[jillybean]

Many people play
1N:2x
3M as a 4 card super accept.

I don't mind that but the latest gizmo is
1N:2x
2N super accept with 3 cards.

I don't like it, 3M is to play & 4M wrong sides the contract.

Do any BBF'ers have experience with this?

[neilkaz]

Just retransfer with 3x if desired and then other bids can be game tries or even early slam probes.

[Cthulhu D]

I play that 2NT is a super accept with Hxx and a maximum (17, really good 16) NT. 3x should be a retransfer.

Which is of course copied straight out of Bergen's superaccept things. I thought that was relatively standard? Super accepts come up so infrequently its hard to know what other people are playing.

[jillybean]

I'd never played it before and wasn't told of the 3x retransfer, that makes more sense but I'm still not sold

[rogerclee]

If I could specifically show a superaccept with 3 trumps, I guess I would do that sometimes, but it is pretty rare. Also, for non-BI players, it is pretty good to play that 2M+1 is always your superaccept.

[MickyB]

rogerclee, on 2012-January-03, 21:22, said:

If I could specifically show a superaccept with 3 trumps, I guess I would do that sometimes, but it is pretty rare. Also, for non-BI players, it is pretty good to play that 2M+1 is always your superaccept.

Always 2N is better imo, worth losing a step when hearts are agreed in order to deprive LHO of a double of 2S.

[jillybean]

rogerclee, on 2012-January-03, 21:22, said:

If I could specifically show a superaccept with 3 trumps, I guess I would do that sometimes, but it is pretty rare. Also, for non-BI players, it is pretty good to play that 2M+1 is always your superaccept.

2M+1 as the 3 or 4 card super accept?

[Siegmund]

Quote

2M+1 as the 3 or 4 card super accept?

As your only superaccept. (And for quite a few folks, all superaccepts promise 4.)

I like it approximately equally well as not playing superaccepts at all, and better than any of the usual spacewasters.

[aguahombre]

MickyB, on 2012-January-03, 21:28, said:

Always 2N is better imo, worth losing a step when hearts are agreed in order to deprive LHO of a double of 2S.

Unless you want to utilize Walsh relays. I don't think I will give them up to prevent a possible double of 2S; but, that's just me. Nor, do we want to use other 3-level gadgets to show 3-card support at the expense of Walsh, wrong siding, and getting too high for no particular reason.

We have found that if partner wants to invite game and find out whether we have support for the major she has ways of doing that. The super accept should suggest that our hand is worth MORE than the NT opener in support of the major, in case responder was close to inviting

[Zelandakh]

Simple and effective (and therefore perfect for B/I) is to play that 2NT is a 4 card super-accept with a max and 3M is a 4-card super-accept with a min.

Over 2NT, 3M-1 is a puppet to 3M, either to play there or start cues. 3M over 2NT should be invitational. It is optional whether to play other bids below 3M (over 2NT) as invitational or as some kind of slam move (or a combination). Bids above 3M (after 2NT) should probably either show shortage or length (choice) in order to be able to bid degree-of-fit slams.

[ggwhiz]

Complex super accepts have been a big winner for us over the long haul and well worth the effort.

Say you transfer 2♦ with xxx, KQTxx, QTx, xx the super accept (or not) leaves you so well placed.

If my pard bids only 2♥, I'm passing even if you add a J.
2nt (max with 3) I'll try 3nt
3♥, I'll raise
2♠, 3♣/♦ show a good 5-card suit with 3♥ good for light slams too. Many prefer this bid to show a doubleton but I find the petential 2nd source of tricks to be better.

We don't win em all but it has worked so well we now jump to 3♥ with a max and only 3 trumps, a small doubleton with no 5-card suit worth showing. Works just as well over 2nt openers as per your other post re: texas vs transfer and raise after 2nt.

[aguahombre]

Are you sure you know how well that array of breaks to the 2D transfer has worked over the long run? I wouldn't. What I wouldn't know are the following:

----Whether letting responder make the next move would have broken even with the method.
----Whether giving imformation about my hand which will be declarer (hidden) was more useful to the opponents than to partner on the majority of hands.
----Whether giving up additional uses for the 2♦ transfer has been sufficiently covered by other toys.

[nigel_k]

I agree with 2M+1 as the only superaccept. There's no point revealing extra information about opener's hand when responder will seldom need it. You also don't need to distinguish between 3 and 4 card support though obviously 4 will be more common.

3M directly should be a minimum that is offensively oriented so you want to consume space immediately. An extreme example would be AKQx xx KQJx xxx if partner transfers to spades.

[ggwhiz]

aguahombre, on 2012-January-04, 12:56, said:

Are you sure you know how well that array of breaks to the 2D transfer has worked over the long run? I wouldn't. What I wouldn't know are the following:

----Whether letting responder make the next move would have broken even with the method.
----Whether giving imformation about my hand which will be declarer (hidden) was more useful to the opponents than to partner on the majority of hands.
----Whether giving up additional uses for the 2♦ transfer has been sufficiently covered by other toys.

I am sure. We use it a lot, primarily at imps where the light game bonus more than covers the infrequent 5-6 imp loss, occasional 5-6 imp gain from stopping in 2 where otherwise you invite and more accurate slam decisions (once in a blue moon getting to 5, down 1).

1. We most often break even but make better decisions when responder has 7 or 8 or 14ish that is suitable for slam (the 2nd source of tricks accept is rare but works opposite a fitting honour).

2. Bergen thinks that right siding the contract is overrated and after a non-jump super accept, responder can choose to declare, often as not at a profit. ie Jx opposite dummies Kx. If they lead one I know to duck, if the A was on lead from the other side, they lead something else.

3. Other toys (2M+1 as the super accept) may cover this ground but I've never needed them.