super accepts

[JAQPM]

What is the general opinion of the requirements for a super accept after Jacoby Trs

 

1/a maximum with 3 trumps or 4 any quality

 

2/ a maximum with 3 good trumps or 4 good trumps

[pclayton]

2 schools here:

 

Berganites - Accept shows 2 or 3 trump, 3 major shows minimum and 4 trump; 2x or 3x show 4 trump, any doubleton and max, 2N = 4333 with 4 trump.

 

Others - 3 major shows 4 trump, a max and nothing else to say. 3x is either a doubleton or a good side 4 card suit and a concentration of values. Minimum hands with 4 trump don't super accept.

 

Some play 2N shows a max and 3 trump, but this is silly IMO.

[awm]

Recently I've been observing a lot of hands where aggressive super-accepts got people overboard. Perhaps most notable is a board that was bid to game at both tables in the finals of the junior world championships:

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sjxxxxhxxdaxxxcxx&s=saxxxhkjxdkjxxcax]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

At the vugraph table south opened 1NT and super-accepted a transfer, and north put him in game. This needs a favorable trump position and two finesses. In fact trumps broke but both finesses were off, but the defense dropped a trick and defeated it only one.

 

Anyways I've seen a lot of these hands lately. Especially when the trump suit is spades there is little incentive to force to the three level on "random" hands with a four-card fit, since opponents often sell to 2♠. I suggest a conservative approach: super-accept shows four card support and a working maximum.

[mr1303]

My structure is as follows:

 

A new suit = 2 top honours + 4 trumps (any strength)

2NT = no suit with 2 top honours, 4 trumps, maximum

3 of the agreed major = 5 card support.

[Free]

I use superaccepts with non-minimum hands and 4+ trumps, not a 4333. We show doubletons, and we can always retransfer:

 

1NT-2♦-?

2♠ = 2♠

2NT = 2♦

3♣ = 2♣

 

1NT-2♥-?

2NT = 2♥

3m = 2m

 

I find that superaccepts need to be lawprotected and need some use for the 4th trump, that is a doubleton. I've seen people superaccept on 3 trumps and go -1 without a good reason. I've seen people superaccept on 4333 hands, and they can't ruff, so no use for the 4th trump,...

 

We play a 11-14 NT but specific ranges with Majors: 11-12 with 4♥, 13-14 with 4♠ (2-3♥). This means after a superaccept in ♥ partner knows about 12hcp (or good 11), but after a superaccept in ♠ he's always maximum (with 4-4M and 12hcp you can also superaccept, but not with 11). Partner knows what he can expect, and can usually make a good decision weither to signoff, bid game or try for slam.

[kenrexford]

Although admittedly not majoritarian again, I now have decided that I would prefer a scheme where I (a) do not superaccept without "extras" just because I hold four trumps, and (b ) cuebid when I superaccept. The cuebidding scheme is as follows:

 

2♠ (hearts agreed) = Ace or King of spades

2NT(hearts agreed) = poor trumps (one of top three), no spade control

2NT(spades agreed) = poor trumps

3C(hearts agreed) = good trumps (two of top three), two of top three clubs, but no spade control

3C(spades agreed) = good trumps, two of top three clubs

3D (hearts agreed) = good trumps, not two of top three clubs, two of top three diamonds, no spade control

3D(spades agreed) = good trumps, not two of top three clubs, two of top three diamonds

3H(hearts agreed) = good trumps, no spade control, no minor with two of top three honors

3H(spades agreed) = good trumps, not two top of either minor, heart control.

3S (spades agreed) = good trumps, not two of top three of either minor, no heart control

 

In other words, I cuebid, with 2NT being a "POOR TRUMPS" cuebid, and a minor cuebid being as-if-opened.

[mikeh]

I play a very basic method: I super accept only when holding a maximum and 4 trump and I do not make descriptive bids.

 

One reason is that I often play a method in which a transfer to ♥ is multi-purpose, and may not be based on ♥s. We need to limit the superaccept to 2♠ so as to allow responder to describe non-♥ hands. This restriction does not apply to ♠, so we could use a compelx structure.

 

However, my belief (not based on any rigorous analysis) is that descriptive auctions reveal as much or more useful info to the opps as they do to partner. I say this despite recently watching a very good pair reach an excellent slam which they may well have missed if opener had not been able to show a max with xx in ♣... a key holding for responder who needed operner's values outside of ♣s.

 

My belief is akin to my belief in jumping to 3N with most hands that would like to raise to 2N, invitational.... what I lose in theory, based on double-dummy analysis, I make up for in concealment of info that is only very rarely critical to partner's decision.

[mike777]

Recently I've been observing a lot of hands where aggressive super-accepts got people overboard. Perhaps most notable is a board that was bid to game at both tables in the finals of the junior world championships:

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sjxxxxhxxdaxxxcxx&s=saxxxhkjxdkjxxcax]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

At the vugraph table south opened 1NT and super-accepted a transfer, and north put him in game. This needs a favorable trump position and two finesses. In fact trumps broke but both finesses were off, but the defense dropped a trick and defeated it only one.

 

Anyways I've seen a lot of these hands lately. Especially when the trump suit is spades there is little incentive to force to the three level on "random" hands with a four-card fit, since opponents often sell to 2♠. I suggest a conservative approach: super-accept shows four card support and a working maximum.

 

At the vugraph table south opened 1NT and super-accepted a transfer, and north put him in game. This needs a favorable trump position and two finesses. In fact trumps broke but both finesses were off, but the defense dropped a trick and defeated it only one.

 

Anyways I've seen a lot of these hands lately. Especially when the trump suit is spades there is little incentive to force to the three level on "random" hands with a four-card fit, since opponents often sell to 2♠. I suggest a conservative approach: super-accept shows four card support and a working maximum.

It seems bidding 3c showing superaccept and a useful doubleton club would have kept them out of game with poor trumps and duplication.

 

Superaccept promises 4 card support always for me. That way we are Law protected with having 9 trumps at the 3 level.

 

I seem to be in the minority here but I do not play superaccept over strong 2nt opening bids.

[mike777]

Note this is all LOTT driven. With 2 balanced hands the hands often play a trick less so with a superaccept and 4(trumps)333 shape you can bid 2nt which gives you a chance to get out one level lower.

[JAQPM]

Thank you all for your answers which give me alot to reflect on

[1eyedjack]

I will superaccept with a minimum plus 4 trumps, but only in a partnership where I can then distinguish between min v max openers (and other features) by making full use of the available sequences between 2 and 3. The "4-handed players" will probably argue that I am giving too much away to the defence. I am aware of the argument but my personal experience, at least in this area, finds it wanting.

[Trinidad]

However, my belief (not based on any rigorous analysis) is that descriptive auctions reveal as much or more useful info to the opps as they do to partner.

In the case of superaccepting transfers the information to the opponents can be limited to assistance with their opening lead.

 

The general drawback of playing transfers is that the hand that is described accurately (the 1NT opener) is going to be declarer. But... after a superaccept we can untransfer ;). We can let opener do the describing and make responder declarer. Often, nothing is known about responder's hand, other than that he has 5+ in the major and that he denied the possibility to use a Texas transfer.

 

It is much more difficult to defend against 1) 1NT-2♥: 3♣*-4♠ than it is to defend against 2) 1NT-2♥; 3♠**-4♠ (* Some descriptive superaccept, ** some non-descriptive superaccept). In auction 1) we know about declarer that he has 5+ spades and some reason to bid game. In auction 2) we know that declarer has 16-17 HCPs and 4 spades (ok, 15-17 and 5 spades possible :) ).

 

Rik

[Cascade]

I use one super-accept with four-card support and a maximum or nearly any five-card support or occasionally three or four-card support and a singleton (since we open off-shape sometimes).

 

The super-accept is one step above the normal accept. That is 2♠ after a transfer to hearts and 2NT after a transfer to spades. This allows responder to make (nearly) his normal rebid and continue exploration for slam or the best game.

[HeartA]

For the hand in question, I think both are a little optimistic. Responder needs 6th S or 1 or 2 more hcp or better shape to go to game.

[awm]

Well on the example hand 3♠ should go down. It's all very well to play complex super-accept methods where much of opener's hand is known, but regardless of helping the defense this will not help your side on those occasions when the three-level is too high.

 

In expectation, assuming your opponents play 2♠ on an accepted transfer on the example hand:

 

3♠ = in expectation, lose 2.25 IMPs

4♠ = in expectation, lose 3.5 IMPs

 

Sure, if responder tones it down or the super-accept is more informative you might save an IMP or so, but you're still down a couple to the people who don't super-accept just because they have four trumps. :)

[mike777]

Well on the example hand 3♠ should go down. It's all very well to play complex super-accept methods where much of opener's hand is known, but regardless of helping the defense this will not help your side on those occasions when the three-level is too high.

 

In expectation, assuming your opponents play 2♠ on an accepted transfer on the example hand:

 

3♠ = in expectation, lose 2.25 IMPs

4♠ = in expectation, lose 3.5 IMPs

 

Sure, if responder tones it down or the super-accept is more informative you might save an IMP or so, but you're still down a couple to the people who don't super-accept just because they have four trumps. :)

You may be correct but why will 3s lose imps. The opp have 9 clubs and 8 hearts and 19 hcp. Maybe they can make something?

[blackshoe]

Recently I've been observing a lot of hands where aggressive super-accepts got people overboard. Perhaps most notable is a board that was bid to game at both tables in the finals of the junior world championships:

 

Dealer: South Vul: N/S Scoring: IMP

♠ Jxxxx ♥ xx ♦ Axxx ♣ xx ♠ Axxx ♥ KJx ♦ KJxx ♣ Ax

 

At the vugraph table south opened 1NT and super-accepted a transfer, and north put him in game. This needs a favorable trump position and two finesses. In fact trumps broke but both finesses were off, but the defense dropped a trick and defeated it only one.

 

Anyways I've seen a lot of these hands lately. Especially when the trump suit is spades there is little incentive to force to the three level on "random" hands with a four-card fit, since opponents often sell to 2♠. I suggest a conservative approach: super-accept shows four card support and a working maximum.

In my partnerships, bidding on these two hands might go either 1NT-2♥-3♠-P or 1NT-2♥-3♣-3♥-3♠-P. With some partners, it would go 1NT-2♥-2♠-P. Super accept or not, responder's hand is not worth game opposite 1NT, IMO. Opener's hand isn't really worth a superaccept, either, even with 16 points. Give it better spots, and it would be.

[jdeegan]

:( Superacceptance is based on LOTT. Therefore, 'superacceptor' needs four card trump support with a relatively 'pure' hand. Lack of 'purity' includes 4-3-3-3 distribution, lack of trump honors or 'quacks' in short suits. More than one 'flaw' ought to say not to superaccept regardless.

 

If you want to distinguish between a 15 HCP and a 17 HCP superaccept, use 2NT or 3 of a lower ranking suit versus a jump to three of the major. Remember, you are committing to a nine trick contract opposite a possible 5-3-3-2 hand with no high card points. Make sure the LOTT has you covered.

[neilkaz]

I reserve super accepts for 4 trumps and the upper half of the 15-17 HCP range along with a doubleton. I'll super accept with the majority of 16 HCP hands with a doubleton, but if there's any flaw, I'll just bid 2M with those. I also may super accept with good 3 card support and a working doubleton and a good 17 HCP hand..(ie a hand that I'd value as fractionally better than 18 support points).

 

The given hand with 5 HCP is a NOT a raise to game opposite a super accept.

 

.. neilkaz ..