[pclayton]

Played with Mark Leonard in Anaheim and we had a nice time. I had one bidding decision that I'm not sure I got right:

Scoring: MP

---

Pard opens with 2N. You play puppet stayman and you happen to discuss in the pre-game that 2N - 3♥ - 3♠ - is NOT a slam try, but shows both majors.

So you start with 3♥ and pard suprises you with 4♠. You haven't discussed super-accepts at all.

Do you continue?

[awm]

I'd bid on. Slam is pretty good opposite:

AKxx
Kxx
AKx
xxx

While this is admittedly "perfect cards" it's also at least a king short of a 2NT opening and it's 4333.

[mike777]

bid on..btw hate super accept over 2nt.....redline that one

[kenrexford]

mike777, on Aug 16 2007, 06:44 PM, said:

bid on..btw hate super accept over 2nt.....redline that one

There's nothing wrong with super-acceptances after 2NT, so long as you have something more to offer other than a simple jump to game as the only alternative, IMO. In fact, I consider this to be an under-utilized tool.

The technique I personally like is for Opener to cue the cheapest available holding with 1.5+ controls in the suit, possibly with 3NT showing the one-under suit as 1.5+. The term "1.5 controls" means two or more of the top three honors.

[mike777]

kenrexford, on Aug 16 2007, 09:29 PM, said:

mike777, on Aug 16 2007, 06:44 PM, said:

bid on..btw hate super accept over 2nt.....redline that one

There's nothing wrong with super-acceptances after 2NT, so long as you have something more to offer other than a simple jump to game as the only alternative, IMO. In fact, I consider this to be an under-utilized tool.

The technique I personally like is for Opener to cue the cheapest available holding with 1.5+ controls in the suit, possibly with 3NT showing the one-under suit as 1.5+. The term "1.5 controls" means two or more of the top three honors.

ok we agree to disagree.....why play at the 4 level with only 9 trumps and 20 hcp across from zero or close to zero.

[kenrexford]

mike777, on Aug 16 2007, 09:37 PM, said:

ok we agree to disagree.....why play at the 4 level with only 9 trumps and 20 hcp across from zero or close to zero.

If partner transfers to spades, after a 2NT opening showing 20-21, there seems to be a WILD difference between two possible hands:

♠KQxx ♥Ax ♦AKxx ♣Axx

♠Ax ♥KQJx ♦KQJx ♣KQx

I find the importance of redefinition to somewhat outweigh the risk of playing too high. So, I'll agree as well to disagree. I'd rather play a very few wild game contracts than play a lot of 3♠+1, 5♠-1, and 4♠+2 contracts.

[pclayton]

I made a move with 4N and found Mark with Axxx, Kx, AKJ, KQJx. LHO found an unsporting double with ♠KQTx and the ♣A. She also had the ♦Q but he eschewed the diamond hook.

Good to hear I'd have some field protection on BBF

I really like Ken's idea here.

[mikeh]

I can't imagine not playing super-accepts over 2N. As for Ken's idea, it looks interesting, but I'm not at all sure that it will help very often... Treating AQ/AK/KQ/AKQ all the same way seems to leave responder not very far ahead.

Consider the actual hand, and play around with these holdings in clubs, and we see that there are many hands on which AK is good, AQ not bad and KQ not good.

But, it is better (I suspect) than nothing And maybe there are followups that help clarify the situation.

[whereagles]

7 losers for an expected 6 cover cards. That suggests bidding on.

[jdonn]

I think I agree with your bid but it's pretty close (we have no idea how well the hands fit and I hate maybe stopping in 5), and disagree with your partner's super accept which is also pretty close (most would do it, but I don't see missing many games bidding 3♠ opposite hands that are about to pass). All told, both of you were aggressive and you simply paid the price this time, oh well.

[Free]

Make a move...

edit: I now see what the result is: I disagree with the super accept. If partner is weak, 3♠ will be enough, from the moment he has some values he'll bid on. The hand is poor for a trump contract with all these Kings and Jacks...

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Aug 17 2007, 02:57 AM, said:

Treating AQ/AK/KQ/AKQ all the same way seems to leave responder not very far ahead.

Consider the actual hand, and play around with these holdings in clubs, and we see that there are many hands on which AK is good, AQ not bad and KQ not good.

But, it is better (I suspect) than nothing And maybe there are followups that help clarify the situation.

This actually helps quite a bit here.

Opener's hand was ♠Axxx ♥Kx ♦AKJ ♣KQJx. I would not consider this right for a super-accept anyway, as I do not have five assured cover cards. I'm close, but I cannot cater to any side stiff.

Responder held ♠J9xxx ♥AQxxx ♦xx ♣x. He needed five true covers, and maybe even six. He is missing seven critical cards, the A-K-Q of spades, heart K, diamond A-K, and club A. With six of these, slam is obvious. With the "right" five, slam has play, maybe on a heart finesse or on running hearts and a diamond sluff or two, for instance.

Switch Opener's club and spade honors, and Opener has ♠KQxx ♥Kx ♦AKJ ♣AJxx, which is five assured covers (actually 5 1/2). That's strong enough for a super-accept, IMO.

If Opener super-accepts, he will bid, with this new hand, 4♦, showing depth in diamonds, which is what Responder wants to hear.

Granted, Opener might have ♦A/♣AK, which is just as good, but then Opener might accept/decline a LTTC with this hand.

[Foxx]

Fascinating point you bring up there, that opposite ♠Axxx ♥Kx ♦AKJ ♣KQJx, the slam is hopeless, but opposite ♠KQxx ♥Kx ♦AKJ ♣AJxx, slam is cold.

Location, location, location....

[kenrexford]

Foxx, on Aug 17 2007, 07:57 AM, said:

Fascinating point you bring up there, that opposite ♠Axxx ♥Kx ♦AKJ ♣KQJx, the slam is hopeless, but opposite ♠KQxx ♥Kx ♦AKJ ♣AJxx, slam is cold.

Location, location, location....

Yeah -- the lure of a 4-card suit is not that compelling, either, at this level.

Which hand would you rather have for slam (and hence which is a better super-accept), of the two following?

1. ♠Axxxx ♥Kx ♦AKJ ♣KQJ
2. ♠KQx ♥Kxx ♦AKJ ♣AJxx

Oh yeah -- and to answer the original question. If partner actually does bid 4♠, as I play, he'd have five covers without a COV suit. That looks like ♠AKQ(x) ♥Kx ♦Axx ♣Axxx, a wonderful dummy. Opposite that hand, slam is great. Damn shame he has something completely different! LOL Granted, he might have AKQ(x) ♥Jx ♦AJx ♣AJxx, but at least I am safe at the five-level. Hopefully I have LTTC available...

[foo]

Jeff Rubens made some thoughtful comments about this topic (value location in 2N openers) in his book.

IMHO, a super accept after a 2N opening means we are forcing to game opposite what could be a zerio count with a 5cM... ...unless we explicitly make the agreement to pay the price of responder passing any hand that would not want to be in game opposite a super accept.

We'd gain in our game and slam bidding at the price of going down in 2N when we can make 3M on a lot of partscore hands.
Your choice.

I also agree than ken's on the right track when he says super accepts have to be descriptive.

Super accepts should have 4+ card support or be 21 counts of the right texture with 3 card support.