[rogerclee]

IMPs, Red vs White

♠Jxx ♥void ♦JT9xxx ♣Axxx

1NT - 2NT
3♦ - ?

2NT = ♦
3♦ = likes diamonds

You play 4♦ = invite here (standard?).

[Hanoi5]

3♦ likes ♦'s? Weird. 2NT was transfer to diamonds? Maybe I'd bid 4♦ but I'm not convinced.

[awm]

I'd pass.

It might depend a bit on what "likes ♦" means -- for me it could easily be ♦Hxx and some quick tricks. Something like Axx Axxx Axx Kxx qualifies easily (it need not be this pure) and yet even 4♦ is in jeopardy.

Obviously you can construct "perfect hands" where a game contract makes, but often they involve a four-card diamond suit from partner (far from guaranteed) as well as minimal heart wastage. It seems like passing is odds-on.

[jdonn]

5♦. Screw it maybe they'll lead a heart and any "wastage" will come in handy anyway.

Adam, while of course you don't want to play him for the "perfect" hand, you gave partner
- a 15 count (I know you'll say I gave him A A A K, but obviously that is not nearly the most useful combination opposite our hand)
- 3 diamonds
- 4333

You gave him the anti-perfect acceptance. I mean come on, he could have 4 diamonds? A doubleton club? The ten of spades?

[NickRW]

I'm not sure I really want to bash 5♦, but I'm not passing. I choose whatever partner will take as an invite - presumably 4♦.

Nick

[jdonn]

NickRW, on Dec 3 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

I'm not sure I really want to bash 5♦, but I'm not passing. I choose whatever partner will take as an invite - presumably 4♦.

Nick

I don't think there is an invite. 3♦ by partner said "if you are inviting, I accept." 4♦ really is some sort of slam try and is definitely forcing.

[rogerclee]

jdonn, on Dec 3 2008, 10:44 AM, said:

NickRW, on Dec 3 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

I'm not sure I really want to bash 5♦, but I'm not passing.  I choose whatever partner will take as an invite - presumably 4♦.

Nick

I don't think there is an invite. 3♦ by partner said "if you are inviting, I accept." 4♦ really is some sort of slam try and is definitely forcing.

omg just as I edited

[jdonn]

rogerclee, on Dec 3 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 3 2008, 10:44 AM, said:

NickRW, on Dec 3 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

I'm not sure I really want to bash 5♦, but I'm not passing.  I choose whatever partner will take as an invite - presumably 4♦.

Nick

I don't think there is an invite. 3♦ by partner said "if you are inviting, I accept." 4♦ really is some sort of slam try and is definitely forcing.

omg just as I edited

Lol I feel like there is a conspiracy against me lately.

Wait, either that or I'm paranoid. I forget which.

Obviously though I would say 4♦ = invitational is definitely not standard.

[rogerclee]

jdonn, on Dec 3 2008, 10:48 AM, said:

rogerclee, on Dec 3 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 3 2008, 10:44 AM, said:

NickRW, on Dec 3 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

I'm not sure I really want to bash 5♦, but I'm not passing.  I choose whatever partner will take as an invite - presumably 4♦.

Nick

I don't think there is an invite. 3♦ by partner said "if you are inviting, I accept." 4♦ really is some sort of slam try and is definitely forcing.

omg just as I edited

Lol I feel like there is a conspiracy against me lately.

Wait, either that or I'm paranoid. I forget which.

Obviously though I would say 4♦ = invitational is definitely not standard.

Lately I've noticed an increase in "screw it" as jdonn's logic to bidding something.

[NickRW]

jdonn, on Dec 3 2008, 05:48 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Dec 3 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 3 2008, 10:44 AM, said:

NickRW, on Dec 3 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

I'm not sure I really want to bash 5♦, but I'm not passing.  I choose whatever partner will take as an invite - presumably 4♦.

Nick

I don't think there is an invite. 3♦ by partner said "if you are inviting, I accept." 4♦ really is some sort of slam try and is definitely forcing.

omg just as I edited

Lol I feel like there is a conspiracy against me lately.

Wait, either that or I'm paranoid. I forget which.

Obviously though I would say 4♦ = invitational is definitely not standard.

Well, the OP said 3♦ = likes diamonds. It didn't say max or anything like that. Anyhow, if I can't invite, then I'll join you and take a bash at 5♦ over passing.

Nick

[MarkDean]

I was going to bid 3H at first (assuming that shows shortness), but I had a hard time coming up with a hand where 3NT is good (after some work, I got QTxx KQTx KQx KJ)

So I will just bid 5D. Invitational 4D is not standard, I don't think. Plus, I thought Clee did not play conventions whose sole purpose was to stop short of game? In addition, partner does not have good information with which to evaluate.

[mikeh]

I pass

I agree with josh (wow.. I have been doing a lot of that lately... ) that 4♦ is forcing, and a slam try.

If I were to bid, it would be 3♥, showing shortness (frankly, I feel that 3♥ natural, gf, with 4-5 or better in the reds is more useful, but it is a minority treatment as far as I can tell), but that call should, in my view, be reserved for hands on which we won't puke if partner bids 3N. And I don't know what bidding 3♥ and then pulling 3N means..maybe that should mean... I love my hand opposite no wastage, but hate it opposite heart values, but I surely wouldn't spring it on partner.. better to pass (since we may fail at any higher contract even if we are on the same page) and discuss later. On a bad day, when we are not on the same page, we may end up in 5♦ doubled.

[han]

Bidding 3H and then pulling 3NT would show serious slam interest. (of course?)

I agree with mikeh and jdonn that there exists no invite. I think I would pass. Game is possible but fairly unlikely I believe.

[kenrexford]

I am assuming that the partnership is using pre-accepts as denying interest in this sequence to enable 2NT to also handle weak hand with both minors. If this is the case, then "likes diamonds" really means "prefers diamonds to clubs." If that is the case, then there is not much in the way of inference here.

If "likes diamonds" means something more specific, then that should be explained. Does this mean, "has a hand that would have accepted a 3♦ invitational call by bidding 3NT but we don't play 3♦ as invitational," or does it mean, "would bid 3NT opposite a hand that is weaker than invitational because we do have invitational as an option," or something else?

FInally, is there a "super-acceptance" available higher than 3♦? (E.g., 1NT-2NT-3NT?)

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Dec 3 2008, 02:05 PM, said:

I am assuming that the partnership is using pre-accepts as denying interest in this sequence to enable 2NT to also handle weak hand with both minors. If this is the case, then "likes diamonds" really means "prefers diamonds to clubs."

Disagree with that conclusion. You just accept the times responder is weak with both minors and opener likes both but prefers clubs.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Dec 3 2008, 02:05 PM, said:

I am assuming that the partnership is using pre-accepts as denying interest in this sequence to enable 2NT to also handle weak hand with both minors.  If this is the case, then "likes diamonds" really means "prefers diamonds to clubs."  If that is the case, then there is not much in the way of inference here.

If "likes diamonds" means something more specific, then that should be explained.  Does this mean, "has a hand that would have accepted a 3♦ invitational call by bidding 3NT but we don't play 3♦ as invitational," or does it mean, "would bid 3NT opposite a hand that is weaker than invitational because we do have invitational as an option," or something else?

FInally, is there a "super-acceptance" available higher than 3♦?  (E.g., 1NT-2NT-3NT?)

I cannot speak about this specific partnership, but 4-suit transfers often incorporate ways of showing weak minor 2-suiters... I generally use, as an example, 3♣ as both minors, less than invitational.

The 'old' way of super-accepting was to bid the cheapest step over the minor suit transfer.. thus 3♣ over 2N (transfer to diamonds) showed a good hand (in context) for diamonds, with 3♦ merely denying such a hand.

The problem with this approach is that it gets responder on play with a bad hand.. he bids 3♦ to play precisely on the hands on which having the lead come up to his hand is least likely to be beneficial.

Since he has to make some call higher than 3♦ to create a force, there is no saving of bidding space by this 'in-between' call being used for the good hands.

And there is no useful purpose served by using bids by opener beyond 3♦, because responder will often hold a pile of dreck.

Thus the method described in the OP is a fairly common, altho relatively 'new' (in my neck of the woods) method of super-accepting a 4-suit transfer into a minor.

[ArtK78]

The "new" method of bidding 3♦ when you have a preacceptance ("like diamonds") also works well if you choose to use the 2NT bid to handle weak minor two-suiters along with all one-suited diamond hands. If opener bids 3♦ to say that he "likes diamonds" then, with a weak minor two-suiter you pass and play 3♦ from the strong hand. If, on the other hand, opener bids 3♣ to say that he "does not like diamonds," with the weak minor two suiter you pass, and, in all likelihood, 3♣ is the best spot. And again, you play it from the strong hand.

[benlessard]

I think im going to try the new-pre accept style, i dont think its an improvement but i do think the idea is neat.

My feeling is that super accept are not that much probable compared to the regular signoff

If we look at the sequences


1Nt----2S----2Nt-------3C

1-played by the bad hand
2- allow a penaltyish double by LHO (especially if they were playing an artificial X over 1Nt)


1Nt----2Nt----3C-------3D

1-played by the bad hand
2- allow a penaltyish X with a minimum of clubs (lead directing wont work because responder will XX and declarer will play in 3D)


-------------------------------------------

The upside you seems to gain is

1Nt-----2S--------3C (SA)
1Nt-----2Nt-------3D (SA)

are played by the right side and also if you endup in 5m too.

1Nt-----2Nt (with both m)--------3C (i dont super accept D)

This is tiny plus because both m weak where opps pass is rather rare.
Its not because opener doesnt super accept that his clubs are better than the diamonds.


I probably missed some other minor point.

[maggieb]

I'm with Josh, bid game and make them guess what to lead. 3H looks fancy but is losing bridge.

[whereagles]

agree with mikeh (shock, horror!).. I pass too. Too many holes to play 5.