[jillybean]

Great treatment, thanks Adam.

With many club pairs this auction is going to go
2C 2D (if we are lucky)
2N 3H
3S 4nt

2C 2D
2N 4C gerber

Or what I saw recently
2C 4C gerber

A lot of players are happy with this and it’s “bad luck, the cards were against you” when they go down. It’s as if we are playing 2 different games but without these players, there would be no games.

[Flem72]

At some point Billy Miller published this: · 2 NT opened

· Partner Transfers into a Major

· Opener has a fit

4 Card Support

2 NT – 3T

[Opener rebids] [Responder’s rebid in the transfer suit is always a RETRANSFER]

Ø 1 over suit = 5 Key Cards (+ 4 card support)

Ø 2 over suit = 4 Key Cards (+ 4 card support)

Ø 4 Ted suit = 3 or fewer Key cards (+ 4 card support)

3 Card Support

2 NT – 3T

3 Suit – 3 NT

[Opener rebids]

Ø 4C = 5 Key Cards (3 card support)

Ø 4D = 4 Key Cards (3 card support)

Ø 4 Ted Suit = 3 or fewer Key Cards (3 card support)

[Flem72]

At some point Billy Miller published this: · 2 NT opened

· Partner Transfers into a Major

· Opener has a fit

4 Card Support

2 NT – 3T

[Opener rebids] [Responder’s rebid in the transfer suit is always a RETRANSFER]

Ø 1 over suit = 5 Key Cards (+ 4 card support)

Ø 2 over suit = 4 Key Cards (+ 4 card support)

Ø 4 Ted suit = 3 or fewer Key cards (+ 4 card support)

3 Card Support

2 NT – 3T

3 Suit – 3 NT

[Opener rebids]

Ø 4C = 5 Key Cards (3 card support)

Ø 4D = 4 Key Cards (3 card support)

Ø 4 Ted Suit = 3 or fewer Key Cards (3 card support)

[jdiana]

jillybean, on 2025-March-23, 05:50, said:

Great treatment, thanks Adam.

With many club pairs this auction is going to go
2C 2D (if we are lucky)
2N 3H
3S 4nt

2C 2D
2N 4C gerber

Or what I saw recently
2C 4C gerber

A lot of players are happy with this and it’s “bad luck, the cards were against you” when they go down. It’s as if we are playing 2 different games but without these players, there would be no games.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the first auction you listed as an intermediate level treatment, though obviously we're concerned about spade controls. Comments like "It’s as if we are playing 2 different games but without these players, there would be no games." are not helpful and feel like they're more about advertising the superiority of the commenter. Sorry if this is harsh but I see comments like this all the time and it be would be nice if higher-level players would accept that club players are usually doing their best, trying to improve, and well aware that they're not headed to the Bermuda Bowl.

[jillybean]

jdiana, on 2025-March-23, 09:03, said:

I don't think there's anything wrong with the first auction you listed as an intermediate level treatment, though obviously we're concerned about spade controls. Comments like "It’s as if we are playing 2 different games but without these players, there would be no games." are not helpful and feel like they're more about advertising the superiority of the commenter. Sorry if this is harsh but I see comments like this all the time and it be would be nice if higher-level players would accept that club players are usually doing their best, trying to improve, and well aware that they're not headed to the Bermuda Bowl.

Sorry if this is the way my posts come across, that is not my intention.
I am lamenting the fact that in the games that I play in, the majority of the players are social bridge players with a very small smattering of tournament players and a few who aspire to become tournament players. 20+ years ago when I was starting out there were a few very strong, evening games and many more social, day games in Vancouver. They were very much 2 different games.
I could go and play in the strong games, I wouldn't say I was welcome but I was tolerated. I played for a while in these games and was exposed to a lot of good bridge and different systems. These strong games have disappeared, there are no after game discussions with local experts, there is little sharing of expertise and experience.
The handful of players who are striving to become tournament players have precious few to guide them.

Sectionals have the same, old, players in A/X. BCD has a good attendance but I don't see many taking the step up to A/X.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2025-March-23, 01:44, said:

I played this for a while and like it - demanding 4-card support to super-accept is not using the bidding space optimally, and super-accepting with a slam-positive with known fit is great. I ended up inverting some of the bids, giving up the ability to play in 3M but gaining more space with 3-card support. Over 2NT I prefer to play Jacoby transfers as forcing to game, and the transfer completion to be 3-card support. We still bid a control with a super-accept with four cards support, but the doubleton hand now rejects with 3NT (and an exception can be made if you wish for the sequence 2NT-3♦; 3♠). The difference isn't that big compared to regularly super-accepting with 3-card support, but I'm happy with the change.

You and I are converging, in my case after reflection on a recent discussion here plus discussion with a partner who wanted agreements similar to those over 1NT.
We now play that over 2NT "Jacoby" transfers are forcing to game, with 3NT being a natural reject (usually 2 cards or... less), simple completion neutral (usually 3/4 cards), a control-bid slam-positive (usually 4/5 cards).
After 3NT or simple completion, a new suit is a secondary transfer: if to NT then it is choice of game, if to a second suit then simple completion sets trumps and invites control-bid whereas the next step is kickback RKCB and NT is natural.

[DavidKok]

pescetom, on 2025-March-23, 13:53, said:

You and I are converging, in my case after reflection on a recent discussion here plus discussion with a partner who wanted agreements similar to those over 1NT.
We now play that over 2NT "Jacoby" transfers are forcing to game, with 3NT being a natural reject (usually 2 cards or... less), simple completion neutral (usually 3/4 cards), a control-bid slam-positive (usually 4/5 cards).
After 3NT or simple completion, a new suit is a secondary transfer: if to NT then it is choice of game, if to a second suit then simple completion sets trumps and invites control-bid whereas the next step is kickback RKCB and NT is natural.

Over the transfer completion I play new suit bids as controls, while over the transfer reject (with 3NT) I play new suits as natural. We gain by not having ambiguity about the possible trump suit, so these two-suited hands become really easy to show. I do not like more transfers over the 2NT start (we don't have the space! You can't transfer into clubs by bidding 3NT, and having to bid spades to get to 3NT is a lead-directing concession) though they're popular over 1NT.
Personally I detest Kickback, it is one of the few conventions I will request partners remove from the system when playing with me.

[pescetom]

[deleted a poorly thought out post]

[DavidKok]

Sorry, I don't see how you show clubs on 2NT-3red; 3NT-?. I use 4♣ to show clubs here.

Regarding the transfer accept auctions, I think showing shape is also a good option. I don't know which is better - opener likely controls most or all suits, so showing controls is inefficient. But we're low on space, and if a side suit is open this is our last chance to find out about it.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2025-March-24, 00:43, said:

Sorry, I don't see how you show clubs on 2NT-3red; 3NT-?. I use 4♣ to show clubs here.

You're right, of course.
We agreed those modifications in too much of a hurry after a bidding mishap, my apologies for posting at all.
We will revert to the previous agreements which were well thought out and more natural.

[DavidKok]

 pescetom, on 2025-March-24, 03:37, said:

You're right, of course.
We agreed those modifications in too much of a hurry after a bidding mishap, my apologies for posting at all.
We will revert to the previous agreements which were well thought out and more natural.

There is nothing to apologise for. I enjoy reading your contributions, and I'm happy that we clarified the source of the disagreement.

[mikl_plkcc]

 pescetom, on 2025-March-23, 13:53, said:

You and I are converging, in my case after reflection on a recent discussion here plus discussion with a partner who wanted agreements similar to those over 1NT.
We now play that over 2NT "Jacoby" transfers are forcing to game, with 3NT being a natural reject (usually 2 cards or... less), simple completion neutral (usually 3/4 cards), a control-bid slam-positive (usually 4/5 cards).
After 3NT or simple completion, a new suit is a secondary transfer: if to NT then it is choice of game, if to a second suit then simple completion sets trumps and invites control-bid whereas the next step is kickback RKCB and NT is natural.

How do you bid with a bust? 2NT with 20+0 will be disastrous!

Therefore I still insist that a super accept must have 4 cards because you don't want to play in game with 20+0 and only 8 trumps.

[akwoo]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-March-24, 16:51, said:

How do you bid with a bust? 2NT with 20+0 will be disastrous!

Therefore I still insist that a super accept must have 4 cards because you don't want to play in game with 20+0 and only 8 trumps.

You should super-accept if more than half the time when partner would pass 3M, you want to be in 4M.

0 is actually very rare, rare enough that you should just discount the possibility.

2 (opposite 20) is common enough that you do want to try to consider it.

A good rule of thumb for super-accepting after opening 2N is to imagine partner with Qxxxx of trump and a flat hand. If game is odds-on opposite that, super-accept.

After 2C-2D-2N, partner would bid on with Qxxxx and a flat hand - you super-accept if game is odds on opposite the proper 0-1 count (usually the J is irrelevant) 5431 hand.

[mikeh]

I’m back…maybe, lol.

I found this thread interesting, from a bridge theory pov.

Personally, I am very strongly in the ‘super-accept’ shows 4 card support. Given that some posters, whose opinions I respect, disagree I thought I’d chime in.

1. Nine card fits are more powerful, on average, than 8 card fits. I think this is obvious but just in case anyone questions this, consider Kxxxx opposite xxxx. Then consider Kxxxx opposite xxx. Neither is the trump holding of one’s dreams but one has a non-trivial chance of only one loser in the 9 card fit whereas one can’t avoid at least two losers in the 8 card fit.

While these weak holdings won’t be very relevant on hands where a super-accept may lead to slam, the basic idea is unchanged with stronger holdings. AKx opposite xxxxx or AKxx opposite xxxxx, as an example

What’s this got to do with super-accepts?

There are hands on which responder will transfer and pass 3M after a 2N opening. It’s rare but it happens. It’s even less likely that the auction will die in 3M after 2C then 2N. But it happens.

On a small fraction of that small fraction of such hands, a three card super accept might lead to an okay game….but it’s at least as likely to lead to a doomed major suit game….just imagine how horrible responder’s hand will be if he was passing 3M.

So, imo, playing a 3 card super accept is at best a wash on game hands, and (since we don’t sign off very often, because we are an imp partnership) in my partnership I think it is an overcall loser.

Ok, if a 3 card super accept is at best neutral for games, what about slams?

My own experience leads me to upgrade responder’s hand if partner super accepts and one reason I do this is the comfort afforded by knowing we have at least a nine card fit. AKxx opposite Jxxxx is a decent slam combination, assuming no side losers. AKx opposite Jxxxx is far worse, yet how can responder tell whether opener has 3 or 4? I appreciate that the three card bidders stipulate a slam suitable hand, so I assume that there are hands where they’d not super accept with, say, AKx but would were the suit AKxx. However, especially in auctions beginning with 2N or 2C then 2N, it’s responder who usually has to make the initial decision about whether to go past game, and often it’s the trump suit that determines the level of risk. Thus knowing of a 9 card fit affords responder some protection on borderline hands.

However, that’s definitely not the only…not even imo the main…problem with the 3 card super accept and I’m surprised those who advocate that method don’t even acknowledge it.

It’s apparent from the posts above that the 3 card super accept players CANNOT ever find a better trump suit and surely no competent player really believes that finding a 5-3 major suit fit means that one HAS to play either notrump or the major?

AKx KQx AJxxx Ax. Surely a huge 2N…indeed I’d open 2C but since I’m just illustrating a point, let’s stay with 2N.

Give responder Qxxxx Ax KQxx xx. Where do you want to play? Sure, both 7N and the slightly inferior 7S (because of the tiny risk of a diamond getting ruffed at trick one) are good contracts. At mps it’s worth bidding 7N since it makes over 68% of the time. But at imps, it’s clearly right to bid 7D. Notice that if trump behave, 3-1 or 2-2, declarer, in diamonds, can ruff out the 4-1 spade break.At imps, making 7N gains 2 imps over the cautious diamonds grand bidders. That’ll happen 68.5% of the time. Over 100 iterations, you gain 137 imps. But on 31.5% of the hands, you lose 19 imps….over the 100 hand iterations, you lose almost 600 imps! You don’t need to be arithmetical wizards to understand why expert players don’t lock into 5-3 major suit fits for slam bidding…well, maybe I should say…few experts, lol.

But neither awm nor DavidKok can find a second trump suit after a 3 card super accept, since new suit bids are control bids.

Notice that on the example hand, if we make opener AKxx KQx AJxx Axx opposite the same Qxxxx Ax KQxx xx, 7N is now extremely likely to make, losing only if spades are 4-0, and playing in diamonds is no better, while scoring less.

That’s not all. Once in a while, responder has a longish side suit that needs a ruff or two in opener’s hand. It’s not common and, even when it arises, it may not be discovered. But it happens. When dummy has only 3 trump…usually strong since opener super accepted, responder may be stick with choosing whether to pull trump, losing the ruff, or take the ruffs) and risk creating a trump loser. This dilemma is far less likely to arise in a 9 card fit.

[DavidKok]

Thank you for your reply and welcome back! There are some very good points in what you said, but also some I disagree with.

Being unable to change the strain after finding a 5-3 fit is a cost, definitely. For this and other reasons it sounds very reasonable to me to play changes of suit after my 3-card transfer completion as natural. I've simply never played that style, and when first adopting the method I was happy to get my unambiguous toolkit of control bids and nonserious 3NT back. However, based on pescetom's comments and your examples I now think showing further shape might well be better.

The argument you presented for requiring 4-card support for superaccepts is the classical one, and the one I was taught when first starting out. The argument is sound and sensible, and I played this style for years for this exact reason. These days though I reject the premise. Unfortunately that cascades throughout the argument and completely upsets the conclusion. In particular, you wrote "There are hands on which responder will transfer and pass 3M after a 2N opening." Over a 1NT opening it is invaluable to be able to transfer to a major and play there. Over a 2NT opening, and especially over 2♣-then-2NT, less so. Instead I view this as a bidding space consideration: we would like to do three things:

• Play 3M when it is right.
  
• Find our major suit fits in COG auctions.
  
• Use the transfer as a prelude to slam investigation.

These uses partially conflict, and there isn't enough space to do all. The classical approach, i.e. the one you mention, sacrifices some on the third point but gains the first. I claim that giving up on the first entirely is altogether more profitable, which changes the demands and correspondingly the system.

Playing 3M suffers from all the usual maladies: we need it to take two more tricks than NT before it is right, holding a 0-3 (say) hand is very rare to begin with, if we have extra shape (a sixth trump or a 5-5 or certain 5-4's) game is odds on even in the 0-3 bucket, but the nail in the coffin is that responder often doesn't know when to pass 3M. There are weak hands that want to take a shot at game opposite 3-card support, but don't want to be dummy in 3NT opposite a doubleton. I've been in 3M+1 and 4M-1 'sorry I hoped you had 2/3' more often than I've regretted not being able to get out in 3M. Playing in one-level-below-game just isn't very good.

My continuations on this start can use some work. I do distinguish between 4-card superaccepts, 3-card accepts, and 2-card rejections - I assume that part wasn't in response to me. But I'll stick with the game forcing transfers. I believe they gain more than they lose, and what more could you ask for?

[awm]

We used to play as Mikeh does, but came across fairly frequent issues where it's hard to have a sensible auction in sequences like:

2NT - 3♥
3♠ - 4♦

If opener bids 4♠, does he have a good hand or bad hand for slam in context? Does he even need to have three-card support? This seems quite important since responder will often be placed in the position of needing to decide whether to bid on over this call. If 4♠ is ambiguous on these points it seems easy to get too high, whereas if 4♠ is generally discouraging then you're forced to put a lot of hands through 4♥, which now lacks clarity on which suit is trump or which controls are promised. We had several losses where opponents were playing DavidKok's style (which is quite popular in Europe) and had an easy auction to a sensible contract while it felt like we were guessing.

It's true that we will have trouble when we have a 5-3 major fit and need to play slam in a minor suit, but in my experience this situation is relatively rare. We prefer our methods to what DavidKok plays because we do value the ability to sign off in three of a major and have scored several positive swings from being able to do this when opponents can't, and we think this is worth the small cost of not having 3NT (serious / non-serious) in these auctions.

I suspect that this is somewhat influenced by where you play, in that most Americans play Mikeh's style, so if you wind up guessing in auctions like the one at the top of my post, your opponents are guessing too whereas if you have a 5-3 major fit but need to play slam in a minor, experts at the other table in America are finding it. So there's some motivation to avoid the big negative swings and play the same thing they play at the other table.

[DavidKok]

 awm, on 2025-March-25, 02:35, said:

We prefer our methods [...], and we think this is worth the small cost of not having 3NT (serious / non-serious) in these auctions.

You are missing several other costs in this evaluation, some of which were already pointed out by mikeh:

• For your superaccepts, you don't know whether opener has 3- or 4-card support. This harms responder's ability to evaluate their hand.
  
• The superaccepts consume more bidding space, sacrificing the ability to either look for other strains or have responder describe their hand.
  
• The siding hasn't been decided yet - over 1NT superaccepts I play retransfers, but I struggled to fit those in over 2NT with slam-positive 3-card superaccepts, and ended up letting the weak hand declare more often than I was comfortable with.

This is just off the cuff, there are almost certainly other considerations. If it was just for a nonserious 3NT I'd dump the GF transfers myself as well, that bid isn't too valuable here.

[Cyberyeti]

We superaccept in different ways with 3 or 4 card support so responder knows the level of support, we also only superaccept with 3 with a good 5 card side suit which we bid.

This means we can know for example after asking aces that KQJxxx, QJx, xx, xx opposite Axx, AKxxx, Axx, AJ is 13 top tricks trivially because we know partner has 5 hearts to the AK holding QJ ourself after 2N-3♥-4♥.

This can also allow us to play in opener's suit.

[awm]

We certainly can distinguish three card support by using a 3nt super accept to show this; in principle we could even play natural 4m over that (to find the minor 4-4 fit) but we actually cuebid there. We haven’t found big issues with re-transfers (which we do play) because opener almost always has a cheap control; in principle we could have an auction 2nt-3♦-4♦ but in practice this never happens (opener would lack controls in both black suits).

[DavidKok]

I'm not worried about opener missing a lot of controls, but about responder being unable to show the difference between the highest control (or last train) versus the re-transfer.