Super-Acceptance

[Al_U_Card]

For 1 NT (15-17), after a jacoby transfer, to super-accept I understand that a bid of 2NT, by opener, can promise an undisclosed doubleton (working or otherwise).

 

Comments please as well as alternatives if possible.

[Echognome]

I personally prefer showing a good side suit. It lets partner know whether their values are working. Then you can use 2NT to show a maximum with scattered values and 3M to show a minimum.

 

Opener is known to be balanced. It is usually better to know the shortness of responder. I'm sure one can construct hands where knowing a useful doubleton will be ideal. But, I'm also sure that I can construct deals where showing a good side suit will be ideal.

[mike777]

Prefer 2nt show 4 hearts, non-minimum, no useful doubleton (very frequently 4333)

Using 2nt in this manner seems like a waste of a bid. Just bid your useful doubleton if you got it.

[Double !]

I personally prefer showing a good side suit. It lets partner know whether their values are working. Then you can use 2NT to show a maximum with scattered values and 3M to show a minimum.

I'm with you on this. Responder can usually check back for an important honor in a side suit, and bidding a decent second suit brings that suit into play as a potential trump suit, playing in a good 4-4 fit while getting a discard from the 5-4 suit, making an additional trick.

DHL

[tysen2k]

There was another thread on this about 2 months ago. I'm personally fond of the "anti-splinter" where opener shows a suit that has a concentration of values that would be wasted opposite shortness. Much more valuable for responder to know.

 

Tysen

[Guest Jlall]

you can do both! Showing both concentration and weak doubleton is possible.

 

step 1 above the transfer suit (ie. 2D-2S or 2H-2N) can be used as a weak doubleton. Next step asks.

 

all other bids show concentration, except for 2N over 2D which shows SPADE concentration.

 

With neither concentration nor a weak doubleton (Jx or lower) just bid 3M.

[han]

I like that Justin. The fact that opener only reveals the weak doubleton when responder has slam interest sounds very good. Usually responder will just sign of in 3M or in game and it is better not to have the weakness disclosed (especially if re-transfers are used).

[barmar]

The reason many prefer to show opener's doubleton is because suit contracts frequently only get extra tricks by ruffing in the hand with shorter trumps. So while it's good to know that you have a 9-card fit, since it means that the defenders are less likely to get ruffs, you also want to know if opener's trumps can generate extra tricks.

[kfgauss]

you can do both! Showing both concentration and weak doubleton is possible.

 

step 1 above the transfer suit (ie. 2D-2S or 2H-2N) can be used as a weak doubleton. Next step asks.

 

all other bids show concentration, except for 2N over 2D which shows SPADE concentration.

 

With neither concentration nor a weak doubleton (Jx or lower) just bid 3M.

Is this worth not being able to retransfer sometimes?

 

That is, one can play that the next three bids above accepting the transfer show concentration (or weak doubleton, your choice), with 2N as a stand in for M-1 (ie the suit below your major), and never bid 3M-1. (Superaccepts that don't want to make one of these bids bid 3M).

 

I find these sorts of choices very hard to quantify and make. Does anyone have opinions on whether being able to show both is worth giving up the retransfer sometimes?

 

A side note/question on retransfering: whenever one can retransfer, I like to play that bidding 3M is an invite. This should be used sparingly, as we don't like responder to become declarer here, but do people have opinions as to how often we should be using this invite? (e.g. "never" or "only when we have several tenaces ourselves" or "whenever we have an invite")

 

Andy

[han]

Henri pointed out a couple of weeks ago that retransfers are not that important when opener has shown 4-card support and a weak doubleton. Guess which suit they will lead? And opener's hand is almost exactly known.

[Guest Jlall]

Agree with Henri. And in general I think retransfers are overestimated. Having the unknown random hand play it has a lot of advantages despite the fact that he will probably have less tenaces.

[Cascade]

Super-accepts destroy my structure over a transfer. I find this a handicap therefore we have gone to a one super-accept structure which almost lets us continue responder's normal rebid. To do this we always super-accept into the bid above the trump suit.

 

1NT 2♦

2♠ ...

 

then 2NT means whatever 2♠ would have meant without the super-accept and we do not have a natural invitational 2NT bid since we have already discovered our fit.

[mike777]

I thought that was the point of super accept.

Destroy the structure

Destroying the structure is good thing not bad.

You get to rebuild in a creative way, not structured way.

[Chamaco]

For 1 NT (15-17), after a jacoby transfer, to super-accept I understand that a bid of 2NT, by opener, can promise an undisclosed doubleton (working or otherwise).

 

Comments please as well as alternatives if possible.

You can do both, showing doubleton or good side suit according to the situation

The idea is the same of Kokish 2-way game tries:

 

 

- first step (e.g. 1NT-2D*-2S or 1NT-2H*-2NT) to promise undisclosed WEAK doubleton (never show Hx doubleton or better)

 

 

 

- higher bids show side 4+ bagger WITH CONCENTRATION (never show Hxxx suit or worse):

e.g:

1NT-2D*

-2NT = good spades (2S wd be concealed dbltn)

- 3m = good suit

 

e.g:

1NT-2H*

- 3x = good suit (2NT wd be concealed dbltn)

[Flame]

Like Justin's way, will try to convince partner to remember it. (or more likely forget it at the worse moment :) )

[Guest Jlall]

It seems my way is Kokish's way :rolleyes: Figures...lol no idea who invented it though.

[helene_t]

Destroying the structure is good thing not bad.

Now I suddelnly understand Fluffy's avatar text. Learned something new today. :rolleyes:

[Chamaco]

It seems my way is Kokish's way :( Figures...lol no idea who invented it though.

Oops, did not read the previous posts including yours.

 

Alright, that might be Justin's game tries :rolleyes:

[Guest Jlall]

No, I'm sure I did not invent it lol. I mean I don't know if it was Kokish or someone else.