3-5 cover cards for a maximum super-accept, which is a fair assumption, then Responder needs at least a 6-loser hand to be interested in slam, but a 5-loser hand easily might not be enough for slam. Hence, a "serious" slam try might be viewed as a hand with only five losers but non-serious as six losers.

The hand with A-K-Q-fifth in trumps and King-length in diamonds has two losers in the red suits (needs two covers) and if 6-4 or 5-5 has only three more losers in the black suits (needs three covers there), for a 5-loser hand and serious interest. Take away one card of diamond length or one red honor, and you get to a six-loser hand (maybe a 1/2 loser in spades), for a non-serious interest slam try.

Of course, all of this explains why the methods suck. If you preempt the partnership with maximum super-accepts, and then just cuebid, you eliminate the space needed to define the strength of the slam try (serious or non-serious) and lose the ability to define whether slow honors are or are not cover cards.

[aguahombre]

I take it all back. I should never discuss super-accepts on these fora, because our super-accepts are only done on hands which increase above the NT range in support of the xfer suit, and 4X3 hands are not included.

I should never discuss serious/non-serious on these fora because our definition of the terms only apply in a 2/1 auction where a M-fit has been established at the 3-level and neither partner is yet limited to minimum for their previous bids.

3NT would still be artificial, though.

[kenrexford]

 aguahombre, on 2013-January-10, 16:01, said:

I take it all back. I should never discuss super-accepts on these fora, because our super-accepts are only done on hands which increase above the NT range in support of the xfer suit, and 4X3 hands are not included.

I should never discuss serious/non-serious on these fora because our definition of the terms only apply in a 2/1 auction where a M-fit has been established at the 3-level and neither partner is yet limited to minimum for their previous bids.

3NT would still be artificial, though.

Actually, you SHOULD discuss these things, because you are STILL thinking along the wrong lines, IMO.



A 1NT opening defines a range in the context of no known or to be known fit. You add "points" for honors, pre-defined by expectations in the abstract. The "range" is then a defined narrow range of honor cards held within those expectations.

At the point where a transfer bid is made, however, the notrump opener's hand immediately has a new "range." The notrump Opener has anything from a non-fit holding with maybe as few as two expected cover cards to a 4-card super-fit with as many as even six cover cards (KQ in the major, KQ in a side suit, K in the doubleton suit, and an Ace somewhere).

Thus, while the a priori range is a mere 15-17 HCP (a Queen of total count difference), the addition of one fact has changed the analysis such that Opener has a new range of 2-4 cards in the major and 2-6 cover cards. That is quite a range.

Your definition is all wrong theoretically. You are looking for something in your hand that changed the a priori strength by one to 18 total points. More important is the ability to define the hands with a fit (3-4 cards in support) as to total cover card strength (2-3, 4, or 5-6). At the highest end, more shape knowledge is ideal, but at 5 covers you could have KQ in trumps plus three Aces.

To me, then, a "super-accept" is more important as defining a hand with a possible 5-6 cover cards (maybe up to two cards are questionable) than defining a ahnd with exactly 4-card support or defining a hand with a doubleton oir a trick source. What is a better super-accept of hearts, Axx-KQx-Axxx-Axx or AJx-Jxxx-KQJx-Ax? Which if Responder turns out to have a stiff diamond?

[Antrax]

Based on the answer, this pair plays first-round control cues only, so 4♣ must be a void.

[Siegmund]

Well, we know one loser is the ♠A, and we don't know if we have a second, but partner will. I suppose 4D now and 4S over 4H, respecting partner's decision after that, is the best we can do, though partner may well think that's the ace of spades rather than the king.

Sure would be easier if we hadn't wasted so much space already.

[Vampyr]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-January-10, 14:11, said:

Hate the method (I would show 4-4M and max with a super accept of 2♠), no clue what to do as you've neatly minimised how much you've told each other with the system.

A lot of people use just one bid for super-accepting, since usually game is the maximum that is reached. For game purposes, it is usually as useful to know whether there is a super-accept as it is to know exactly what it is, and information leakage is minimised.

But using the 5th-cheapest bid for this purpose is not a very good use of the space available.

[MrAce]

 kenrexford, on 2013-January-10, 13:39, said:

Are you out of your mind?!?!?


You actually think that partner has ♠xx ♥AKQxx ♦Kxxxx ♣x, will hear you super-accept hearts and then cuebid 4♦, and then will bail out at 4♥?!?!? Wow! I would move toward slam that way if partner super-accepted a transfer playing a WEAK notrump, even if he made the WEAK SUPER-ACCEPT (needing only an 11-count Axx-Jxxx-AQx-xxx for slam). I don't think that a weak 11-count super-accept and a strong super-accept 17-count are basically the same hand.

I do not understand your reaction. After all Aguaman made a good point that our problem is not this round and it is next round. You are constructing a hand that serves well to your opinion. But Aguaman is right about there are hands that pd maybe looking for spade control and doesn't have the hand to drive to slam after our 4♦

xxx AKQxx KJxx x for example, you make slam if opener has AKx Jxxx AQx QJx and you will be itching to go down at 5 level if he has QJxx Jxxx AQ AKx

Don't get me wrong, i am not implying that we should or not bid over responder's 4♥. It probably depends on what 3 NT would be. Negative side of bidding is that we know pd has shoetness in our AKx suit, if he was making cue with a hand that could not decide whether to go slam or not yet, but better than just bidding game.

[kenrexford]

 MrAce, on 2013-January-11, 05:40, said:

I do not understand your reaction. After all Aguaman made a good point that our problem is not this round and it is next round. You are constructing a hand that serves well to your opinion. But Aguaman is right about there are hands that pd maybe looking for spade control and doesn't have the hand to drive to slam after our 4♦

xxx AKQxx KJxx x for example, you make slam if opener has AKx Jxxx AQx QJx and you will be itching to go down at 5 level if he has QJxx Jxxx AQ AKx

Don't get me wrong, i am not implying that we should or not bid over responder's 4♥. It probably depends on what 3 NT would be. Negative side of bidding is that we know pd has shoetness in our AKx suit, if he was making cue with a hand that could not decide whether to go slam or not yet, but better than just bidding game.

You are correct that partner might have a hand where he is looking for a spade control and does not have the hand to drive to slam after our 4♦ call. But, solid hearts with King-fifth in diamonds is not that hand.

Aquaman's comment was eventually that there is no sense to serious or non-serious bidding here. But think this through.

Your example of xxx-AKQxx-KJxx-x is an example with a six-loser hand. Changing this one card to xx-AKQxx-KJxxx-x yields a 5-loser hand. That one card of difference is huge, as Opener needs one fewer useful card to make slam. That is a lot,

The cover card analysis also is critical. With your two examples, the cover card count is different. The first has four covers, while the second had three.

So, if Responder has six losers rather than five (non-serious) and Opener has four covers rather than three, the slam makes because of the Jack of diamonds that cannot really be shown well. If you switch Responder to a five-loser hand, he has foive-level safety even opposite your dog of a 3-cover hand and thus will surely move on his own, which is my point. Opener need not get excited with a junky 4-cover holding because Responder will move himself after the cooperative-context cue of 4♦ (as no one makes a cooperative-context cue with only three covers).

Thus, Opener cannot have a problem on the second round opposite a cooperative cue of 4♣, at least not legitimately.

[aguahombre]

 kenrexford, on 2013-January-11, 09:37, said:

You are correct that partner might have a hand where he is looking for a spade control and does not have the hand to drive to slam after our 4♦ call. But, solid hearts with King-fifth in diamonds is not that hand.

XX AKQXX KXXXX X might be worried about XX JXXX AQJ AKQX. By the way, I said "King and length" in diamonds; you said "king-fifth". We now now that 4C is a void, due to the updated information, so we have two of your "cover cards" for XXX AKQXX KXXXX, and wouldn't really care if responder were XXX AKXXXX KXXX V. Conclusion: we proceed to six if responder signs off in 4H...not cueing Spades along the way to muddy the waters and possibility get to a grand.

[Zelandakh]

For those bidding 4♦, it obviously shows a spade control but does it also show a diamond control? If so, then what would you be bidding with a spade control and no diamond control?

FWiiW I am with Ken in using Frivolous (Serious) here but define it as a slam try or non acceptance of a slam try (depending on whether the known or unknown hand is bidding it). That makes for a definition that can be used across almost any auction. It seems silly to me to take a tool as useful as F3NT and confine it only to 2/1 auctions (especially as I do not play 2/1!).