Alternative method of super-accepts

[WesleyC]

The other super-accept thread reminded me of a method that I heard of a while back but haven't played yet.

 

after 1NT (P) 2D/2H* (P) ???

 

Opener's only super-accept is the first step (2S/2NT) and carries the message - "I have a super-accept, do you want to show me a shortage?". Responder is then free to offer game by bidding their shortage on a marginal hand (possibly using a simple relay). Otherwise they can re-transfer to 3S/4S to play or show a shortage as the start of a slam auction.

 

The obvious benefit is to give the hand with the high cards access to partner's distributional information, while concealing any information about its shape.

 

Has anyone tried this or something like it?

[Phil]

Yes I have heard of this method. Some play it around here, but I have no idea their successes.

 

Sort of like a 'concealed' splinters concept.

[gnasher]

If it's uncontested, I play that when superaccepting opener normally bids one or two steps above the trump suit - using the steps to define his range but leaving space for responder to describe his hand. However, the main reason for this is to allow room for slam tries, rather than game tries.

 

If responder has a marginal game bid, I think he should just bid game. In the game zone, the occasional gains from exchanging information about shortages are insufficient to compensate for the help it provides with the opening lead.

 

I think it's different if RHO has doubled the transfer. Now you should bid three of the major reasonably often, for preemptive reasons. On reflection, I think Cherdano's right that making that high frequency is more important than making it well defined.

[Cascade]

We play these superaccepts.

 

Often when you super-accept partner only needs to know you are maximum with four trumps. Therefore you only need one superaccept.

 

So we play the step above the shown suit is the super-accept.

 

Responder then shows shortage. (2NT is spade shortage after a transfer to hearts).

 

Jumps show a void.

 

We don't play retransfers. They might be useful but the right-siding is not so important with a weak no trump.

 

Showing shortage opposite a balanced (or in our case often nearly balanced) hand is great.

 

1. It helps decide which game to play

 

2. It helps locate good slams on marginal values

[kenrexford]

Whereas having a step to show an unbalanced raise ("unbalanced" contextually) makes sense, why not have other calls mean something? I mean, "just one" super-acceptance? Seems kind of a waste. If you stack many of the supers into one bid, assign some meaning to the others (primed out, COV, etc.).

[Cascade]

This depends.

 

There is a trade-off between the 1NT giving more accurate information and taking away the bidding space from responder.

 

1NT 2♥

2NT

 

Allows responder to show any singleton. Three steps between 2NT and 3♠

 

1NT 2♥

3♣

 

Leaves only two steps

 

1NT 2♥

3♦

 

Only one step

 

1NT 2♥

3♥

 

No steps

 

1NT 2♥

3♠

 

Also no steps

 

Therefore these additional bids need to either

 

1. Answer the questions that you can ask by making 1 step superaccepts and responder utilizing the steps e.g. showing singletons and in order to get benefit show some additional useful features

 

2. Deliver alternative more useful information

 

Perhaps a scheme of this type could work (assuming we decide to show shortages)

 

1NT 2♥

2♠ - normal accept

2NT - super accept, tell me what you have got

3♣ - Super maximum but will not accept a club shortage

3♦ - Super maximum will accept club shortage but not diamond

3♥ - Super maximum will accept club or diamond shortage but not heart

3♠ - Super maximum will accept any shortage

[gnasher]

This depends.

 

There is a trade-off between the 1NT giving more accurate information and taking away the bidding space from responder.

Not to mention the usually unnecessary leakage of information to the opponents. Or did I mention that already?

[ONEferBRID]

Here's something from my files:

 

There are 2-ways to arrive at a "new suit super-accept" at the 3-level.

 

Let's say Hts are trump:

1NT - 2D!

??

The Direct way ( to show a doubleton ):

3C/3D = doubleton in that suit

3H = doubleton Sp

 

The Indirect way ( to show a source of tricks )

2S! >> puppets to 2NT, then

??

3C/3D = source of tricks in that suit

3H = source of tricks in Sp

 

- - Don - -

[kenrexford]

This depends. 

 

There is a trade-off between the 1NT giving more accurate information and taking away the bidding space from responder.

Not to mention the usually unnecessary leakage of information to the opponents. Or did I mention that already?

Well, then make them more ambiguous.

 

E.g.,

 

1NT-P-2♥!-P-?

 

2♠ = normal

2NT = undisclosed doubleton

3♣ = if you have a slam try, I will later show which two suits I have stopped but which one suit I do not have stopped.

3♦ = If you have a slam try, I will later show which suit has two controls with the suit immediately above it having exactly second-round control.

3♥ = super-accept with all Aces outside

3♠ = other super-accepts, not fitting any other category

 

I just started typing random stuff here, but the idea is to have ambiguous type bidding that can later be explained in a cue sequence. So, if partner, say, makes a slam move, Opener's cues will explain much about what he actually has because some sort of start exists.

 

I mean, give side suits numbers, like 0-1-2 for the control value. If you have no control in a suit, that's a 0. Second-round is a 1. 1st round a 2. Now, spread the suits, lowest-middle-highest by rank. The numbers will be x-y-z, with each letter replaced by 0, 1, or 2. So, you might have a 2-2-0 or a 1-1-2 or whatever.There should be 27 permutations of side control holdings. If you spread these out between the five unused super-accepts, you can cover, say, 5 possibilities with the three highest and six with the two lowest. You should be able to unwind this with one or at most two more calls.