fromageGB

1) 1NT=0, pass=10 If you don't support with this, what's the point of playing the system? 2) Pass=9 1♣=1 I don't fancy playing a NT contract with hand, would not fancy partner playing a suit contract on a 4/3 fit with such wonderful ruffing values in dimmy. 3) I would give some points to 2♥ first time round, but now if I bid I think partner will expect more values or more support. Pass=8. 2♥=2 4a) 1NT=7, 2♣=2, 1♠=0, Pass=1 4b) Not forcing because if he wanted me to bid with nothing he would have opened 2♣ pass=0, 2♠=0, 2NT=3, 3♣=5, 3♦=2, 4♦=0 4c) Not forcing, but highly encouraging (I would take 3♠ to be forcing preference) 3♠=2, 3NT=1, 4♣=4, 4♦=2, 5♦=1 4d) Not forcing pass=10, all others=0 Having bid twice when not forced, I have said enough. ** Added comment ** Having now read the other replies, I see it seems to be normal to award a total of more than 10 points, whereas I have spread my 10 points out among all the bids. Factor up accordingly.

Sorry, we seem to have sidetracked the OP, and I am as guilty as any. I think we need to firmly identify what the purpose of a super-accept is. My take on this is : As a law abiding citizen, I use it to look for the 23 point 9 card fits. Hence the need for 4 card support opposite an initially assumed 5 card suit. But not any fit works, so we need to decide what are the attributes of a hand that need to be shown to see it if will work. Opinions differ considerably. Some think knowledge of a responder shortage may be useful for opener to determine wasted values, some think showing doubletons is a good idea, some thinking specifically valueless doubletons, or conversely honour doubletons. You need to fix in mind what you are trying to do. To my way of looking at it, the position of the honours does not matter that much. If you have a distribution of 5332 opposite 4423 and a combined AKQAKQKQ scattered among them, it doesn't make much difference where you place those values. For example in the 2 minors you could have Qxx xx opposite Kx Axx, or xxx Kx opposite AQ xxx, you choose, but you still lose 2 tricks, the third round of each being won by ruffing. The full distribution given above is worth 10 tricks. Now make it 5332 opposite 4432 and it shrinks to 9 tricks. A whole trick reduction, in essence caused by the fact that mirrored doubletons mean opener has no ruffs. I think this is the biggest contributor to the difference between 9 tricks and 10, more important than the effect of responder shortages weakening opener's values in that suit, or other factors, and so the objective for me is to find out if there are mirrored doubetons. Rather than tell the defence what declarer has, I prefer a 2M+1 super-acceptance so that responder, if in the borderline "about 23 points" category, with a 5332 shape, can show his doubleton. If opener's doubleton is different, he bids game, but if opener has a 4333 shape he signs off at the 3 level, as he has no ruffs. If responder has a borderline values hand with a 4 card side suit, then rather than show a doubleton he bids (transfers to) game regardless, as either this will give opener a ruff here, or it will be a double fit to provide an extra trick. Is is worth opener super-accepting with a 4333 shape when he will always sign off over any doubleton? Yes, because opposite a 5422 (or more unbalanced) it is worth 10 tricks. I play (when I can) a 15-16 1NT and will always super-accept with 4 card support, but I believe if you play 15-17 then the range is too wide for responder to have any chance of determining "about 23". I think you need to agree "top half" of that range to make it work. The method of showing doubetons can be exact (such as my long post yesterday) or simpler with the acceptance that responder sometimes plays the hand, or if this is too much to accept, you can simply say opener always plays the hand, but if responder is 5332 with a doubleton major he gives up on showing it and just pots game or not. You may not agree with my decisions, but do analyse what combination of holdings does not justify game on a 9 card 23 count. You may think something is more important than mirrored doubletons.

I disagree. My style (and others') is to open 1♥ on this hand. Opening 1♥ does not deny 15-17 points. How you treat this hand depends on the agreements you have on continuations. There are normally different bids to make with different strength ranges. Only if you "always" open 1NT with a 5 card major do you have your commitment, I think.

I beg your pardon? With 2♣NF you are more likely to be playing there. I would rather play in spades or hearts.

3♠ It's a nice hand. But I do prefer 2♣ to be forcing and unspecified with 15+.

Yes, this is the problem : with a club shortage the hand is played by responder. You can't avoid it, one of the desirable objectives must be sacrificed. I am wondering which is the lesser evil playing the wrong way round when responder has a particular shortage (or doubleton, or whatever you think responder should show) and is "uncertain" in strength, with the evil that declarer's whole hand is displayed, or having a separate super-acceptance to show a specific opener attribute that would be a downgrade opposite the given responder circumstance (such as doubleton, or quack values, depending on what you are trying to avoid being in game with), with the evil that opponents have partial knowledge of that suit. A case of a huge evil comparatively rarely or a small evil more often. (For example, you can have 2M+1 as the super-acceptance without that opener attribute in the transfer suit, and 3M as super-acceptance with that opener attribute in the transfer suit. This leaves only 2 options to be shown over the 2M+1, and opener always plays the contract.)

I agree with you, but there is a problem in that only 2 responder bids are available to show a shortage in any of 3 suits, if you still want the ability to transfer to 3M with a weak hand. You could play something like this after (eg) 1NT 2♥ 2NT : 4♥(retransfer) = OK, game 3♥(retransfer) = weak, no game 3♦ = uncertain, short in diamonds ..then opener bids .. 3♠ = that's no good .. 4♠ = that's OK 3♣ = uncertain, shortage in clubs or hearts ..then opener bids .. 4♠ = I'm happy for both .. 3♠ = I'm happy if it is hearts, but not clubs ....then responder .... pass = short in clubs .... 4♥(transfer) = short in hearts .. 3♦ = I'm happy if it is clubs, but not hearts ....then responder .... 3♥(transfer) = it is hearts .... 4♥(transfer) = OK, it's clubs but this seems complicated to remember and has great potential for going wrong. The alternative seems to be 4♥(retransfer) = OK, game 3♣= uncertain, short in clubs 3♦ = uncertain, short in diamonds 3♥ = uncertain, short in hearts 3♠ = weak, no game but the trouble is when responder is weak there is even more need to have opener play the hand. Free, how do you handle this?

Funny, I hadn't thought of that ! Yes, thanks. This gets the wrong hand exposed, but you can't have everything.

I don't like the idea of opener giving information to the defence when most times responder is already decided whether he is bidding game or not. I prefer a non-descriptive trial bid. For me a superacceptance is any hand that has 4 card support. Rather than give information to the opponents unnecessarily, use 2M+1 in response to the transfer. Then responder can sign off in 3M bid 4M >3M = serious cue bid <3M = invite, showing ideally a valueless short suit such as xx (1NT 2♦ 2♠ 2NT = spades). Opener decides, and can decline game with wasted soft values here. Admitedly a declined invitation gives information to help the defence, but any meaningful game exploration has to.

This is my approach, too. Reserve bids above 2NT to show specifically mid-range. In my case though this is 15/16, and without the possibility of 17 I don't think partner has enough to go beyond game. Turn south's ♣K into a QJ, or just a Q, and I don't think much of the slam.

I would miss the slam, too. My south rebid is jump to 3♠, specifically 15/16 and 6 spades "balanced" (17+ keeps low initially). With north, I would not be tempted, and would just bid 3NT.

I agree with this, but for the example hand would reverse the pointy suits. I opened a weak 2 last night with >10 count good suit rather than a one bid, simply to make it harder for opps to find a higher ranking fit (admittedly after partner had passed). Having said that, redouble seems pointless, probably an automatic reflex by a rubber bridge player.

As mike's. Ken - why would north bid 4♦?

I like it and play it, in most sequences. Whatever you do it has to fit in with the system and define things that can't be bid in other ways. With one partner I play a simple natural response to a heart open of 1♠, where this is 4+ and unlimited: 1♥ 1♠ 1NT/2apples 2♠ = an invitational 11/12 with 6 spades, can be passed 1♥ 2♠ is a weak 2 = 6 card 5-9 and probably a heart singleton/void. However, with another partner, 1♥ 2♠ is a 4 card support GF, giving more room in the followups. With that partner I play Kaplan inversion where 1♥ 1♠ may be (normally) a 4 card suit (or fewer) and 1♥ 1NT is unlimited 5+ spades. Then we use: 1♥ 1♠ 1NT/2apples 2♠ = 6 card suit 6-10 1♥ 1NT 2apples 2♠ = 6 card suit 11/12 With playing with regular partners that play transfer walsh we have the sequences: 1♣ 1♦/♥(showing the major above) 1♥/♠ (the major, denying 4 card support) 2♥/♠ = 6 card 9-12 1♣ 2♥/♠ = 6 card 5-8 This works very well, and I am delighted with it. This is made effective because the 1♣ open guarantees at least a doubleton in each major, and thus an assured fit, because ... We play a diamond open that will have 6 diamonds or have a shortage. Playing the weak jump response with that is a little foolish, as that is likely to be opener's void/singleton. We play 1♦ 2♥/♠ as an invitational 6 card suit that is safe to convert to 2NT. Thoroughly recommended if it complements the rest of the system.

I agree, and have queried this and had it confirmed that even if it shows exactly 4 cards in the non-bid major, and nothing else, it is still a "takeout" and not alerted. "Playable in the other suits" (eg say 3 cards in any specific non-bid suit) is also "takeout" and not alerted. I think the EBU when they say takeout, mean "non-penalty". However, maybe "5+ in the other major" would be a specific takeout that is not "normal" so maybe that should be alerted. Very murky. If we can't have free announcements, then I favour a natural alerting policy, ie if it invites partner to pass with a balanced (in the context of the bidding so far) no-extra values hand then it should NOT be alerted. And when something is alerted, there should be no UI associated with any questions about the alert.

They seem to have a heart fit with maybe as much as half the points, so I reckon passing will give them 110 or 140. But partner may have a club suit, may have 3 diamonds, and playing 3 of a minor is a good sacrifice - and it may make, too. So at matchpoints I can't see how you can possibly pass. As a natural 2NT hand would have taken action earlier, 2NT now MUST be telling partner to bid a minor. Do it - I don't see the opponents doubling, and if it pushes them to 3♥-1 then I will be happy with that too. Passing looks like below average.

I think the whole concept of the alert is on shaky ground if it means "not what you might expect" (as it seems to be in many cases) as what might seem normal to you could be pretty unusual to me. Most people will assume the hand has to have some sort of spade holding, but opinions differ on whether it must have diamonds. This is a good candidate for "announcing", so opener can say "normally shows 4 or 5 spades", or "shows just spades and exactly 4", or whatever.

Thanks all for your thoughts and comments. You've given me some useful input on how things can be handled better.

Yes, I don't think playing 2m comes up that much. What does come up is the problem of responder having to bid on over a wide-ranging rebid of 2♣/2♦/2♥ in case game is on, when it is not. A 12-14 rebid solves this, as well as making the "gazzilli 2♣" safer as opener will have a minimum of a 15 count. Yes, I agree, this was an oversight in the original idea that means the 2♣/♦ responses need switching, so that after 1♠ 1NT 2♣ = any 15+ 2♦ = 12-14 denies 4 hearts, denies 6 spades. Note that over a 1♥ 1♠ KI it is still 1NT = 12-14 denies 6 hearts, denies 4 spades 2♣ = any 15+ 2♦ = 12-14 with 4 spades 2♥ = 12-14 with 6 hearts

Well, not 4 clubs, but 5 you can. Opener is 12-14 and has denied hearts or extra spades. I agree, and am switching the 2♣/2♦ responses to 1♠. If 2♣ is the 15+ it enables a very weak responder to bid 2♥ naturally, and over a 2♦ (7+) inquiry opener can bid 2♥ with 15/16 and 4+ hearts. This loses the ability of responder to play in 2♣ when opener makes the 12-14 2♦ response. Do note, though, that the 15 point minimum for this 2♣ makes the contracts safer than a standard gazzilli 2♣ that can be 12 points.

Thanks, this is a gazzilli get out structure that I like and hadn't thought through properly. My main point in the topic, though, was the dislike of the normal wide-ranging opener rebids (1♠ 1NT 2♣/♦/♥) which force responder to go potentially too high to look for game that is not there when opener is weak. A 12-14 rebid solves this.

Yes, this is the problem I meant - what if responder does not have a doubleton or an honour. I concede a "semi-forcing" NT helps considerably, but I didn't want to get into a forcing or semi-forcing discussion.

There are some other more subtle advantages. Playing Kaplan inversion, when both sides have a 5 card major and it goes 1♥ 1NT(5+ spades) and both parties are weak, you get the option of negotiating which is the better fitting non-fit major, rather than responder making a unilateral decision. For example 1♥ 1NT(5 spades) 2♣ (12-14 with only 5 hearts and denying 3 spades), responder can escape with 2♥ = to play, with a doubleton 2♦ = heart shortage, suggesting spades is a better contract. Opener can bid 2♠ as suggested, but 2♥ with a spade shortage. Something I should mention is that if you are not playing the Kaplan inversion, you have the problem of responder having 5 spades and a weak hand. Should he rebid spades or not - or conversely does a weak opener have to support with 3? The 12-14 reponses solve it neatly, remembering that opener does not attempt to show a minor. 1♥ 1♠(4+) then 1NT = 12-14, denies 3 spades, denies 6 hearts 2♣ = any 15+ 2♦ = 12-14 with 3 spades 2♥ = 12-14 with 6 hearts 2♠ = 12-14 with 4 spades and of course again a 9/10 count can pass 1NT and does not have to push to 2NT.

Sticking to the forcing NT for a moment, I was thinking of NOT playing a 4-3 minor fit. You would not play in 2 of a minor unless responder had a long minor. As to Gazzilli, the horrible part is that a weak responder as I play it is forced to bid 2 of the major even with no fit. Your 2♣ Gazzilli could be a 12 count, responder is 6, and with a combined 18, 2M on a 5-2 fit is playable, though not perfect, but I am not happy to play in a 5-1 fit. Yet there is no alternative, as 2NT on an 18 count is suicidal. Playing the 15+ version, a weak responder with a 6 count can see a combined 21 count minimum. So not only is 2M a safer contract, but if responder has a shortage in the major, he can also bid 2NT to play. There are other benefits when opener is restricted to 12-14, for example 1♠ 1NT 2♥ with 4 hearts. Responder with a 9/10 count does not have to push to the 3 level to see if game is there, and sometimes the 3 level fails when the 2 level will succeed.

There was a thread recently that discussed a wide-ranging 1NT rebid (say 12-16) as opposed to a rebid that was restricted to 12-14 (say). Most people preferred the narrow-ranging. It occurred to me we have the same situation over the forcing next step where the sequence 1♠ 1NT is absolutely forcing. The simple approach is to play a rebid such as 2♣ or 2♦ as natural with a range of say 12-16, with a 17 count jumping. A more sophisticated approach would be to reserve the 2♣ as two-way, natural or any strong hand, with a 2♦ inquiry. Whatever, we now have the situation where responder is facing a wide-ranging opener, and it can be difficult to continue with any degree of safety. Would it be playable to abandon the concept of opener showing a minor suit and simply use opener's rebids to show strength? I am think of a rebid structure like 1♠ 1NT (forcing) 2♣ = any 15+ 2♦ = 12-14, denies 6 spades, denies 4 hearts 2♥ = 12-14 with 4 hearts 2♠ = 12-14 with 6 spades (keep the 3 bids for particular hands such as a 15/16 5-5 for example) Now responder can pass the diamond bid with long diamonds. He still has the normal 11/12 invitational bids, and he has 3♣/♦/♥ as a long suit invitation. (Previously you could play a weak take out at the 3 level, or an invitation, but now you have both - the weak hand actually playing at the 2 level minor.) When opener is 15+ and bids 2♣, a 2♦ inquiry can be made with any 7+ hand and still be safe to play as high as 2NT. Primarily, though, after 2♦/♥/♠ opener is known to have a weakish hand, and his majors are known. Life is much easier for responder. Is this a playable idea? {Edit - revised. Original post had the 2♣♦ bids reversed.)