Revisiting Pre-/Post- Acceptance
KWSchneider
the current "best practices" approach to transferring into a minor
after a 15-17pt notrump opening.
Do folks primarily pre-accept [ie 1N 2S 2N shows Hx in clubs or
better] or post-accept [ie 1N 2S 3C shows Hx in clubs or better]. And
does anyone use 1N 2S 3N to show Hxx or better?
I have a partner who prefers post-accepts, while I prefer pre-accepts.
Cheers,
Kurt
Nick France
I don't understand that last one where you bid 1NT-2S-3N on Hxx (did
you mean 2NT and its a typo?0
A consideration on which you use is how often does the notrump bidder
bid 2NT and how often does he bid 3C. As you want as a general rule
to have the stronger hand playing it you have to define what
acceptance is and then choice the option that makes the notrump bidder
bidding 3C more often. I really think its as simple as that.
Nick France
Tivo John
Another consideration is how you show 5-5 in the minors with less than
invitational values.
The use of post-accept allows a weak 5-5 in the minors to be included
in a 2N response that is ostensibly a transfer to diamonds.
Responder can be confident of being in the best fit by passing
whatever opener rebids.
-- John
Michael Angelo Ravera
"Best Practice" is a method known as "Multi-Try" where -2S, -2NT, -3C,
-2C-2x-3C, -2C-2D-3D, and -2C-2M-3D all have minor suit meanings some
of which are polyvalent (and may include various balanced hands in
addition to long minors).
Most partners who don't use multi-try use preaccept. The main reason
is that a slam try is easier. Whereas opponents don't need to know
about the difference between an invitiational hand and a bust that had
a defect for no trump and don't get three or four chances to double.
Lorne
news:a5d0e0da-c6d9-48fd...@j2g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
The only situation where it makes a material difference is when you are weak
with both minors. If you break the transfer with no fit then you can bid 2N
and pass 3C knowing that if there is no diamond fit there must be a club
fit.
Will in New Haven
> "KWSchneider" <questionofbala...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
And partner can have AX in Clubs and JTXX in Diamonds. The "fit"
question is "do you have HXX or better," with the honor being the Ace
or King and changing that means you can't really depend on the methods
to find out whether you have a running minor for 3NT. XXXX isn't
really "or better" for those purposes. Or opener may have a nice
Diamond fit, KXX, and show acceptance, while she also has AJXXX in
Clubs.
This doesn't come up that often and I don't mind playing Acceptance or
Preacceptance (and don't play either right now because I'm always
playing a Weak NT and no transfers below Texas) but the idea that the
right fit will be found much more than half the time is a delusion.
--
Will in New Haven
Tivo John
On further consideration, I agree: the best fit will not be found some
of the time in the 5-5 weak minors case.
I think that the best fit will be found significantly more than half
of the time and a viable fit will be found almost all of the time.
Percentages go higher if the partnership agreement is to include xxxx
in the category of worthwhile holdings.
-- John
Will in New Haven
But this _seems to_ significantl hurt using the bid as a way to see if
3NT is playable. However, a simulation might show that XXXX with
compensating honor strength outside is as good as HXX, with the honor
being A or K, without the extra honor outside or almost as good. It
certainly would mean that partner would, without knowing it, choose
XXXX over AX, which is a no-brainer if you know you are choosing. It
is the unviable fit in Clubs that is the problem as a reasonable fit
will always be there when partner accepts Diamonds.
Opponents and teammates of mine have gotten to the inferior fit
several times using this method but that it an indadequate sample
size.
Since I don't play transfers of this type in my current partnership
this is all academic for me and I may have been influenced by some
good scores we got when our opponents played the wrong fit and a bad
result when our teammates played the wrong fit. Always a bad Club fit
when opener had a non-fit, by the definition used in the convention,
for Diamonds.
Steve Willner
> ...approach to transferring into a minor
> after a 15-17pt notrump opening.
I know this is an old thread, but I don't think anybody mentioned the
answer I think is best.
> Do folks primarily pre-accept [ie 1N 2S 2N shows Hx in clubs or
> better] or post-accept [ie 1N 2S 3C shows Hx in clubs or better].
First, let's get the terminology straight. Either one is a "pre-accept"
because you are accepting partner's possible invitation _before_ you
know he has made an invitation at all. A "post-accept" would be a
normal sequence where partner invites, and you _then_ decide whether to
accept or not.
As to which bit is best to use for the pre-accept, it depends on what
hands you accept with. My ideal acceptance is an honor in the suit and
three aces outside. If partner's suit is six to two honors, we're
probably rolling 3NT. Of course not every acceptance meets this ideal,
but they all look something like it. Other people accept with length in
partner's suit, almost regardless of outside cards. (Some may also want
maximum values.) I don't understand this approach, but it may be more
popular than mine.
Which bid you use to accept only matters if partner was _not_ inviting
3NT. In that case, either you play 3m or 5m or a slam. If your
acceptance looks like mine, the NT hand will have little or no lead
value, and in fact there's considerable advantage in keeping the
responding hand concealed. (Defenders can't tell where responder is
short nor whether they are playing to beat the contract or just to hold
overtricks.) Therefore using the intermediate suit as the pre-accept
makes sense for me. If your accepts are the other kind, there may be
considerable value in having the lead come up to opener's hand. If
that's the way you play, you probably want partner's suit to be the
pre-accept and the intermediate bid to be the refusal.
> And does anyone use 1N 2S 3N to show Hxx or better?
Never heard of it. Why can't responder have a zero-count with a long
suit? I suppose extreme Law adherents might use 3NT to show _four_ card
support, happily playing 4m if responder is weak, but that seems
unnecessary to me. Maybe it would make sense with five card support
(probably as part of a more extensive artificial structure starting with
the bid above partner's suit), but it would be rare.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Barry Margolin
Steve Willner <swil...@nhcc.net> wrote:
> On 9/21/2010 11:24 AM, KWSchneider wrote:
> > ...approach to transferring into a minor
> > after a 15-17pt notrump opening.
>
> I know this is an old thread, but I don't think anybody mentioned the
> answer I think is best.
>
> > Do folks primarily pre-accept [ie 1N 2S 2N shows Hx in clubs or
> > better] or post-accept [ie 1N 2S 3C shows Hx in clubs or better].
>
> First, let's get the terminology straight. Either one is a "pre-accept"
> because you are accepting partner's possible invitation _before_ you
> know he has made an invitation at all. A "post-accept" would be a
> normal sequence where partner invites, and you _then_ decide whether to
> accept or not.
Is there a better pair of terms to distinguish whether you bid the suit
or the intermediate to indicate that you have good support for the suit?
I think people tend to use "pre" for bidding the intermediate step
because you're bidding something "before" bidding the suit being
transferred to. And while "post" is a misnomer, because you're not
bidding something "after" the suit, it's a convenient antonym. When
you're filling in the little blanks on the convention card, there isn't
really room for much more.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
David Stevenson
>In article <ijkjmr$cdc$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Steve Willner <swil...@nhcc.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/21/2010 11:24 AM, KWSchneider wrote:
>> > ...approach to transferring into a minor
>> > after a 15-17pt notrump opening.
>>
>> I know this is an old thread, but I don't think anybody mentioned the
>> answer I think is best.
>>
>> > Do folks primarily pre-accept [ie 1N 2S 2N shows Hx in clubs or
>> > better] or post-accept [ie 1N 2S 3C shows Hx in clubs or better].
>>
>> First, let's get the terminology straight. Either one is a "pre-accept"
>> because you are accepting partner's possible invitation _before_ you
>> know he has made an invitation at all. A "post-accept" would be a
>> normal sequence where partner invites, and you _then_ decide whether to
>> accept or not.
>
>Is there a better pair of terms to distinguish whether you bid the suit
>or the intermediate to indicate that you have good support for the suit?
Yes, any term that does not say something totally wrong would be
better.
>I think people tend to use "pre" for bidding the intermediate step
>because you're bidding something "before" bidding the suit being
>transferred to. And while "post" is a misnomer, because you're not
>bidding something "after" the suit, it's a convenient antonym. When
>you're filling in the little blanks on the convention card, there isn't
>really room for much more.
No, most people use pre for before, and post for after.
Post-accepting is clearly a misnomer and will thus confuse.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Fax: +44 870 055 7697
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Barry Margolin
David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Barry Margolin wrote
> >In article <ijkjmr$cdc$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Steve Willner <swil...@nhcc.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/21/2010 11:24 AM, KWSchneider wrote:
> >> > ...approach to transferring into a minor
> >> > after a 15-17pt notrump opening.
> >>
> >> I know this is an old thread, but I don't think anybody mentioned the
> >> answer I think is best.
> >>
> >> > Do folks primarily pre-accept [ie 1N 2S 2N shows Hx in clubs or
> >> > better] or post-accept [ie 1N 2S 3C shows Hx in clubs or better].
> >>
> >> First, let's get the terminology straight. Either one is a "pre-accept"
> >> because you are accepting partner's possible invitation _before_ you
> >> know he has made an invitation at all. A "post-accept" would be a
> >> normal sequence where partner invites, and you _then_ decide whether to
> >> accept or not.
> >
> >Is there a better pair of terms to distinguish whether you bid the suit
> >or the intermediate to indicate that you have good support for the suit?
>
> Yes, any term that does not say something totally wrong would be
> better.
Suggestions? Unless we get something better, we'll continue to use
misnomers.
>
> >I think people tend to use "pre" for bidding the intermediate step
> >because you're bidding something "before" bidding the suit being
> >transferred to. And while "post" is a misnomer, because you're not
> >bidding something "after" the suit, it's a convenient antonym. When
> >you're filling in the little blanks on the convention card, there isn't
> >really room for much more.
>
> No, most people use pre for before, and post for after.
> Post-accepting is clearly a misnomer and will thus confuse.
A commonly used misnomer ceases to be one, it gets understood as the
intended meaning.
David Stevenson
>In article <GB6Ol1Id...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,
> David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Barry Margolin wrote
>> >In article <ijkjmr$cdc$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> > Steve Willner <swil...@nhcc.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 9/21/2010 11:24 AM, KWSchneider wrote:
>> >> > ...approach to transferring into a minor
>> >> > after a 15-17pt notrump opening.
>> >>
>> >> I know this is an old thread, but I don't think anybody mentioned the
>> >> answer I think is best.
>> >>
>> >> > Do folks primarily pre-accept [ie 1N 2S 2N shows Hx in clubs or
>> >> > better] or post-accept [ie 1N 2S 3C shows Hx in clubs or better].
>> >>
>> >> First, let's get the terminology straight. Either one is a "pre-accept"
>> >> because you are accepting partner's possible invitation _before_ you
>> >> know he has made an invitation at all. A "post-accept" would be a
>> >> normal sequence where partner invites, and you _then_ decide whether to
>> >> accept or not.
>> >
>> >Is there a better pair of terms to distinguish whether you bid the suit
>> >or the intermediate to indicate that you have good support for the suit?
>>
>> Yes, any term that does not say something totally wrong would be
>> better.
>
>Suggestions? Unless we get something better, we'll continue to use
>misnomers.
Not only is that a poor idea, but we are talking a case where it is
not a generally used name so is very unhelpful.
>> >I think people tend to use "pre" for bidding the intermediate step
>> >because you're bidding something "before" bidding the suit being
>> >transferred to. And while "post" is a misnomer, because you're not
>> >bidding something "after" the suit, it's a convenient antonym. When
>> >you're filling in the little blanks on the convention card, there isn't
>> >really room for much more.
>>
>> No, most people use pre for before, and post for after.
>> Post-accepting is clearly a misnomer and will thus confuse.
>
>A commonly used misnomer ceases to be one, it gets understood as the
>intended meaning.
Not necessarily true, but certainly not relevant. I have never heard
anyone using this silly idea of post-accept to mean pre-accept until
this thread, and it only confuses.
Barry Margolin
David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
So what IS the generally used name for this?
Or does this treatment not have a name?
David Stevenson
>So what IS the generally used name for this?
>
>Or does this treatment not have a name?
Transfer breaks.
Barry Margolin
David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Barry Margolin wrote
> >So what IS the generally used name for this?
> >
> >Or does this treatment not have a name?
>
> Transfer breaks.
Isn't that the term for NOT bidding the suit being transferred to?
That's how I've always heard it used in reference to Jacoby transfers.
Let's go back to the beginning. When partner transfers to a minor,
there are two approaches used to show that you have good support for the
suit:
1) Bid the step in between; transferrer then bids his suit if he still
wants to bail out.
2) Bid the suit itself. Transferrer passes if he wants to bail out.
1 is usually called "pre-accept" (here in the US, at least). The
question is: what should we call 2?
Steve Willner
> When partner transfers to a minor,
> there are two approaches used to show that you have good support for the
> suit:
>
> 1) Bid the step in between; transferrer then bids his suit if he still
> wants to bail out.
> 2) Bid the suit itself. Transferrer passes if he wants to bail out.
>
> 1 is usually called "pre-accept" (here in the US, at least). The
> question is: what should we call 2?
I'd call either one a pre-accept. The question is whether "the transfer
break" or "the transfer accept" is the bid that constitutes the
pre-accept. I had never seen "post-accept" until this thread.
pgmer6809
> Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
I interpret 'transfer break' to deny acceptance of the suit transfered
into. e.g. 2NT-3H(!);3NT shows 5 hearts and only two spades.
pgmer6809
> In article <2x$C5ABPraZNF...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,
I think (1) is called 'super accept' and (2) is just accept. Admitting
that the requirements for super accept of a minor, are not as
'standard' as those for super accepting a major.
Barry Margolin
<7ac27bb5-26c3-405d...@z27g2000prz.googlegroups.com>,
pgmer6809 <pgme...@yahoo.com> wrote:
But both of them are "super", in that they show a good hand for the suit
being transferred to. They just show it in different ways.
Steve Willner
On 2011-02-23 11:04 PM, pgmer6809 wrote:
> I interpret 'transfer break' to deny acceptance of the suit transfered
> into. e.g. 2NT-3H(!);3NT shows 5 hearts and only two spades.
'reverse' for example. This is an analogous question: does the term
"transfer break" refer to the bid itself, regardless of meaning, or does
it refer to the meaning?
I'd interpret 'transfer break' as referring only to the bidding
sequence: failing for whatever reason to make the cheapest bid in the
suit of the transfer. The meaning could be good fit, poor fit, extra
strength, artificial inquiry, or anything else, depending on agreements,
but I'd call anything except "completing the transfer" a "transfer
break." Obviously this view is not universal.
Another term that is used with multiple senses is 'relay'. I like to
follow TBW, where relay means an inquiry bid of some kind, but lots of
players say (for lebensohl, for example) "relay to 3C." I'd say "puppet
to 3C" when 3C is the expected automatic response. (Of course a
complete explanation at the table would include the hand types, but
that's not the issue here.)
I don't know that we're going to solve any terminology problem on rgb,
but we can all be aware of words that are used with multiple meanings
and try to avoid confusion when we give explanations at the table.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
mc110...@gmail.com
mc110...@gmail.com
KWSchneider
position on the subject.
Accept = "accepting" the transfer AT the transferred suit
Pre-accept = "accepting" the transfer PRIOR [pre] to the rejection
step, ie 1N 2S 2N = "accepts" clubs
Super-Accept = "accepting" the transfer BEYOND the transferred suit
[generally with extras], ie 1N 2S 3D = "accepts" clubs and shows Ace
of Diamonds
Post-Accept = "accepting" the transfer AFTER [post] the rejection
step, ie 1N 2S 3C = "accepts" clubs
Makes sense to me...
Kurt
Steve Willner
> Since I started this thread almost 2 years ago, I'd like to clarify my
> position on the subject.
> Makes sense to me...
No doubt it does, but as we've seen, not to everyone.
The lesson here, I think, is wider than just one topic, and I'm not
picking on Kurt in particular. If you want to be understood on rgb,
either use terms that are entirely standard (if you can find any!), or
define your terms, or give plenty of context so readers can figure out
what you mean.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Fred.
After all, all they need to do is remember what's
on the left and what's on the right.
The rest of us remain confused.
Fred.