[nigel_k]

Superaccepting with three is fine and IMO this hand qualifies. Obviously you need a maximum in terms of playing strength and nine trumps are better than eight but still there isn't a great difference between a 5332 with three card support and a 4432 with four card support. Consider an ordinary 7 HCP hand for partner, e.g.

xx
Kxxxx
QJx
Jxx

I haven't given him much wastage in clubs but you still have room to determine how the hands fit.

[gwnn]

isn't that the perfect example, Jxx of clubs, in an "as little as" hand. If I wanted to argue against 1NT or superaccepting, I'd make it

"Opposite as much as

xx
Kxxxx
Qxx
QJx

Game is bad. QED."

[Crunch3nt]

I super-accept with 3 trumps frequently and the only bad results I have had is when partner thinks I have 4. So we have modified our super-accept responses to include a specific bid for a good 3 card suit super-accept with a 5 card side source of tricks.

Vul at imps, I think it is crazy to not super accept with this hand type.

[jdeegan]

gwnn, on Jun 18 2010, 05:48 AM, said:

Don't superaccept on three
don't superaccept on three
don't superaccept on threeeee
this nobody can deny.

The reason you don't superaccept on three but do so on four or five is the law of total tricks. With a combined 9+ trumps you are normally OK at the three level regardless of pard's high card holding.

[kfay]

jdeegan, on Jun 23 2010, 06:57 AM, said:

gwnn, on Jun 18 2010, 05:48 AM, said:

Don't superaccept on three
don't superaccept on three
don't superaccept on threeeee
this nobody can deny.

The reason you don't superaccept on three but do so on four or five is the law of total tricks. With a combined 9+ trumps you are normally OK at the three level regardless of pard's high card holding.

That's not the LOTT

[hanp]

jdonn, on Jun 18 2010, 02:54 PM, said:

I played last weekend and, when partner had overcalled 1NT over 1♦ and I transferred to spades, I bid game over a superaccept on Qxxxx xx x J98xx thinking it was a close decision. It made opposite AKJx AQx Kxxx Tx. My point is, the point of superaccepts is not even to make them on a max, meaning better than average hand. It's to make them on a super max, in other words a hand that has clear worries of missing game opposite less than an invitation. There are definitely hands with 17 that I don't think are worth a super accept, and I think most hands with 16 aren't worth it. I can't imagine a hand with 16 and 3 trumps could be worth it.

I think you are taking it too far. With most maximums having 4-card support there is a decent chance of missing game when partner passes. Given that there is soom room to investigate after superaccepting, you don't need to superaccept only on maxmaxmaxmaximums.