[han]

Here is a close call I had yesterday, what would you do?

Matchpoints.

J10xxx
Axx
Jxx
xx

1NT - 2H
3S - ??

1NT showed 15-17. Although undiscussed, you are sure that partner would only superaccept with quite good hands, not with average hands that have 4-card support. Both partner and opponents are very strong players.

(You also suspect that partner would not use any other bids to superaccept since they are undiscussed)

[gnasher]

I'd pass. This is still a balanced six-count. I found it quite hard to construct hands where game is good, unless I make my ♦J into a trick.

[nige1]

han, on Jun 26 2008, 04:45 AM, said:

Here is a close call I had yesterday, what would you do?
Matchpoints. ♠ J10xxx ♥ Axx ♦ Jxx ♣ xx
1NT - 2H
3S  - ??
1NT showed 15-17. Although undiscussed, you are sure that partner would only superaccept with quite good hands, not with average hands that have 4-card support. Both partner and opponents are very strong players.
(You also suspect that partner would not use any other bids to superaccept since they are undiscussed)

IMO _P = 10, 3N = 7, 4S = 6.
Harder problem at teams.

[Sambolino]

at mp or imp nv i'd pass in a split of a second

[kenrexford]

If partner has seven cover cards, he could have super-accepted above 3♠.

[hrothgar]

nige1, on Jun 26 2008, 01:47 PM, said:

han, on Jun 26 2008, 04:45 AM, said:

Here is a close call I had yesterday, what would you do?
Matchpoints. ♠ J10xxx ♥ Axx ♦ Jxx ♣ xx
1NT - 2H
3S   - ??
1NT showed 15-17. Although undiscussed, you are sure that partner would only superaccept with quite good hands, not with average hands that have 4-card support. Both partner and opponents are very strong players.
(You also suspect that partner would not use any other bids to superaccept since they are undiscussed)

IMO _P = 10, 3N = 7, 4S = 6.
Harder problem at teams.

Many people play that 3NT is some type of conventional Spade raise.
This might have an impact on your scoring

I suspect that I would pass at MPs

[gnasher]

Partner is limited by his failure to bid Exclusion.

[helene_t]

gnasher, on Jun 26 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

Partner is limited by his failure to bid Exclusion.

Right, and by his failure to open 7NT.

[the hog]

nige1, on Jun 26 2008, 05:47 PM, said:

han, on Jun 26 2008, 04:45 AM, said:

Here is a close call I had yesterday, what would you do?
Matchpoints. ♠ J10xxx ♥ Axx ♦ Jxx ♣ xx
1NT - 2H
3S  - ??
1NT showed 15-17. Although undiscussed, you are sure that partner would only superaccept with quite good hands, not with average hands that have 4-card support. Both partner and opponents are very strong players.
(You also suspect that partner would not use any other bids to superaccept since they are undiscussed)

IMO _P = 10, 3N = 7, 4S = 6.
Harder problem at teams.

Imo P = 10, 3N = 0, 4S = 7.

[andy_h]

gnasher, on Jun 26 2008, 08:33 PM, said:

I'd pass. This is still a balanced six-count. I found it quite hard to construct hands where game is good, unless I make my ♦J into a trick.

Agree

[pclayton]

I pass too, although it helps to know what kind of super accepts you play. If pard had a doubleton heart, I might want to go on.

This is the kind of game where you might make if pard isn't too strong in spades. ♠AKQx is very bad.

[kenrexford]

pclayton, on Jun 26 2008, 10:53 AM, said:

I pass too, although it helps to know what kind of super accepts you play. If pard had a doubleton heart, I might want to go on.

This is the kind of game where you might make if pard isn't too strong in spades. ♠AKQx is very bad.

You need seven covers. A doubleton can provide one, meaning that you now need six. Ace-fourth in trumps probably is two covers also, so now you need four additional covers. A trick source might provide some additional covers somewhere as well.

But, won't partner insist with that massive of a hand? I mean, if partner can look at his hand and realize that he has seven potential covers opposite a flat 5332, shouldn't he re-assess and bid something like 3NT or 4♠ as his "super-acceptance?" Or, make up a super-acceptance below 3♠ planning to accept any whisper bid at all?

[pclayton]

kenrexford, on Jun 26 2008, 09:40 AM, said:

pclayton, on Jun 26 2008, 10:53 AM, said:

I pass too, although it helps to know what kind of super accepts you play. If pard had a doubleton heart, I might want to go on.

This is the kind of game where you might make if pard isn't too strong in spades. ♠AKQx is very bad.

You need seven covers. A doubleton can provide one, meaning that you now need six. Ace-fourth in trumps probably is two covers also, so now you need four additional covers. A trick source might provide some additional covers somewhere as well.

But, won't partner insist with that massive of a hand? I mean, if partner can look at his hand and realize that he has seven potential covers opposite a flat 5332, shouldn't he re-assess and bid something like 3NT or 4♠ as his "super-acceptance?" Or, make up a super-acceptance below 3♠ planning to accept any whisper bid at all?

Can a 1N opening ever insist on game opposite a simple transfer?

[kenrexford]

pclayton, on Jun 26 2008, 12:59 PM, said:

Can a 1N opening ever insist on game opposite a simple transfer?

Sure.

♠KQ10xx ♥xx ♦AK109 ♣Ax, if you would open 1NT.

♠A109x ♥xx ♦AKJ10x ♣Ax

Stuff like that.

If a hand does not exist where one would force game, then Responder has no problem.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Jun 26 2008, 08:24 PM, said:

♠KQ10xx ♥xx ♦AK109 ♣Ax, if you would open 1NT.

♠A109x ♥xx ♦AKJ10x ♣Ax

We are talking about a bid that shows 15-17 Miltons and a balanced hand, aren't we?

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on Jun 26 2008, 02:50 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 26 2008, 08:24 PM, said:

♠KQ10xx ♥xx ♦AK109 ♣Ax, if you would open 1NT.

♠A109x ♥xx ♦AKJ10x ♣Ax

We are talking about a bid that shows 15-17 Miltons and a balanced hand, aren't we?

Yes. We are.

What hand do you want Opener to have for game to be a good call? I think it has to be a hand that stretches the parameters on 1NT openings.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Jun 26 2008, 09:03 PM, said:

What hand do you want Opener to have for game to be a good call? I think it has to be a hand that stretches the parameters on 1NT openings.

I don't want, or believe, there to be any hand where it's right for opener to drive game facing a transfer to 2♠. I thought it was you that said such hands exist?

[pclayton]

kenrexford, on Jun 26 2008, 11:24 AM, said:

pclayton, on Jun 26 2008, 12:59 PM, said:

Can a 1N opening ever insist on game opposite a simple transfer?

Sure.

♠KQ10xx ♥xx ♦AK109 ♣Ax, if you would open 1NT.

♠A109x ♥xx ♦AKJ10x ♣Ax

Stuff like that.

If a hand does not exist where one would force game, then Responder has no problem.

Wow. Considering we haven't shown a single honor in our hand it seems to me abrupt to be bidding game with these hands opposite a potential yarb.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on Jun 26 2008, 05:58 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 26 2008, 09:03 PM, said:

What hand do you want Opener to have for game to be a good call?  I think it has to be a hand that stretches the parameters on 1NT openings.

I don't want, or believe, there to be any hand where it's right for opener to drive game facing a transfer to 2♠. I thought it was you that said such hands exist?

I agree. There is no hand where one would want to force game after a transfer while holding a 1NT opening. That is, unless Opener really should not have opened 1NT.

My point is that Responder needs THAT hand to make game. If Opener did have THAT hand, then he is the one who must show this absurdly powerful hand by bidding past 3♠.

BTW -- I like a one-under super-accept to show THAT hand, actually.