[CSGibson]

Let's take a typical 1N-2♦ transfer

Opposite a super accept, you still sometimes have hands where game/slam depends on a degree of fit opposite some shortness in the transferer's hand.

I propose the following as a possible treatment:

Opener superaccepts by bidding his suit with a small doubleton, using 2N as a substitute for spades opposite a transfer to 2♥. Otherwise all superaccepts go through 2♠.

After 2♠, 3♣ shows club shortness, and 3♦ is a retransfer. 2N is a relay to 3♣, and responder's 3♦ step response shows diamond shortness, while 3♥ shows spade shortness (non-forcing) and 3♠ shows spade shortness [slammish].

A similar sequence would work for transfers to spades.

Any thoughts on this potential treatment?

[mike777]

CSGibson, on May 24 2010, 03:16 AM, said:

Let's take a typical 1N-2♦ transfer

Opposite a super accept, you still sometimes have hands where game/slam depends on a degree of fit opposite some shortness in the transferer's hand.

I propose the following as a possible treatment:

Opener superaccepts by bidding his suit with a small doubleton, using 2N as a substitute for spades opposite a 2♥ transfer.  Otherwise all superaccepts go through 2♠.

After 2♠, 3♣ shows club shortness, and 3♦ is a retransfer.  2N is a relay to 3♣, and responder's 3♦ step response shows diamond shortness, while 3♥ shows spade shortness (non-forcing) and 3♠ shows spade shortness [slammish].

A similar sequence would work for transfers to spades.

Any thoughts on this potential treatment?

what?
i propose insane

stop did i say insane..ok insane........

-------------



I propose after 2d....pard bid 2h.......insane...pard bid 2h...

[hanp]

I say skip the doubleton part and always bid 2S. After 2S make sure you can show all side-suits and singletons for slam purposes.

[whereagles]

I use the simple method of showing the doubleton if Jx or lower. This works well if responder is in the game invite zone with no wastage in the doubleton. Other superaccepts deny a weak doubleton. Example:

1NT 2♥
2NT = max, scattered honors
3x = doubleton
3♠ = max, control-rich hand
4x = "I opened a 4441 and x is my singleton."

[bluecalm]

Not worth it. In vast majority of hands you will be in partscore/game and then you will regret saying the defense that much about your hand.

This is why this idea:

Quote

I say skip the doubleton part and always bid 2S. After 2S make sure you can show all side-suits and singletons for slam purposes.

Is much better choice.
If I were to choose I would play:
2♥ = most of hands
3♥ = maximum with 4trumps
other bids = non existent

I think its both the simplest and the best.

[hrothgar]

Marty Bergen proposed something very similar in "Better Bidding with Bergen v1" 20 odd years ago

[CSGibson]

bluecalm, on May 24 2010, 06:12 AM, said:

Not worth it. In vast majority of hands you will be in partscore/game and then you will regret saying the defense that much about your hand.

This is why this idea:

Quote

I say skip the doubleton part and always bid 2S. After 2S make sure you can show all side-suits and singletons for slam purposes.

Is much better choice.
If I were to choose I would play:
2♥ = most of hands
3♥ = maximum with 4trumps
other bids = non existent

I think its both the simplest and the best.

I think the deals you are going to game anyways just retransfers and bids 4. The deals where you are not interested at all retransfers and stops at 3. This treatment is strictly for the in-between hands.

[gwnn]

not long ago someone posted 2M+1 as the only superaccept and then responder could show concentration of values (for game or slam investigation) and opener could then decide.

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=38066 is a useful thread

[kfay]

A local partner of mine actually proposed something like this a while back. I'm not sure it was totally his idea since I think many of the things he comes up with are influenced by wherever he gets his bidding ideas from.

He has a writeup in a 2006 or 2007 Bridge World somewhere. I'll try to find it.

[bluecalm]

Quote

I think the deals you are going to game anyways just retransfers and bids 4. The deals where you are not interested at all retransfers and stops at 3. This treatment is strictly for the in-between hands.

Every time it goes:

1NT - 2♦
2♠ - 3♦*
3♥ - 4♥ intead of :

1NT - 2♦
3♥ - 4♥

You lose something as they got a chance to dbl both 2♠ and 3♦ (and possibly more bids if you ask after 2♠ and the stop in game). I doubt the additional precision in slam/game bidding you got makes up for all those loses.

[aguahombre]

Make sure you strike Walsh Relays off your card if you are going to use any super accept method that doesn't start with 2♠ and then 2NT to confirm the original xfer was not a false one to start a minor suit slam try.

[Free]

The step-superaccept is nothing new, it was suggested in some Bridge World magazine a couple of years back. There was also a modification a couple of months back (I think) where 2NT is the superaccept for both transfers, to avoid possible lead directing Doubles over 1NT-2♦-2♠.

I used to show weak doubletons in super accepts, but I no longer find them very useful.

[ONEferBRID]

Free, on May 25 2010, 02:40 AM, said:

The step-superaccept is nothing new, it was suggested in some Bridge World magazine a couple of years back.  There was also a modification a couple of months back (I think) where 2NT is the superaccept for both transfers, to avoid possible lead directing Doubles over 1NT-2♦-2♠.

I used to show weak doubletons in super accepts, but I no longer find them very useful.

I saw your reply to a post [ Supperaccepts--Revisited ] at rec.games.bridge ( ~ June of last year )... The Bridge World method was very interesting in that it could combine slam-going hands with invites....
For example ( in general ), Opener Supper Accepts with the "2nd step " always ( 2S! for Hts and 2NT! for Sp ). Responder then shows:
1) shortness ( sub-invite or better) or
2) retransfers ( typically for sign-off) or
3) bids the trump suit ( right-siding because of an unprotected K ) , slammish
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Also, re worthless doubletons, Henrysun quoted Kleinman and Straguzzi:

"..... in all of the records (we) examined, the
knowledge of a worthless doubleton was never important to responder's
evaluation of his hand. "

[straube]

I don't see much value in showing the doubleton either.

Responder has to be able to show shortness, but I would be more concerned that partner can show a 5431 pattern (for example) when opener has not shown a super-accept because these hands are more common.