[123ekim]

north opens 1NT with 15 points and flat hand, with 4 spades
east pasess
south bids 2 hrts (trnfr) with seven high card points and a singleton small hrt
west doubles to indicate a hrt lead

1. Should north bid 2 spades or 3 spades with hand as described above? Does it matter that we are playing IMP's?

2. If the answer to 1. is that north should bid 2 spades, what should south do?

My partner believes that i (north) should have used super acceptance. I disagree believing that my partner should have raised my 2 spade response to 3 spades, or even 4 spades because of west's double.

Thanks for your thoughtful responses.

[Phil]

Slight lol at A/E here.

Many superaccept with only a maximum and four trump.

The Bergen school has several superaccepts available and specifically uses 3♠ as a minimum NT opener with four trump. I play these with Brian (at his request), but a flat (I'm assuming 4=3=3=3) 15 does not qualify. 4=3=3=3 tends to reduce the total tricks on the hand anyway.

For IMPs / MPs, it tends to depend on your philosophy of aggressive or conservative invites. With a nice 7 I'd boost to game opposite a superaccept.

What actually happened?

[andy_h]

Flat 15 count with 4 card support? With or without a double, it's not even close for a 3M "superacceptance". I put that in inverted commas because I suspect it's meant to be more preemptive in nature than a superaccepting bid? Because superaccepting with flat 15 is lol. I would just accept the transfer (assuming that promises a fit) and with responder's hand that has the singleton heart I would tend to invite to 3 or bid game depending on vul and location of honours.

[nigel_k]

If they didn't double, a superaccept should be a maximum, usually with four card support. However you needn't always superaccept by bidding 3♠, all bids between 2♠ and 3♠ are also superaccepts. You need to agree whether these show values, shortage or something else.

When they double and you have no specific agreement, the default should probably be that 2♠ shows a hand with three or four spades and less than a superaccept. Responder with 7 HCP, a singleton heart and a known 8 card fit should certainly raise this.

However some people (I don't recommend this) might rely on the law of total tricks and make a jump to 3♠ on a minimum hand with four card support, with or without the double. Maybe your partner is playing this way. Even so, he should have raised your 2♠ to 3♠ (or made some other game try) as his hand will usually be enough for game opposite a maximum with only three spades.

It would be good to have the actual hands though.

[mike777]

123ekim, on Aug 27 2009, 10:28 AM, said:

north opens  1NT with 15 points and flat hand, with 4 spades
east pasess
south bids 2 hrts (trnfr) with seven high card points and a singleton small hrt
west doubles to indicate a hrt lead

1. Should north bid 2 spades or 3 spades with hand as described above?  Does it matter that we are playing IMP's?

2. If the answer to 1. is that north should bid 2 spades, what should south do?

My partner believes that i (north) should have used super acceptance.  I disagree believing that my partner should have raised my 2 spade response to 3 spades, or even 4 spades because of west's double.

Thanks for your thoughtful responses.

Yes, super accept with 3s to show minimum with 4s and no useful doubleton.

With a nine card s fit the opp should almost never let you play in 2s anyway.....

[kayin801]

Isn't the real question that's being asked here not whether a 15 pt 4333 is a super accept or not, but whether or not to obey the LoTT right away given a known 9 card fit? Specifically, regardless of having any idea of what your partner has, is there a difference between these two auctions:

1NT-P-2H-P-3S and
1NT-P-2H-X-3S

On the first one you better have a max to bid that, a 4333 15 is definitely wrong for that IMO. In the second case though, should you bid 3S with 4 and a min immediately given that you know you have 9 trumps and make life hard for the opps in the situation that your partner has a bust? Or does it make sense to just bid 2S and compete to 3S if they compete in hearts?

[WesleyC]

kayin801, on Aug 27 2009, 06:55 PM, said:

Isn't the real question that's being asked here not whether a 15 pt 4333 is a super accept or not, but whether or not to obey the LoTT right away given a known 9 card fit?

Once your RHO has showed heart values, you should be superaccepting on hands with no wastage in hearts, rather than worrying so much about point count or shape.

After 1NT (P) 2H (X) ???

I'd bid 3S on KQJx xxx Axx KQx

but settle for 2S on

Axxx QJx AJx KJx

[Phil]

WesleyC, on Aug 27 2009, 10:00 PM, said:

Once your RHO has showed heart values, you should be superaccepting on hands with no wastage in hearts, rather than worrying so much about point count or shape.

After 1NT (P) 2H (X) ???

I'd bid 3S on KQJx xxx Axx KQx

but settle for 2S on

Axxx QJx AJx KJx

I wouldn't.

We can outbid them if they take the push to the three level so I see no need to do it right away. Furthermore, xxx is a horrible holding here, since partner's honors are wedged.

I'm not sure there's a 4333 15 where I'd even jump to 3, but I'm much rather hold Axx than xxx.

[aguahombre]

Phil, on Aug 27 2009, 10:44 PM, said:

WesleyC, on Aug 27 2009, 10:00 PM, said:

Once your RHO has showed heart values, you should be superaccepting on hands with no wastage in hearts, rather than worrying so much about point count or shape.

After 1NT (P) 2H (X) ???

I'd bid 3S on KQJx xxx Axx KQx

but settle for 2S on

Axxx QJx AJx KJx

I wouldn't.

We can outbid them if they take the push to the three level so I see no need to do it right away. Furthermore, xxx is a horrible holding here, since partner's honors are wedged.

I'm not sure there's a 4333 15 where I'd even jump to 3, but I'm much rather hold Axx than xxx.

scares me, but agree with Phil. Maybe we are both older than he will admit.

[gnasher]

Phil, on Aug 28 2009, 04:44 AM, said:

WesleyC, on Aug 27 2009, 10:00 PM, said:

... I'd bid 3S on KQJx xxx Axx KQx ...

I wouldn't.

We can outbid them if they take the push to the three level so I see no need to do it right away.

And what will you do after
  1NT pass 2♥ dbl
  2♠ 3♥ pass 4♥

You know that they have a fit, that it's almost certainly in hearts, and that they're unlikely to let you play in 2♠. Why make it easy for them to exchange information about strength too?

Quote

Furthermore, xxx is a horrible holding here, since partner's honors are wedged.

I'm not sure there's a 4333 15 where I'd even jump to 3, but I'm much rather hold Axx than xxx.

What honours? Partner hasn't done anything to suggest that he has heart strength. If he has xx, xxx, Jx, Jxx or Qx, our ♥A will do nothing for his holding. If he has Qxx, the ace of hearts may be useful if we can contrive a discard or an endplay, but will generally not be. ♥A is really only of use to him if he has ♥K or ♥QJ. This seems unlikely, and even then the ace might be equally useful elsewhere.

The double of 2♥ shows length in the suit. That suggests that partner has shortage there. Honours opposite shortage are almost never as useful as honours opposite length.

[OleBerg]

I would definetely have the agreement that 3♠ was a superaccept with a minimum, (4 other bids available for maximum hands are enough for me.)

I would be very conservative in using it though, the hand should be very well suited for play in spades, and thus have somthing like an unguarded doubleton and another suit without intermidiates.

If 1nt is 12-14, it is another matter.

Edit: Also, my guess at how likely it is that they compete, would have an influence. Obviosly a double is such an indication, but sometimes opp. has an air of resignation about them. Other times you might be up against players that competes less than they should. These last two are some other good reasons not to superaccept.

[andy_h]

I also wouldn't bid 3♠ on KQJx xxx Axx KQx. I just don't see the need to bid to the 3lvl with 4333. If LHO competes partner is still in the auction too knowing we have a fit and he can also see for himself that he is short in hearts. Having said that, it is more attractive to bid 3♠ with the same hand but a better shape say 42(43). I just don't see why I have to unnecessarily bid to the 3lvl to cater for what when LHO may not even bid. I like 3♠ to be descriptive not min 4333.

[gnasher]

andy_h, on Aug 28 2009, 09:24 AM, said:

I like 3♠ to be descriptive not min 4333.

If your agreement were that 3♠ showed a minimum 4333, why would that be less descriptive than using it show a minimum 4432-type?

[andy_h]

gnasher, on Aug 28 2009, 07:50 PM, said:

andy_h, on Aug 28 2009, 09:24 AM, said:

I like 3♠ to be descriptive not min 4333.

If your agreement were that 3♠ showed a minimum 4333, why would that be less descriptive than using it show a minimum 4432-type?

Ok, I didn't mean it as "descriptive" but I meant (without any concise agreements) it should show more than a minimum 4333. By all means if you have an agreement to bid 3M on mins 4333 then go ahead, it's as accurate as it can ever be! But I wouldn't exactly recommend it.

[Phil]

We can outbid them if they take the push to the three level so I see no need to do it right away.
(Gnasher): And what will you do after
1NT pass 2♥ dbl
2♠ 3♥ pass 4♥

Um pass? We have some defense and pard couldn't (or didn't want to) compete over 3♥. Your argument pre-supposes that LHO won't bid 4♥ over 3♠ but will bid 3♥ over 2♠ and I don't think thats ironclad. When we advertise a minimum with four spades, I think we roll out the red carpet for a 4♥ call.

The double of 2♥ shows length in the suit. That suggests that partner has shortage there. Honours opposite shortage are almost never as useful as honours opposite length.

All correct, however, if you are concerned about LHO raising hearts, your argument becomes moot. When pard does have three hearts - Qxx or not, we are pushing ourselves unnecessarily to 3♠.

[cherdanno]

The idea that ♥Axx is better than ♥xxx here seems very strange to me.

[WesleyC]

Interesting thread - I'm glad I have at least one 3S-bidding ally - thanks gnasher

As a rebuttal to Andy's point: Lets consider the gains and losses for a 3S bid (assuming partner is on the same wavelength):

3S loses when 2S is the limit AND you were going to be allowed to play there (despite the fact that you're in a 9c fit and the opponents have all of the heart honors). The other possible downside is that you push the opponents into a (good) 4H contract that they might not have otherwise reached - perhaps making because partner's honours are sandwiched as Phil suggested.

3S wins whenever it takes away the opponent's ability to show heart support (thus avoiding a making heart contract/profitable save) OR when 3H is the limit and they're forced the 4 level to show support OR when partner is able to find a profitable save over their making 4H.

Gnasher's sample hand (where you bid 2S and the auction comes back to you at 4H) is definitely a situation where I would feel a bit sick having bid only 2S. How is partner going to know that holding [Txxxx Qx xx Axxx] or [Txxxx K Kxx Jxxx] he's supposed to be bidding?

An indicator that I often use to judge a good competitive bid is one I'd prefer the opponents didn't make against me. 3S certainly falls into that category.

[WesleyC]

Phil, on Aug 28 2009, 11:36 AM, said:

Um pass? We have some defense and pard couldn't (or didn't want to) compete over 3♥. Your argument pre-supposes that LHO won't bid 4♥ over 3♠ but will bid 3♥ over 2♠ and I don't think thats ironclad. When we advertise a minimum with four spades, I think we roll out the red carpet for a 4♥ call.

Partner couldn't know whether it was right to compete over 4H because he didn't know if we bid 2S on:

[KQJx xxx Axx KQx] or [KJx Qxx AJx KQx]

For me the two hands are different enough to warrant separation, even if it does cost the occasional part-score swing.

[cherdanno]

Btw, I wouldn't ascribe some highly descriptive meaning to 3♠. When you superaccept, you don't want to give LHO to bid 3♥, so usually you should bid 3♠ when superaccepting.

[Lobowolf]

Wow. The more I see super-acceptance discussions, the less I want to play it with anyone I haven't known for at least ten years. Agree with pretty much everything Phil's said in this thread. The idea of super-accepting with a lousy 4333 out of fear that they'll reach and make an otherwise unreachable 4♥ seems like running without being chased. I could be out to lunch here, but I'd be pretty strongly inclined to take the other side of stacking that one up against the times 3♠ just buys you an extra undertrick (yes, even at IMPs) + and the times that the 4♥ you "let" them find goes down.