[Free]

fromageGB, on 2011-October-06, 06:02, said:

I agree with you, but there is a problem in that only 2 responder bids are available to show a shortage in any of 3 suits, if you still want the ability to transfer to 3M with a weak hand.

~snip~

Free, how do you handle this?

I handle it the way it was described in some Bridge World from a few years ago. I've used this method for years without any problems so far. After the step 1 super accept, you have the space to show all shortages AND retransfer by combining 2 shortages in 1 bid. For example after 1NT-2♥-2NT:
3♣ = ♣ or ♥ shortage
...3♦ = asks
......3♥ = ♥
......3♠ = ♣
......3NT+ = ♣ with slam interest
3♦ = ♦ shortage
3♥ = retransfer
3♠ = slam interest, wants to rightside
3NT = choice of games (I admit it doesn't come up often)
4m/♥ = slam interest, 5-5

A few months after the article, another one was published which didn't like the super accept 1NT-2♦-2♠, and preferred 2NT as super accept in both transfer sequences. The result is a loss in accuracy after the 2♦ transfer, but you don't give opps an easy Dbl of 2♠.

[fromageGB]

Free, on 2011-October-06, 09:43, said:

<snip>
For example after 1NT-2♥-2NT:
3♣ = ♣ or ♥ shortage
...3♦ = asks
......3♥ = ♥
......3♠ = ♣
</snip>

Yes, this is the problem : with a club shortage the hand is played by responder. You can't avoid it, one of the desirable objectives must be sacrificed.

I am wondering which is the lesser evil

• playing the wrong way round when responder has a particular shortage (or doubleton, or whatever you think responder should show) and is "uncertain" in strength, with the evil that declarer's whole hand is displayed, or
  
• having a separate super-acceptance to show a specific opener attribute that would be a downgrade opposite the given responder circumstance (such as doubleton, or quack values, depending on what you are trying to avoid being in game with), with the evil that opponents have partial knowledge of that suit.

A case of a huge evil comparatively rarely or a small evil more often.

(For example, you can have 2M+1 as the super-acceptance without that opener attribute in the transfer suit, and 3M as super-acceptance with that opener attribute in the transfer suit. This leaves only 2 options to be shown over the 2M+1, and opener always plays the contract.)

[fromageGB]

neilkaz, on 2011-October-06, 09:15, said:

Nice thread here. Like some others I prefer to superaccept with 2NT rather than bidding a small doubleton.

Anyhow, re the OP hand: What do those of you who open 1♥ bid over PD's common 1♠ with this hand and assuming that a 2♣ response is NF?

.. neilkaz ..

3♠
It's a nice hand. But I do prefer 2♣ to be forcing and unspecified with 15+.

[Free]

fromageGB, on 2011-October-06, 11:24, said:

Yes, this is the problem : with a club shortage the hand is played by responder. You can't avoid it, one of the desirable objectives must be sacrificed.

I am wondering which is the lesser evil

• playing the wrong way round when responder has a particular shortage (or doubleton, or whatever you think responder should show) and is "uncertain" in strength, with the evil that declarer's whole hand is displayed, or
  
• having a separate super-acceptance to show a specific opener attribute that would be a downgrade opposite the given responder circumstance (such as doubleton, or quack values, depending on what you are trying to avoid being in game with), with the evil that opponents have partial knowledge of that suit.

A case of a huge evil comparatively rarely or a small evil more often.

(For example, you can have 2M+1 as the super-acceptance without that opener attribute in the transfer suit, and 3M as super-acceptance with that opener attribute in the transfer suit. This leaves only 2 options to be shown over the 2M+1, and opener always plays the contract.)

Opener can also bid 3♠ if he's not interested opposite a ♥ and a ♣ shortage. So it's not always wrongsided when responder has a ♣ shortage, it's only wrongsided when opener asks about it. My thoughts about this: boo...hoo

[Vampyr]

neilkaz, on 2011-October-06, 09:15, said:

Nice thread here. Like some others I prefer to superaccept with 2NT rather than bidding a small doubleton.

Anyhow, re the OP hand: What do those of you who open 1♥ bid over PD's common 1♠ with this hand and assuming that a 2♣ response is NF?

.. neilkaz ..

It seems to me that if you are opening 1♥, you are committed to treating this hand as better than a 15-17NT. Should you decide instead to bid 2♣? Well, you may land on your feet. It's not an auction I would choose, but I don't think it's criminal. We will play in 2♥ if partner has a poor hand with a doubleton heart.

[fromageGB]

neilkaz, on 2011-October-06, 09:15, said:

<snip>
and assuming that a 2♣ response is NF?
</snip>

Vampyr, on 2011-October-06, 20:57, said:

<snip>
Should you decide instead to bid 2♣? Well, you may land on your feet. It's not an auction I would choose, but I don't think it's criminal. We will play in 2♥ if partner has a poor hand with a doubleton heart.
</snip>

I beg your pardon? With 2♣NF you are more likely to be playing there. I would rather play in spades or hearts.

[fromageGB]

Vampyr, on 2011-October-06, 20:57, said:

<snip>
It seems to me that if you are opening 1♥, you are committed to treating this hand as better than a 15-17NT.
</snip>

I disagree. My style (and others') is to open 1♥ on this hand. Opening 1♥ does not deny 15-17 points. How you treat this hand depends on the agreements you have on continuations. There are normally different bids to make with different strength ranges.

Only if you "always" open 1NT with a 5 card major do you have your commitment, I think.

[fromageGB]

jmcw, on 2011-October-01, 18:42, said:

Some discussion afterward leads me to believe I need better methods for super accepts! any suggestions?

Sorry, we seem to have sidetracked the OP, and I am as guilty as any. I think we need to firmly identify what the purpose of a super-accept is. My take on this is :

As a law abiding citizen, I use it to look for the 23 point 9 card fits. Hence the need for 4 card support opposite an initially assumed 5 card suit.

But not any fit works, so we need to decide what are the attributes of a hand that need to be shown to see it if will work. Opinions differ considerably. Some think knowledge of a responder shortage may be useful for opener to determine wasted values, some think showing doubletons is a good idea, some thinking specifically valueless doubletons, or conversely honour doubletons. You need to fix in mind what you are trying to do.

To my way of looking at it, the position of the honours does not matter that much. If you have a distribution of 5332 opposite 4423 and a combined AKQAKQKQ scattered among them, it doesn't make much difference where you place those values. For example in the 2 minors you could have Qxx xx opposite Kx Axx, or xxx Kx opposite AQ xxx, you choose, but you still lose 2 tricks, the third round of each being won by ruffing. The full distribution given above is worth 10 tricks.

Now make it 5332 opposite 4432 and it shrinks to 9 tricks. A whole trick reduction, in essence caused by the fact that mirrored doubletons mean opener has no ruffs. I think this is the biggest contributor to the difference between 9 tricks and 10, more important than the effect of responder shortages weakening opener's values in that suit, or other factors, and so the objective for me is to find out if there are mirrored doubetons.

Rather than tell the defence what declarer has, I prefer a 2M+1 super-acceptance so that responder, if in the borderline "about 23 points" category, with a 5332 shape, can show his doubleton. If opener's doubleton is different, he bids game, but if opener has a 4333 shape he signs off at the 3 level, as he has no ruffs. If responder has a borderline values hand with a 4 card side suit, then rather than show a doubleton he bids (transfers to) game regardless, as either this will give opener a ruff here, or it will be a double fit to provide an extra trick.

Is is worth opener super-accepting with a 4333 shape when he will always sign off over any doubleton? Yes, because opposite a 5422 (or more unbalanced) it is worth 10 tricks.

I play (when I can) a 15-16 1NT and will always super-accept with 4 card support, but I believe if you play 15-17 then the range is too wide for responder to have any chance of determining "about 23". I think you need to agree "top half" of that range to make it work.

The method of showing doubetons can be exact (such as my long post yesterday) or simpler with the acceptance that responder sometimes plays the hand, or if this is too much to accept, you can simply say opener always plays the hand, but if responder is 5332 with a doubleton major he gives up on showing it and just pots game or not.

You may not agree with my decisions, but do analyse what combination of holdings does not justify game on a 9 card 23 count. You may think something is more important than mirrored doubletons.

This post has been edited by fromageGB: 2011-October-07, 06:20