[Flame]

Super acception of transfer is most usefull when partner has an unbalanced hand with less then 8 hcp, if u just rebid 2M he will pass not knowing about the fit and the fit points he can add for it, but when he know of the fit his shape become more importent, he can count points for long suits or for singles.
Till now i play that any suit response to transfer is super acception and doubleton in the suit, but today i thought of something maybe better, since opener cant be short in a suit and partner will have a short suit (when he got the important hand) why not play long (losers) suit trail bid.
1NT-2h
3x = losers in the suit bid.
The hand from today was:
KQ75
J85
Ak7
K106
-----
AJ932
972
J1065
9
we went down in 4sp, which we got after super acception, but if partner could bid 3h over my 2h, we would be making 3sp.
What do you think, is this a better way ?

[Fluffy]

Don´t supper accept with 4333, and don´t do ti wtih 16 count even .

I am not familair to artificial super acceptance, sincee to me themain important theing is that the stron hand receives the lead, either against´ 3♠ or 4♠, losing that to an aiming for 5-7 unbalanceed range accuracy is just to much to lose IMO. Specially at MP.

[whereagles]

The idea is very interesting, but suppose you had instead..

KQ75....AJ932
T85.......972
AK7......JT65
A106....9

You pard
1NT 2H
3H ...??

Pard would probably bid 3S anyway, but this time game is where you want to be in.

Still, the idea would allow you to bid some magical games with xxx(x) opposite x. A statistical study is needed here, I guess.

[helene_t]

If you want to let opener declare through a re-transfer, it may be better to conceal opener's features in order not to help the defence. Hence, opener superaccepts 2♦ with 2♠ and 2♥ with 2NT, and responder can now make a short-suit trial if he wants.

There is a difference between
1♠-2♠
3x
and
1NT-2♥
3x
In the first auction, opener may have a hand that simply wants to raise to 4♠. But he makes a fake trial in order to confuse the opponents.

In the second auction, responder is captain so opener should not fake a superaccept. This makes the issue of concealing opener's feature extra important.

[Free]

I usually don't super accept without a maximum (unless it's a good minimum), but some say it's acceptable to do it with a minimum as well. Others even do it with weak-NT! I'm really interested in statistics weither this works or not.

About the 4333, I completely agree that no superaccept is needed, since you can't do anything with your extra trumps.

Superaccepting in the suit below the transfer suit is unacceptable imo. As Fluffy, I rather like the lead going to the strong hand.

The easiest way imo is (minimum hands included):
1NT-2♦
?
2♠/3♣ = doubleton
2NT = minimum hand with 4 ♥s
3♥ = doubleton ♦

1NT-2♥
?
3m = doubleton m
2NT = minimum hand with 4 ♠s
3♠ = doubleton ♥

After both 2NT responses, responder can invite by bidding a suit. You can give whatever meaning to that bid: asking for doubleton, showing doubleton,...

The optimal sollution is a little different for 1NT-2♦:
2♠ = minimum hand with 4 ♥s
2NT = doubleton ♠
3♣ = doubleton ♣
3♥ = doubleton ♦
and after 2♠, the 2NT rebid represents ♠s.

It's similar, and if you think of it in steps it's completely the same:
step 1 = minimum hand
step 2 = doubleton trf suit +1
step 3 = doubleton trf suit -2
step 5 = doubleton trf suit -1

[luke warm]

i agree with fluffy... i super accept with a minimum (believing i'm law protected) except with a flat hand... also, helene's point about clueing in the ops is right on

bergen recommends superaccepting by bidding a doubleton...

[flytoox]

Fluffy, on Sep 14 2004, 04:05 AM, said:

Don´t supper accept with 4333, and don´t do ti wtih 16 count even .

I am not familair to artificial super acceptance, sincee to me themain important theing is that the stron hand receives the lead, either against´ 3♠ or 4♠, losing that to an aiming for 5-7 unbalanceed range accuracy is just to much to lose IMO. Specially at MP.

Plus, dont do it with weak NT:)

[1eyedjack]

There appear to be two problems that cause this game to fail:
Duplication of losers in the long suit (Hearts)
and
Duplication of winners opposite the short suit (C:K wasted opposite singleton).

Getting responder to show his shortage (ie Clubs) would be just as effective in avoiding the game. Swap responder's Hearts and Clubs and you want to be in game.

Perhaps another solution would be to make the cheapest refusal unless opener has something particularly special to say, in order to give responder (the only one who CAN have a shortage) the opportunity to show his shortage.

(and PS, count me as a dissenter, re. Flytoox advice ... refuse the transfer even oposite an 8-10 1NT opener)

[Flame]

Thxs all, I agree that with 4333 its probebly wrong to super accept.
I can also agrere that you might want to leave 3h for retransfer, but it can still work in long suit trial, as 2nt (after 2h) will be heart long trial.
I think this system is better then showing doublton which rarly will help.
I really liked helen's idea of using only one bid and letting partner show his shortness, I think its better then my long trials and much better then the normal way of always showing doublton, still you can use the other bids for different perposes although im not sure what those could be.
Thxs

[jtfanclub]

flytoox, on Sep 14 2004, 05:50 AM, said:

Fluffy, on Sep 14 2004, 04:05 AM, said:

Don´t supper accept with 4333, and don´t do ti wtih 16 count even .

I am not familair to artificial super acceptance, sincee to me themain important theing is that the stron hand receives the lead, either against´ 3♠ or 4♠, losing that to an aiming for 5-7 unbalanceed range accuracy is just to much to lose IMO. Specially at MP.

Plus, dont do it with weak NT:)

I think it's safer to super-accept with weak NT.

After all, if the opponents had points, they'd have said them by now.

[han]

I think that superaccepting with 4-card support is good, both with minimal hands, flat hands and with weak notrumps.

When you do superaccept with minimal or flat hands, it is important to tell partner. I like the idea of bidding the cheapest step so that partner can make short suit game tries. But one should only bid it with balanced hands that promise to play well, with other hands jump to 3M.

I don't agree that 4333 hands are useless, you still have a great trump fit, and this is going to be useful.

Perhaps a complete structure over 1NT-2H could be:

2NT= good superaccept (could be very good 4333).
3C/3D= xx in suit, good superaccept.
3S= 4-card support, but otherwise a bad hand (most likely 4333).

[helium]

jtfanclub, on Sep 14 2004, 04:59 PM, said:

flytoox, on Sep 14 2004, 05:50 AM, said:

Fluffy, on Sep 14 2004, 04:05 AM, said:

Don´t supper accept with 4333, and don´t do ti wtih 16 count even .

I am not familair to artificial super acceptance, sincee to me themain important theing is that the stron hand receives the lead, either against´ 3♠ or 4♠, losing that to an aiming for 5-7 unbalanceed range accuracy is just to much to lose IMO. Specially at MP.

Plus, dont do it with weak NT:)

I think it's safer to super-accept with weak NT.

After all, if the opponents had points, they'd have said them by now.

So everytime opps dont bid after a weak 1nt u bid game?

[jtfanclub]

helium, on Sep 16 2004, 03:47 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Sep 14 2004, 04:59 PM, said:

flytoox, on Sep 14 2004, 05:50 AM, said:

Fluffy, on Sep 14 2004, 04:05 AM, said:

Don´t supper accept with 4333, and don´t do ti wtih 16 count even .

I am not familair to artificial super acceptance, sincee to me themain important theing is that the stron hand receives the lead, either against´ 3♠ or 4♠, losing that to an aiming for 5-7 unbalanceed range accuracy is just to much to lose IMO. Specially at MP.

Plus, dont do it with weak NT:)

I think it's safer to super-accept with weak NT.

After all, if the opponents had points, they'd have said them by now.

So everytime opps dont bid after a weak 1nt u bid game?

Am I to take it from that question that if the opponents don't bid after strong NT you bid game?

1NT PASS 2D PASS
3H DOUBLE

For minus -500 is a lot more likely with a strong NT than a weak one.

So is bidding a transfer with a bust and watching your partner choke after a superaccept.
With a weak NT, you pass those hands.

Let me sum it up this way.

On a super-accept with a strong NT, you have at least 17 hcp (17 across 0), and the hand above the strong hand is unlimited (assuming they're playing Brozel or Meckwell or anything else where an unlimited hand passes the first round).

On a super-accept with a weak NT, you have at least 18 hcp (15 across 3), because you don't xfer with less than 3 hcp. In addition, the hand above the strong hand is limited (because nobody sits with 15+ after a weak NT opener for fear of missing game).

Which sounds safer to you?

[luke warm]

Quote

jtfanclub:
1NT PASS 2D PASS
3H DOUBLE

For minus -500 is a lot more likely with a strong NT than a weak one.

So is bidding a transfer with a bust and watching your partner choke after a superaccept.
With a weak NT, you pass those hands.

i don't, i bid my 5 card major and opener passes... transfers don't make a lot of sense with weak nt anyway (to me)... no way to miss game, so no need to xfer and superaccept

[helene_t]

If I understand you correctly, Jim, you would pass partner's weak take-out (not playing transfer) with a hand that would superaccept a transfer. Why? With my tuesday p I play natural responses and invitational Stayman - then there is an inference that p's weak take-out is very weak:
1NT-2♣
2x-2♠
Here she could have the sort of hand that, playing transfers, would have transfered to spades, hoping for a superaccept, and otherwise just passed the normal accept. But this only applies to spades.

Playing "crawling Stayman", though, I don't think there is much difference between a superaccept and a raise of a weak t/o. Maybe, if partner transfers to hearts, you should superaccept in order to prevent RHO from ballancing on his next turn. After a weak t/o of 2♥, only LHO can ballance so you are under less pressure.

[luke warm]

not sure whether or not we're talking about the same thing, but here's how i play it... if responder has a 5 card major and anything less than an invitational hand, he bids the suit... so 1nt : 2h or 2s is to play.. whether or not opener has 2, 3, or 4 card support doesn't enter into it...

now opener isn't *barred* from bidding, and i personally might bid again with 4 card support (with min or max hcp) depending on the vulnerability.. i just have to remember that responder would bid 2h or 2s with even zero points.. it's an automatic 2h or 2s bid holding 5+

if responder has the same weak hand and 5 clubs or diamonds, he passes 1nt (the only exception is with a weak hand planning on passing any rebid by opener -invitational puppet 2c as garbage stayman)

i play 2c as invitational puppet and 2d as game forcing stayman...

[1eyedjack]

helium, on Sep 16 2004, 03:47 AM, said:

So everytime opps dont bid after a weak 1nt u bid game?

No. Super-acceptance is not game forcing.

[Rebound]

luke warm, on Sep 16 2004, 05:41 AM, said:

i don't, i bid my 5 card major and opener passes... transfers don't make a lot of sense with weak nt anyway (to me)... no way to miss game, so no need to xfer and superaccept

I fail to understand how you can state there is no way to miss game, and i think you underestimate the value of a transfer over a weak nt.

I'd be curious to know your reasons for these beliefs.

[luke warm]

give me a couple of examples and i'll show you what i mean... meanwhile, imagine you open a weak nt (12-14) and i have a 2542 six count... why transfer? if i think game's there, i bid invitational puppet or game forcing puppet, else i just bid 2h to play

[1eyedjack]

luke warm, on Sep 16 2004, 01:52 PM, said:

why transfer? if i think game's there, i bid invitational puppet or game forcing puppet, else i just bid 2h to play

I am probably repeating an old thread here, but what the hey.

There are two reasons quoted for using transfers: (1) to place the declaration in opener's hand rather than responder's, and (2) to increase your range of expression, ie to increase the number of hand types that can be described.

The importance of reason (1) depends to some extent on the range of the 1N opener. The stronger it is, the greater is the benefit of having opener declare. It is true that playing a weak 1N this benefit diminishes.

However, in my opinion reason (2) should not be undervalued, and is no way diminished by the choice of range of the 1N opner. I take the view that reason (2) outranks reason (1) in priority, even playing a strong NT (I accept that this is contentious) but it remains a compelling force when playing any range of 1NT opener.

Instinctively I think it unlikely that a system that uses 2H and 2S as natural weak take-outs is optimal opposite a weak 1N opener. I acknowledge that there is a small benefit of preemptive effect (opponents given fewer bites at the cherry). But the loss of all of the potential continuations that can originate from those responses (were they forcing) is in my view too high a price to pay.

Not that I regard Jacoby transfers as optimal. I just think that they are better than playing natural weak takeouts, whatever the 1NT range.