[StevenG]

I choose to cut superaccepts out of my game at MPs. I'm not at all sure why they are such a good idea.

In an uncontested auction, as long as responder invites game on any hand where he would have bid game after superacceptance, you have lost nothing.

People are quoting competitive auctions where the bidding goes 1NT - (pass) - transfer - (pass) - transfer completion/superaccept, and then opponents compete and find a good contract. That rarely happens in my world. In fact I have no recollection of it ever happening. Does it at elite level? How often?

On the other hand, superaccepting frequently takes you too high on hands where you have nothing and you lose big. Perhaps this is to some extent related to the fact that I play in a weak NT environment. I suppose that with a strong NT, you are more likely to be getting to a playable contract at the three level, even if responder is weak.

I appreciate that the ridicule heaped on the idea of never superaccepting may be based on who the OP is, but I'd like to see a more reasoned debate.

[helene_t]

Well superaccepting has many benefits. It allows you to bid games opposite a shapely 6-7 count (9-10 if you play weak NT). And it clarifies the 4-card support which is cool for slam bidding.

But I take your point that opps don't bid over your 3M that often anyway. Maybe, especially at MPs, we should superaccept in spades only with really juicy hands, but in hearts (where opps might have a good sac in spades) more aggressively.

[32519]

StevenG, on 2014-February-21, 05:29, said:

I choose to cut superaccepts out of my game at MPs. I'm not at all sure why they are such a good idea.

In an uncontested auction, as long as responder invites game on any hand where he would have bid game after superacceptance, you have lost nothing.

People are quoting competitive auctions where the bidding goes 1NT - (pass) - transfer - (pass) - transfer completion/superaccept, and then opponents compete and find a good contract. That rarely happens in my world. In fact I have no recollection of it ever happening. Does it at elite level? How often?

On the other hand, superaccepting frequently takes you too high on hands where you have nothing and you lose big. Perhaps this is to some extent related to the fact that I play in a weak NT environment. I suppose that with a strong NT, you are more likely to be getting to a playable contract at the three level, even if responder is weak.

I appreciate that the ridicule heaped on the idea of never superaccepting may be based on who the OP is, but I'd like to see a more reasoned debate.

There yer go all you wannabe self-proclaimed experts. I've given this guys post an upvote.

[32519]

helene_t, on 2014-February-21, 05:46, said:

Well superaccepting has many benefits. It allows you to bid games opposite a shapely 6-7 count (9-10 if you play weak NT).

Agh please man! Who plays transfer bids opposite a weak NT? By far more popular is to play 2♣ as game invitational Stayman, 2♦ as game forcing Stayman, with 2♥ and 2♠ natural.

[Zelandakh]

32519, on 2014-February-21, 06:07, said:

Agh please man! Who plays transfer bids opposite a weak NT?

As it happens I do. As does almost everyone in the Acol Club. It is true that most of the Weak NTers here in Germany play 2-way Stayman though. The point of transfers here is not right-siding so much as getting a more efficient use of the available bidding space. In my strong club system it also means that the same system can be used over all of 1NT ... 1♣ - 1♦; 1NT ... and 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥ - 1♠; 1NT, which is nice on the old brain cells in an otherwise (fairly) complicated system.

[gordontd]

32519, on 2014-February-21, 06:07, said:

Agh please man! Who plays transfer bids opposite a weak NT?

Almost all tournament players in the UK, the home of the weak NT.

32519, on 2014-February-21, 06:07, said:

By far more popular is to play 2♣ as game invitational Stayman, 2♦ as game forcing Stayman, with 2♥ and 2♠ natural.

You make the mistake of thinking that what is true in your own little world is universal.

[rhm]

32519, on 2014-February-20, 12:33, said:

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

---

kuhchung, on 2014-February-20, 12:45, said:

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

StevenG, on 2014-February-21, 05:29, said:

I choose to cut superaccepts out of my game at MPs. I'm not at all sure why they are such a good idea.

In an uncontested auction, as long as responder invites game on any hand where he would have bid game after superacceptance, you have lost nothing.

People are quoting competitive auctions where the bidding goes 1NT - (pass) - transfer - (pass) - transfer completion/superaccept, and then opponents compete and find a good contract. That rarely happens in my world. In fact I have no recollection of it ever happening. Does it at elite level? How often?

On the other hand, superaccepting frequently takes you too high on hands where you have nothing and you lose big. Perhaps this is to some extent related to the fact that I play in a weak NT environment. I suppose that with a strong NT, you are more likely to be getting to a playable contract at the three level, even if responder is weak.

I appreciate that the ridicule heaped on the idea of never superaccepting may be based on who the OP is, but I'd like to see a more reasoned debate.

Hands you open 1NT might be suitable for high level contracts or they might be not. They can be improved by finding a trump suit or they might not:

---

obviously does not. The 4 card heart suit is nice, but that's it

---

This one gets terrific and is now substantially worth more than 15-17 HCP, closer to 19.

Note that opposite

---

game is quite reasonable. I would not bid game with the North hand opposite a super-accept because South does not need to be quite so suitable.
But make North slightly stronger say

---

and I would happily bid game opposite a super-accept. but would not dream of doing anything but pass over 2♥. Not only am I too weak opposite 15-17, the heart suit is terrible.
Unless you start to understand hand evaluation, you will never get anywhere in this game.

Rainer Herrmann

[kenberg]

StevenG, on 2014-February-21, 05:29, said:

I appreciate that the ridicule heaped on the idea of never superaccepting may be based on who the OP is, but I'd like to see a more reasoned debate.

First I am no expert and second I have not kept any data, but here is how it seems to me.

As I mentioned earlier, partner wants to play 3M super-accepts with almost any four card support. A direct 3M shows 4, a non-max and balanced, for example. My preference is to have the super-accept available but to use it sparingly. Maybe I have a 17 count with some tens, maybe I have a fine 16 count with a suitable (hopefully suitable) doubleton, something of that sort.

My experience is that when I do that I don't often go down and when I do go down the result is not all that bad. On the upside, partner sometimes bids game on a hand that is a bit short what he would usually invite with.

I agree with what I take to be your view that "If you have nine trump get to the 3 level immediately" has been seriously oversold. It's true that of we have nine cards in M then they must have 8 cards in some suit X, but having that fit and finding that fit are two different things. Hence my lack of enthusiasm for (almost) always super-accepting. But there are times it is useful and I do it.

I have not kept records of success/failure but it does not seem as if I have often regretted it.

If I were to agree that 1NT-2D-3C shows a super accept with a doubleton, I think I would like the doubleton to be xx. Partner can see exactly what xx is worth to him. If it could also be Qx, with correspondingly lesser values elsewhere, then the worth of the doubleton is harder to evaluate.

[aguahombre]

1N-2D
2H-2N
4H. I would do it at the table, and be pleasantly surprised later that our -1 outscored the thinkers in 3NT and pushed with the inspired who languished in 2NT. A polite well-done to anyone stopping in 3H.

[kuhchung]

thanks gwnn

edit: ugh Rainer took it literally too

[neilkaz]

Why would I super accept with a flat 16 count that is control poor and not well suited to a trump contract? I have no ruffing value and nothing more than the 16 count expected from my 15-17 NT.

[aguahombre]

neilkaz, on 2014-February-21, 13:34, said:

Why would I super accept with a flat 16 count that is control poor and not well suited to a trump contract? I have no ruffing value and nothing more than the 16 count expected from my 15-17 NT.

That would be one of those rhetorical questions I would expect from Partner if I had super-accepted ---she wouldn't expect an answer, and I wouldn't have an excuse anyway.

[mycroft]

I will say that:

- I play transfers over a weak NT. I used to didn't, but I'm now playing Keri (which has serious disadvantages in a strong NT context, which mostly go away in a weak NT one), and transfers are required to make it work. Of course, we have a 2-level transfer to diamonds...The extra sequences are very useful, and seem to be worth the lower preemption inherent in the transfer.

- The number of times they interfere over the transfer (either by doubling the transfer or bidding 2♠ over 2♦, or some combination that causes fifth-hand to bring in their suit on the second round) is quite high; how many times the direct bid would shut them out is arguable.

I agree with Kuhchung, by the way.

[kuhchung]

mycroft, on 2014-February-21, 14:07, said:

I will say that:

- I play transfers over a weak NT. I used to didn't, but I'm now playing Keri (which has serious disadvantages in a strong NT context, which mostly go away in a weak NT one), and transfers are required to make it work. Of course, we have a 2-level transfer to diamonds...The extra sequences are very useful, and seem to be worth the lower preemption inherent in the transfer.

- The number of times they interfere over the transfer (either by doubling the transfer or bidding 2♠ over 2♦, or some combination that causes fifth-hand to bring in their suit on the second round) is quite high; how many times the direct bid would shut them out is arguable.

I agree with Kuhchung, by the way.

Wait, agree with what?

Also, 2D transfer vs 2H natural doesn't exactly shut out 2S.

I also really have no stake in this thread. I just posted that one initial reply because I thought it was funny and now I'm here discussing this argh

[1eyedjack]

I just think that the (long term) difference in playing strength between, on the one hand a minimum opener with doubleton support, and on the other hand an opener with an extra 2 HCP, 4 card support and side doubleton, is such a huge chasm that attempting to wrap up all invitational hands into a transfer accepted just places too great a burden on responder. Superaccepting increases the accuracy, but not to the level of perfection. No-one who superaccepts would claim that it always works. Constructing specific hands where it fails does nothing more than confirm what was never in dispute: that sometimes it fails. But that is not a reason to buck the longer term numbers.

[aguahombre]

1eyedjack, on 2014-February-22, 10:57, said:

I just think that the (long term) difference in playing strength between, on the one hand a minimum opener with doubleton support, and on the other hand an opener with an extra 2 HCP, 4 card support and side doubleton, is such a huge chasm that attempting to wrap up all invitational hands into a transfer accepted just places too great a burden on responder. Superaccepting increases the accuracy, but not to the level of perfection. No-one who superaccepts would claim that it always works. Constructing specific hands where it fails does nothing more than confirm what was never in dispute: that sometimes it fails. But that is not a reason to buck the longer term numbers.

I don't understand the burden on responder. She invites or doesn't...and doesn't invite in the major after transferring with only 5 trumps. Meanwhile, the hand which is going to be declarer isn't giving free leakage for the times when it is unhelpful to responder.

Our only concern, perhaps naive, is the hand which re-evaluates to 18 for the major opposite Responder who is just short of an invite.

[johnu]

kuhchung, on 2014-February-21, 14:33, said:

I also really have no stake in this thread. I just posted that one initial reply because I thought it was funny and now I'm here discussing this argh

Sorry, I thought you were kuhchung32519 or maybe kuhchung21.

[1eyedjack]

aguahombre, on 2014-February-22, 14:11, said:

I don't understand the burden on responder. She invites or doesn't...

Haven't you answered your own question?

[aguahombre]

1eyedjack, on 2014-February-22, 14:53, said:

Haven't you answered your own question?

Yes, I guess I have. She invites with an invite, and it isn't a burden unless she doesn't have one.

[1eyedjack]

aguahombre, on 2014-February-22, 16:08, said:

Yes, I guess I have. She invites with an invite, and it isn't a burden unless she doesn't have one.

What you say has an element of truth. If her system forces her to make a stark choice between passing or inviting (or bidding game) opposite a hand with wide range of playing values, then she may not consider herself particularly emburdened. Just follow some rules, take an average minus, and move on.