transfer super accept

[sceptic]

weak

NT 13 - 15

NT 10 - 12

NT 15 - 17

etc

 

How do you play super accepts in weaker NT openers and what are the benifits and the pitfalls please

 

 

please answer covering as many NT ranges as you can be bothered to answer about

[Gerben42]

I always play super-accepts the same way, regardless if mini or strong NT:

 

Minimum and 4-card support: Raise to 3

Maximum and 4-card support: Bid something descriptive

 

4333 does not count.

 

You lose when you would have bought it for 2M but go down in 3, but that's not so often.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

10-12 => I dont think it is a great idea

to play transfer at all.

i.e. the question regarding super accepts

is answered ;)

14-16 => break shows 4 card support,

15-17 bidding a new suit shows max. and a doubleton,

bidding 2NT shows max and 4-3-3-3

bidding 3M shows min and a unspecified doubleton

 

13-15 => You can play it similar or forget transfers,open discussion

12-14

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Cascade]

Most of the time responder only needs to know that you have support and a maximum so I do not like giving too much information away. For this reason we have only one super-accept.

 

When responder was slammish anyway there is a danger that any super-accept will take away valuable bidding space without giving much useful information. For this reason we make our super-accept one step above a normal acceptance of the transfer.

 

1NT 2♦

2♥ Accepting the transfer

2♠ Super-accept

 

1NT 2♥

2♠ Accepting the transfer

2NT Super-accept

 

This allows us to use our normal follow-up bids in a slam investigation without much modification.

 

I would use the same method over any range 1NT.

 

Our 1NT can be off-shape including occasional singletons and five-card majors. We super-accept with any normal 1NT opening with four trumps and a maximum and also with most hands with five-card support or a side singleton.

 

Over a strong 2NT since we do not have such an elaborate follow-up structure we super-accept into our lowest cue-bid.

[Codo]

With a weak NT (up to 13-15) I like to break the transfer with a good hand. We break it into another 4 card suit. We don´t play retransfer afterwards, so it is an advantage, that the NT hand is described, not the other hand. THis is the main point. The opps have no clue about the shape and the HCPs from declarer.

 

With a relative weak hand and a four card fit, we bid 2 NT to show any shape with fit and minimum. Responder can ask about details afterwards.

 

In a strong NT contect, I would prefer Waynes world.

[cnszsun]

1NT 2♦

2♥        Accepting the transfer

2♠        Super-accept

 

1NT 2♥

2♠        Accepting the transfer

2NT          Super-accept

Do you worried about giving opponets more chances to enter auction, especially if you are playing weak NT with transfer still on?

[1eyedjack]

1NT 2♦

2♥        Accepting the transfer

2♠        Super-accept

It might be worthwhile using 2N as the super-accept over either major suit transfer. At the cost of a very small amount of constructive bidding space (after transfer to ♥) the opportunities for opponents to find ♠ (ie by doubling 2♠) are dramatically reduced.

 

Anyway, to answer the OP, I will almost always super-accept with 4 card support, max or min, whatever the 1N range, and my methods of super-accepting would not change dependent on opening range.

[awm]

I believe in conservative super-accepts for all ranges of notrumps. Basically a super-accept shows all of:

 

(1) Four or five card support

(2) A side doubleton (never 4333 shape)

(3) Prime values, not too many slow cards in side suits

 

I've found that 2M does often buy the contract, especially 2♠. The issue is that this isn't a "fit-showing" auction and responder is initially unlimited so the opponents can't pre-balance aggressively.

[1eyedjack]

I've found that 2M does often buy the contract, especially 2♠.

I am less concerned about buying it in 2M than I am about missing game.

 

The difference in trick-taking potential between a minimum opener with doubleton support and an opener with 4 card support, side doubleton and prime values is wider than might be indicated by the apparently narrow point range of opener. Requiring responder to do all the inviting on all occasions except where opener is super-max/fitting places too much pressure on responder, and you will miss games where responder has a borderline game try and passes.

 

The key issue of course is whether those occasions outweigh the occasions where you would have bought it in 2M and can only make fewer than 9 tricks, which I agree does happen sometimes.

 

I only have my experience to rely on, and that suggests to me the liberal super-accept route.

[Free]

- I also think transfers are no good idea after mini NT, so no super accepts there

- after weak NT (11-14/12-14/13-15/...) I prefer to superaccept only with 4432's and 5332's (4-5 card support) and maximum. I don't see a reason to raise to 3 on minimum hands, and also no reason to raise with 4333's. I always show the shortness.

- after strong NT (14-16 or better) I prefer to superaccept the same like after weak NT. Still no reason to superaccept on minimums or 4333's imo, but minimums might be more useful than after weak NT. It's just not my style...

[Cascade]

1NT 2♦

2♥        Accepting the transfer

2♠        Super-accept

 

1NT 2♥

2♠        Accepting the transfer

2NT          Super-accept

Do you worried about giving opponets more chances to enter auction, especially if you are playing weak NT with transfer still on?

No

 

The primary reason I super-accept is not to keep the opponents out based on some LAW argument but to constructively bid our games that might get missed after a normal acceptance of the transfer.

[Cascade]

1NT 2♦

2♥        Accepting the transfer

2♠        Super-accept

It might be worthwhile using 2N as the super-accept over either major suit transfer. At the cost of a very small amount of constructive bidding space (after transfer to ♥) the opportunities for opponents to find ♠ (ie by doubling 2♠) are dramatically reduced.

It might.

 

Over a weak NT and a super-accept the opponents cannot assume that the hand does not belong to their side. I think it would be more useful for the opponents to play Double as a takeout of hearts.

 

If they can double for spades then good for them. For now I am not going to worry about this.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

I play the same NT structure over any range 1NT opening. I have played 1NT openers from 8-10, 9-11, 10-12, 11-13 and most other ranges up to a Roman 'type' 17-20HCP range.

 

The advantages of bidding 1NT-2Y are 'not' nearly as good as the advantages 'gained' from a good NT reply structure IMHO.

 

If you think that you are often going to play in 2Y 'with' a weak hand(and a long suit) opposite the 1NT bid 'with' a fit, the modern bidding style is to 'not' let you play either 1NT or 2Y.

 

I can show many hand types(and with game type hands I often show shortness)

The Roth style 1NT-transfer and rebid in a minor with a 5-5 shape 'not forcing', however, inv. by virtue of the shape is a great bidding tool.

 

Super accepts are used with 'some' hands that are max., 4 card support and 'solid' values. A queen/jack collection with a high HCP count is just not going to take a lot of tricks on many hands.

 

The 'non transfer' bidders will tell you that you are taking up more bidding space and that the other side will not be able to bid. You are taking up 'exactly' one bidding step 'less' by using transfers. The other pair 'does not' know what HCP range you hold when you transfer, so any action may be heavily punished.

 

When the 'non transfer group' bids 1NT-2Y, they are telling the entire table that they do not have inv. values and that they do hold a 5+ card suit. This tends to 'help' the other pair in judging their actions.

 

When you play transfers, the other pair does know that you are weak, however, only one of them will 'know' that information and they will 'only know after you pass the transfer bid.

 

Playing 1NT-2Y 'as a sign off bid' both members of the other pair 'know' that you are 'signing off' and can either bid a long suit, use the 2NT bid for 'shaped' takeouts or double to 'consult' with their partner.

 

Regards,

Robert

[reisig]

When super accept w 4 trumps ..I like to show my doubleton - helps partner judge game/slam bidding better.

 

So 1N 2♦ -- 2♠ and 3♣ = doubleton here -- resp then rexfer

with doubleton in the xfer suit - jump to 3M.

[MFA]

I like to show value concentration that potentially fit a broken suit but misfit a singleton.

 

That is AKJ, KQx, or even Kx(!), but not Axxx.

 

2NT shows max with no such suit, 3M is all minimum superaccepts.

 

Responder's new suit after a superaccept is a splinter! Below game just a game try until told otherwise. However I do play retransfers, so 3M is a gametry with shortage in the suit just below.

 

I agree that the primary purpose of super accepts is to help constructive bidding. So often responder needs 4 card support to be able to move past 2M to look for game.

[Gerben42]

I don't like transfers after a weak NT. I admit that not playing transfers to the majors you have fewer sequences available, but that doesn't mean you cannot have an effective NT structure.

 

BTW 2-way Stayman is NOT the best way to approach this either.

 

The 'non transfer' bidders will tell you that you are taking up more bidding space and that the other side will not be able to bid. You are taking up 'exactly' one bidding step 'less' by using transfers. The other pair 'does not' know what HCP range you hold when you transfer, so any action may be heavily punished.

 

This shows you don't get the point of not playing transfers. The point is that 4th seat is under much more pressure, not because you bid 2♠ instead of 2♥, but because he only gets one go! By the way with a maximum and 4-card support you can also super-accept this signoff bid, but you should be more reluctant doing so than when playing transfers.

 

Playing 1NT-2Y 'as a sign off bid' both members of the other pair 'know' that you are 'signing off' and can either bid a long suit, use the 2NT bid for 'shaped' takeouts or double to 'consult' with their partner.

 

Again, this information may sound more useful than it is. With a 10-count opposite a weak NT you sign off even though it is your hand. And when opps then back in, they are in trouble :)

[Robert]

Hi Gerben42

 

Just because you prefer or dislike a bidding method 'does not' mean that your opinion is the only 'right' one and other choices are wrong.

 

I never stated that any given NT structure was the 'best', I did suggest that I had a decent one.

 

I know that I also did not say that I played two way Stayman, since I do not like the bid and do not use it in my NT bidding structure.

 

Perhaps you could show me the point of 'not playing' transfers. After four decades of play, I still prefer transfer type methods(I have played most other methods)

 

If your opinion is based on 4th hand 'only having 'one go', I would suggest that playing transfers 'only' the player in 4th seat has the same 'risks.' That 10 HCP hand that you 'offer' as evidence in support of your chosen method 'still' exists when I play my transfer methods. We would appear to 'break even' under your stated conditions of contest.

 

If you are telling me that both transfer and 'sign off' methods cannot hold the exact same 10HCP(when both sign off), I did 'miss your point.' :)

 

Please do not change your methods because of my different choice. I would like the same courtesy in return. :)

 

Regards,

Robert

[Gerben42]

Just because you prefer or dislike a bidding method 'does not' mean that your opinion is the only 'right' one and other choices are wrong.

 

I am not claiming that - what would I know? I like to officially declare for now and all future and previous post that I do not think my opinion is not the only right one. But it is my opinion and this is a message board where people give their opinion! You can interpret anything you like into my post as you please, however. That is your right.

 

If your opinion is based on 4th hand 'only having 'one go', I would suggest that playing transfers 'only' the player in 4th seat has the same 'risks.'

 

This is not true because by transferring you are bidding a suit you do not promise, thus giving the opponents an opportunity to get in relatively safe even if it is your hand.

[Robert]

Hi Gerben 42

 

I just do not get it. I prefer another method of bidding over an opening NT than you prefer and 'I do not get it.'

 

I freely admit that the other pair does get additional chances to act over transfer auctions. That they are safer doing so depends on your viewpoint. A while back, I was doubled for penalty in my weak NT opening and partner 'send it back' with his modest 15HCP. I only made 5 redoubled overtricks, however, the score was a still a 'top.'

 

If the risks 'are not there' for bidding into a 'live' auction, I 'really' do not get it.

I watched a fairly decent pair get doubled in a Stayman auction. They 'sent it back' and they made multiple redoubled overtricks in 2Cs redoubled.

 

I agree that transfer provide additional chances for the other pair to bid, however, I try and make them pay 'as much as possible and also as often as possible.'

 

You allow me to voice my opinion. however, you also get to decide what is 'true'(and what is not true) Your view is 'correct' because you disagree with my opinion? How did my opinion get 'to be untrue' because it disagreed with yours?

 

Thanks for the freedom to post and let you decide what is 'correct/true.'

 

Regards,

Robert

[Winstonm]

My concept of a super accept is simple - it is a hand that due to the bidding now exceeds its stated range - the only possible way for a NT hand to improve its range is by rufffing values and fit. Ergo, super accept bids should show the location of the ruffing value for fit purposes. A 4333 hand can never be better than it was originally, even if a 5/4 fit is uncovered.

 

And IMO, any 4333 or 5/3 fit can never be a super accept - if it is that good it was misbid with a 1NT opening.

 

I only apply these priciples to strong NTs.

[sceptic]

Super Accepting a Major

 

2NT 3 card maximum 2 hi honors

3 of major, 4 trumps all side suits controlled

3 of new suit, 4 trump maximum losers in suit bid

 

example

1NT 2D *xfer to H

2S 4 card maximum with bad S etc.

 

The responder is able to re- transfer over 2NT super accept.

 

 

This is what I was shown for major transfers, playing 15-17 would it be any use with a weak NT

[Winstonm]

Super Accepting a Major

 

2NT 3 card maximum 2 hi honors

3 of major,  4 trumps all side suits controlled

3 of new suit,  4 trump maximum losers in suit bid

 

example

1NT 2D *xfer to H

2S      4 card maximum with bad S etc.

 

The responder is able to re- transfer over 2NT super accept.

 

 

This is what I was shown for major transfers, playing 15-17  would it be any use with a weak NT

This makes no sense to me.

 

First, the object of a super accept is to get to sub-high-card-strength games, which means opposite the right 6/7 count if playing strong NT. This requires a 9-card fit and working shortness/fits between the two hands.

 

Second, I would abandon the idea that any 3-card support is ever worth a super accept. If you have a prime 17 then you have a 2N rebid not a 1N opener. The concept of super fit is that opener's hand can produce an extra trick in the suit contract with a trump lead. Suppose you have AKx of spades and xx in clubs opposite xxx in clubs. Trump lead and continuations still leave you with 3 losers; however, AKxx of spades can take care of that third club loser regardless of leads.

That is the object of a super accept - to show this added value in the hand - not to distinguish 15-16 point hands from 17 point hands with 3-card support.

 

I would use a direct 3-level as minimum with 4-card support.

With a genuine super accept, bidding the weakness of the hand has some merit but reponder needs to know if this is xx or xxx or xxxx. In the former, a holding such as xxx, xxxx is prefered, while in the last two cases responder needs to hold the shortness.

 

I would use this over strong NT only:

 

2S over 2D or 2N over 2H shows a 4-card super-fit with no weak doubleton (obviously a 4243 hand type with xxx or xxxx) and asks responder with game interest to bid his shortness or else sign off in the major.

 

2N over 2D shows a super fit and a weak doubleton spade and natural bids over 2H show a doubleton and a super fit.

[keylime]

Superaccepts is one of the three main reasons why I migrated over to Keri - with a superaccepts opener gets some rights in the auction when it comes to invite hands that with a super accept from opener will go.

 

When I play somewhat more normalish methods, I do the superaccepts with a worthless doubleton routine; i.e. bid the doubleton that is worthless with 2NT being the replacement bid for the xfer.

[1eyedjack]

My concept of a super accept is simple - it is a hand that due to the bidding now exceeds its stated range - the only possible way for a NT hand to improve its range is by rufffing values and fit.  Ergo, super accept bids should show the location of the ruffing value for fit purposes.  A 4333 hand can never be better than it was originally, even if a 5/4 fit is uncovered.

 

And IMO, any 4333 or 5/3 fit can never be a super accept - if it is that good it was misbid with a 1NT opening.

 

I only apply these priciples to strong NTs.

There are hands, when responder has considerable distribution but a shortage of high cards, in which responder has game ambition only with adequate trump control.

 

This may not be a great example but it is just "off the cuff".

 

[hv=s=saxxxxhxdxxckxxxx]133|100|Uncontested

1N(15-17)-2H

2S-??[/hv]

 

As responder, I submit that

1) You have game ambition if partner opener has 4 Spades

2) Opener's 4th Spade is more important to you than his points (although controls are more important than quacks)

3) The possibility that opener is 4-3-3-3 does not significantly deteriorate his hand - it is your distribution, not his, that will provide both the source of tricks your way and protection from defensive tricks.

 

Thus, I would not like to bar opener from superaccepting with 4333 shape, although 4333 quacky hand I can understand.

 

If my example is not the best to illustrate the point I have no doubt that a better one can be constructed.

[mikestar]

Robert,

 

What you are not grasping is the tradeoffs involved in playing transfers over weak and especially very weak notrumps.

 

You are quite correct that transfers conceal weakness better in that 1NT-2♥ (transfer) may be invitational or better while 1NT-2♠ (natural) reveals weakness.

 

Now let's put you South and West opens 1NT, partner passes and East either transfers to or bids spades.

 

In the transfer case you risk more intervening on doubtful hands, so you will have to pass more often--but you are sure to get another chance: West completes the transfer and East passes, its back to you and you can now make any bid you would have made directly over a natural 2♠. It is also very likely that there are hands where it is reasonable to bid immediately even though the enemy might be inv+. You also get a free double of 2♥ to show the suit--opponents are unlikely to leave it in and if they do you only need six tricks rather than the eight you would need if you had bid 2♥ (in a different auction). So all in all it is rather like having 2 1/2 chances--your partnership has two bids after responders strength is known, but three after his suit is known.

 

 

In the natural suit case, your side has two bids after responder's strength and suit are known. Its (1NT)-P-(2♠) to you and if you don't bid now the auction will be over if partner can't balance. If you intervene and balance agressively, you are unlikely to get doubled, but you will either miss making games or get to hopeless games because your ranges will be too wide.

 

So the reality is that natural suits are harder for the defense to bid over than transfers--not enormously harder, but significantly harder. So in my opinion, natural responses to 1NT are superior when responder is weak.

 

It may well be that the increased efficiecy in game and slam auctions more than pays for this disadvantage in weak auctions--in fact I am very sure it does over a 14-16 or stronger, I think it breaks about even over a 12-14, and fails to justify the cost over 10-12 or weaker. I could be wrong, but it is a mathematical fact that there will be more signoff auctions when the NT opener has 10 points than when he has 15. Also the advantage of making it a harder for the defenders to bid accurately is likely to be greater when opener has 8 points (they might have slam) than when opener has 17 points (partscore is surely their limit barring very freak shape.)

 

So while you disagree with the "no transfers over weak notrumps" school and may even be objectively correct in doing so, they are quite rational--they focus on a different set of tradeoffs than you do, and may well be objectively correct. The question cannot be answered analytically, it requires empirical evidence.

 

A large scale statistical study of this question would seem to be quite desirable.