Super acceptance

[Free]

I use another kind of super accept, since we use 2♦ as 5+♥ OR inv+ with or without ♥s. Answers are:

 

2♥ = no 4 card ♥

2♠ = min, 5 card ♥

2NT = min, 4 card ♥

3♣ = max, 5 card ♥

3♥ = max, 4 card ♥

 

Works quite nice ;) Our 2♣ can ask entire shape, so we use this 2♦ only when aren't interested in ♠ and/or slam. If opener has 4+♥ we immediatly know if p is max or min, we can even find 10 card ♥ fits, but that's quite rare ofcourse...

[1eyedjack]

I think that there are much better response structures over 1NT than Stayman and Jacoby.  I'd much rather plan SCANian, though apparantly I need to learn Keri.

Where can I find SCANian?

 

TIA

I don't know how current it is, but here:

 

http://members.rogers.com/moscito/ScanianNT.doc

[Trpltrbl]

It's based on "Law of Total Tricks".

But What I play with most my pd's is this ;

accept at 3 level with minimum

bid 2 NT with max and 4 trumps and no worthless doubletons

bid of other suit shows max with 4 trumps and worthless doubleton in that suit.

All really simple and make it easy on pd and hard on opps, what a combo :D

 

Mike :D

[luke warm]

Hi ..

another example from a recent tourney , but 12-14 NT this time..

 

    Holding  [hv=s=sakxxhxxxdkxcqjxx

   

..

you open 1nt and p bids 2s ..(transfer to c)

 

..if you dont super-accept  (3s or 3d according to yr style) ..y can hardly expect p to find the excellent slam holding..

 

dealer: ????? vul: ???? scoring: unknown]133|100| ♠ Qxx ♥ Kxx ♦ A ♣ AKxxxx  [/hv]   ..esp as y now play it the right way up. Rgds Dog :D   furnulum lani nolo here's how it would be bid in our system, fwiw   1nt : 2d (game force) 2h : 2s (4 spades : asking) 3d : 3h (4 clubs : asking) 3nt : 4c (4324 : control ask) 4h : 6c (4 controls : )   responder could continue with spiral scan, but there doesn't seem to be any reason... i see no reason to superaccept here (or any other time with a weak nt)

[mr1303]

Everything I know about Keri is found in the Ron Klinger book "Bid better, much better after opening 1NT"

 

The main treatments are as follows:

 

2C = puppet to 2D. After which:

 

Any suit = invitational values, 4 or 5 cards if a major, 6 cards if a minor

2NT = shape enquiry, after which:

 

3C = no 5 card major, not 4333 shape. Responder can then bid 3D as normal Stayman

3D = 4333, 3H/S are then 4 card suits, asking for support. Opener bids 3NT without

3H/S = 5 cards in suit bid

 

2D and 2H are still transfers, but slightly modified. 1NT 2D 2H 2S shows invitational values and only 4-4 in the majors.

 

1NT 2D 2H 2NT is Game Forcing, showing 5 hearts and a 4 card minor. Therefore a new suit at the 3 level after a transfer shows 5-5

 

1NT 2S is a range ask. 2NT shows a minimum, 3C shows a maximum. This sequence is used when responder doesn't have a 4 card major

 

1NT 2NT is a transfer to clubs, showing either a rubbish hand with long clubs or a game forcing sequence with longer clubs.

 

My partner Mike Bell knows more about this than me, so if I've got anything wrong he can correct me

 

Mark

[helene_t]

I used to play weak doubleton super acceptance with repeated transfers, which means that the opponents always knew which suit to lead, even if partner didn't care about my weak doubleton.

[EarlPurple]

I like to super-accept by showing my doubleton but it doesn't have to be a weak one.

 

No reason why my doubleton should be the best lead against a heart (or spade) contract.

 

Using 2NT to show the doubleton of the suit below trumps allows partner to re-transfer, so it can be superior to bidding 3♦/3♥ but you should probably have some meaning for 3♦/3♥ as well? Maybe 1NT-2♦-3♦ could show the (relatively rare) hands where you have opened with 2-4-5-2 distribution? Otherwise you can use 3♦ to show the 4-3-3-3 hands and 3♥ to show 4 card support but not a maximum (thus pre-emptive). That is good in my opinion playing weak NT but not so good with strong NT. Pre-empting like that spades is virtually pointless. (You can bid 3♠ if you really have to later but are they really going to come in?)

[Trpltrbl]

I don't like super accepts on weak NT. Too dangerous to go for -800...

It is a very good tool with weak NT. Making it even ahrder for opps.

And if you haven't gone for 800's you don't compete enough.

And with all the overbidders here on BBO am sure they will bid anyhow, since they just can't defend. You know us weak NT'ers are trying to steal every hand so they have to make sure they keep bidding :P

 

Mike :D

[EarlPurple]

I agree it is better to super-accept with a weak NT opener than a strong one if you do not have a maximum. I see little point pre-empting with a good hand.

 

If there is a slight disadvantage of bidding the doubleton, it's that the opps may be able to double it to convey some message (ability to bid the suit etc). You may therefore wish to bid the suit below the doubleton thus:

 

1NT=2♦

 

2♥ normal transfer

2♠ doubleton club

2NT 4-3-3-3

3♣ doubleton diamond

3♥ doubleton spade

 

or if you want to include the pre-emptive raise then:

 

2NT doubleton diamond

3♣ doubleton spade

3♦ 4-3-3-3

3♥ pre-emptive raise.

 

1NT-2♥

 

2♠ normal transfer

2NT doubleton club

3♣ doubleton diamond

3♦ doubleton heart

3♥ 4-3-3-3

3♠ pre-emptive

 

if you don't play pre-emptive super-accept than make 3♠ the 4-3-3-3 maximum raise.

[luke warm]

this whole thread assumes jacoby transfers are good when playing a weak nt (or at least better than not using them)... i don't play them over my 11/12-14 nt, and i honestly don't know why i should... 2C is invitational puppet (or garbage) and 2D is game forcing... why play transfers if your other bids encompass most or all situations? i'd love to see a hand or two posted that show the advantages of jacoby over, say, what i now play

[1eyedjack]

I agree it is better to super-accept with a weak NT opener than a strong one if you do not have a maximum. I see little point pre-empting with a good hand.

Preemption is not the main purpose of the super-accept. The main purpose is to bid games more accurately, and that purpose is equally served when playing a strong NT as when playing weak. If it provides a preemptive benefit when playing a weak 1N that is just an added bonus.

[1eyedjack]

this whole thread assumes jacoby transfers are good when playing a weak nt (or at least better than not using them)... i don't play them over my 11/12-14 nt, and i honestly don't know why i should... 2C is invitational puppet (or garbage) and 2D is game forcing... why play transfers if your other bids encompass most or all situations? i'd love to see a hand or two posted that show the advantages of jacoby over, say, what i now play

I second this, and go further as to suggest that Jacoby are non-optimal opposite a strong 1N also, (although I don't play 2C/2D the same way as you either). Use of Jacoby to place the declaration in the strong hand was only ever a secondary benefit of transfers, and is overrated as a benefit IMHO.