Another dumb bridge idea?

[32519]

I have now been stung with hands similar to this one on plenty of occasions:

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt9haj95dkqjcqj5&w=sa8642h32dt52ca87&n=sj3hkqt84d43ckt42&e=sk75h76da9876c963&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1n(15-17%20HCP)p2d(Transfer)p3h(Super-accept)p4hppp]399|300[/hv]

How many of you super-accept a transfer bid after an auction like this?

[gordontd]

How many of you super-accept a transfer bid after an auction like this?

I'd be more likely to bid 2NT than 3H but 3NT is an even worse contract. I look forward to seeing the dumb idea.

[mich-b]

We do superaccept , but we do that only with 4 card support and maximum (or near maximum).

We would not consider this soft 4333 hand as good enough for a superaccept.

[rhm]

I'd be more likely to bid 2NT than 3H but 3NT is an even worse contract. I look forward to seeing the dumb idea.

You might have got a diamond lead in 3NT. (Exchange East and West cards).

 

The trouble with the super-accept here is

 

a) you are dead minimum

b) Not only is the South hand minimum, it is much better suited for notrumps than a suit contract, where it is worth even less, due to lack of controls and its 4333 distribution.

 

Even in hearts I would not super-accept, which I do with at least 90% of all holdings with four hearts. To super-accept here is simply bad judgment. I would not even bid game if North invites.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Antrax]

I'd not super-accept but would accept a game invite, as south. So now we have one of each, I think.

 

Is the idea to open 2♥ with a weak 2 in hearts or a 3=4=3=3 strong NT hand with less than 4 controls?

[Cyberyeti]

I don't see the point of this thread, so without the superaccept, this goes 1N-2♦-2♥-3N-4♥, what difference does it make ?

 

Maybe you bid 3♣ on the way, but you're bidding game with the N hand.

[rhm]

I'd not super-accept but would accept a game invite, as south. So now we have one of each, I think.

 

Is the idea to open 2♥ with a weak 2 in hearts or a 3=4=3=3 strong NT hand with less than 4 controls?

A matter of judgment and hand evaluation.

If you open 1NT as 15-17 I guess an invite will show less than 10 HCP though many would simply bid game with 9 HCP and a 5 card suit.

 

So assume North has a maximum for an invite:

 

1) 5 hearts and balanced or semi-balanced with 9 HCP (could I be more generous?) or

2) 5 hearts unbalanced and 8 HCP or

3) 6 hearts and 6322 and 7 HCP or

4) 6 hearts and unbalanced and 6 HCP

 

Under those favorable assumptions

 

4♥ made 34.5% of the time and 3NT 40% of the time.

 

I guess this is just about sufficient vulnerable at IMPs, though partner could easily have slightly less.

Anyway if you accept opener would be well advised only to accept with 3NT. Partner will sometimes correct to 4♥, when it is right and also sometimes when that is wrong.

When partner passes 3NT your chances are better in 3NT, especially single dummy where the defense might not find the best opening lead against 3NT.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Vampyr]

I'd be more likely to bid 2NT than 3H but 3NT is an even worse contract. I look forward to seeing the dumb idea.

 

I doubt you shall be disappointed.

[mikestar13]

This hand needs downgrading--the 4-3-3-3 shape and the poor controls make the hand worth about 14. Do not open a 15-17 1NT. This is particularly important if partner bids game freely on a good 9 as many players do.

[RunemPard]

I would open this hand 1NT any day...Put the diamonds in west and we may very well get a diamond lead. Split the spades 4/4 and we are making. The only problem is deciding to play 3NT or 4M after I do not super-accept the transfer.

[hrothgar]

Many people who use superaccepts have a variety of different ways to show 4+ card support

 

One typical scheme after a 2D transfer is the following

 

3♥ = Minimum 1NT opener with 4+ trump

3♦ = good 1NT with a doubleton diamond

3♣ = good 1NT opening with a doubleton club

2NT = maximum 1NT opening with 3=4=3=3 shape

2♠ = good 1NT opening with a doubleton Spade

 

Holding a minimum 3=4=3=3, opener can either bid 3♥ for the preemptive effect or bid 2H and suppress the 4th trump.

 

With this hand, I would simply complete the transfer and bid 2♥.

Opener's 1NT opening is more than reasonable, however, I wouldn't describe this as a maximum and given how strong I am defensively, I wouldn't be particularly upset to defend 3m even with a nine card fit available.

[paulg]

I can't recall the last time that I saw a 'winning' player downgrade a hand. Even failing to upgrade is getting rarer.

 

Perhaps always breaking with four-card support will not always work, but using the grey cells on more important areas of judgement will probably provide a higher return.

[gwnn]

Maybe we could start a little betting panel on what the dumb idea will be to pass time before the main entertainment starts?

 

My money is on (please don't open it 32519!):

 

 

1NT-2♦

3NT to show a 3433 maximum.

 

 

 

I hope it's not just about doing away with superaccepts, that would be a bit of a bummer.

[manudude03]

I think he answered it in the subtitle, the idea being that you should never superaccept. I wouldn't superaccept on the hand given, there's too much defense for it to be preemptive, and not enough playing strength to want to play game opposite a hand just short of an invite, I would accept any invites though.

[Zelandakh]

This hand needs downgrading--the 4-3-3-3 shape and the poor controls make the hand worth about 14. Do not open a 15-17 1NT. This is particularly important if partner bids game freely on a good 9 as many players do.

Not opening this a 15-17 1NT is a big lol for me. The problem comes with the super-accept, especially when this supposedly shows a maximum - it which universe can this hand ever be described as a maximum for hearts?

 

One reasonable idea that I have experimented with is to treat a 4333 hand as having effectvely 1 less trump than it does for the purposes of things like this. That means super-accepting on almost all hands with 4 card support except those with 4333 shape. You can do that successfully even more simply than hrothgar posts via 2NT = max; 3M = min, which has the advantage of giving away very little useful information to the defence when it is unnecessary and avoiding the wrong-siding that can happen with a 3M-1 super-accept. If you do not like the idea of not super-accepting with a maximum 4333 hand then it would be easy to assign another call (2♠ or 3♣ perhaps) to this specific hand type. Similarly for opening 1NT with a singleton or any other special feature that it seems like a good idea to show.

[whereagles]

How about this?

 

If opps seem interested in the bidding, pard may be broke, so just bid 2H.

 

If not, pard rates to have some cards and you could try a descriptive 2NT superaccept.

 

You would go 2 down in 3NT on this specific occasion, but hey that's life.

[P_Marlowe]

We used to play

 

#1 new suit super accept with max. and a doubleton in the suit

#2 2NT max. with 4333

#3 3M min with a useful doubleton

 

If you supperaccept with 4333 pattern, you should tell partner, that

you have this kind of pattern, so that he may suggest 3NT, in case

he thinks it a good idea.

 

Would I have treated the South hand a max. playing a 15-17 NT? No.

 

I would assume the auction goes

 

1NT - 2D

2H - 2NT

3H - 4H

 

When North sees the fit, he can upgrade his hand to a game force.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[kenberg]

You have a combined 25 count and a nine card major suit fit. It's not exactly surprising that you end up in game. Now would I be able to stay out of it? Maybe.

 

My partner and I have a sort of disagreement here. I like playing super-accepts as four trump and a max. He likes to have an array of ways to super-accept, along the lines of what has already been suggested by others.

 

Playing my way, I certainly don't have a max so I don't super accept. 1NT-2♦-2♥-2NT and now I have to make a judgment call. Some days my judgment is better than others.

 

Playing partner's way, it goes 1NT-2♦-3♥, showing four hearts and a flat non-maximum. Now partner has to make a judgment call. My partner's judgment is perfect, so he would pass.

[Antrax]

Maybe we could start a little betting panel on what the dumb idea will be

I'm with you. I mistakenly put it in a post that had Bridge content, though :(

Is the idea to open 2♥ with a weak 2 in hearts or a 3=4=3=3 strong NT hand with less than 4 controls?

I think it fits well with the 2♦ bid and as this hand demonstrates, it works in 100% of the cases.

[Cyberyeti]

When I see hands like this, I look at them, make my own assessment then bung them into K&R and I'm not usually a mile off. This one however defeats me. I look at all the intermediates and think this is a decent 16 particularly when partner shows hearts. I look at the Jx but the couple of nice 10s and think this is about 9.5. K&R gives 14.05/10.85.

 

I would break the transfer with 2N (not flat broke 3433), but I'd expect partner to bid game even if I didn't.

[32519]

I look forward to seeing the dumb idea.

I doubt you shall be disappointed.

I don't see the point of this thread, so without the superaccept, this goes 1N-2♦-2♥-3N-4♥, what difference does it make ? Maybe you bid 3♣ on the way, but you're bidding game with the N hand.

Maybe we could start a little betting panel on what the dumb idea will be to pass time before the main entertainment starts?

 

I hope it's not just about doing away with superaccepts, that would be a bit of a bummer.

I'm with you. I mistakenly put it in a post that had Bridge content, though :(I think it fits well with the 2♦ bid and as this hand demonstrates, it works in 100% of the cases.

I think he answered it in the subtitle, the idea being that you should never superaccept.

Folks, its doing away with super-accepts altogether. How is the opener supposed to differentiate between the hand in the OP and this one?

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt9haj95dkqjcqj5&w=sa86hkq32dt52ca97&n=sj3ht8764d43ckt42&e=sk7542hda9876c863&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1n(15-17%20HCP)p2d(Transfer)p]399|300[/hv]

If West passes in tempo, by super-accepting you have just succeeded in getting your side into an even higher unmakeable contract. The defence is going to win 6-tricks, 2 in ♠, 2 in ♥, 1in ♦, and 1 in ♣. What's the point of gifting away points to the opponents?

[kuhchung]

Superaccepting gains 0% of the time and loses 100% of the time

[billw55]

IMO the merits or flaws of superaccepts are irrelevant on the deal given. Holding the north hand opposite a 15-17 NT, I am perfectly happy to force to game 100% of the time no matter what opener does thereafter. I strongly believe I will show a profit versus any method of stopping below game with that hand.

[manudude03]

Hey, I got an idea, let's not do stayman on 1444 yarbs!

[akwoo]

This is a terrible hand to super-accept on.

 

First of all, I have a general rule: 4333 hands have 3 cards in every suit.

 

Okay - move one of the black cards into the other black suit.

 

This is still a terrible hand to super-accept. You've got all these defensive values, so the hand rates to be under total tricks. It's also not very good for suit play with all the losers in side suits.

 

Super-accepting is always a matter of judgement. You don't do it based on point count; you do it based on whether you can imagine partner having a 6 or 7 count opposite which you make game.