[paulg]

Currently I play the following scheme of major-suit transfer breaks over 1NT:

1NT - 2♦
2♥ = normal action
2NT = 3-card support, excellent controls
2♠/3♣/3♦ = weak doubleton, 4-card support
3♥ = 4-card support, no weak doubleton

Given that we only play IMPs, it seems that the focus on a weak doubleton may be wrong so we are considering a change, perhaps to strong 4-card side suits.

Any advice?

Thanks,

Paul

PS We don't really want to change our entire NT response structure!

[Echognome]

I don't really see the point of breaking with 3 card support, but to each their own.

I play all breaks show 4 card support and a max over a st NT. over a weak NT, i'd break with and 4 card support.

1N - 2♦ - ?

2♠ = unknown xx (2N asks)
2N = good ♠ side suit
3♣/3♦ = good side suits
3♥ = scattered values

similar over 1N - 2♥ with 2N showing the unknown xx

that way you get the benefit of being able to ask when it's a close decision, but not revealing the xx (at least initially) when you don't need to know.

[mike777]

I prefer showing useful doubleton.
2nt shows no useful doubleton but non minimum.
3 of the major as minimum with no useful doubleton.

[sceptic]

Super Accepting a Major

2NT 3 card maximum 2 hi honors
3 of major, 4 trumps all side suits controlled
3 of new suit, 4 trump maximum losers in suit bid

example
1NT 2D *xfer to H
2S 4 card maximum with bad S etc.

The responder is able to re- transfer over 2NT super accept

[MickyB]

cardsharp, on Feb 13 2007, 09:39 AM, said:

Given that we only play IMPs, it seems that the focus on a weak doubleton may be wrong

I don't understand this, care to explain?

I haven't tried breaking with 3 card support, I guess that it may occasionally happen that your hand is improved markedly by the transfer but I think the losses from going down in three (or, indeed, four) may outweigh the gains from reaching making games. The exception may be when you have 3♥2♠ and a max, when there is a reasonable chance that the opponents are making 2/3♠. Then again, my preferred methods use 1N:2♣, 2♦/♥:2♠ as a five card invite, which covers some of the hands that you are trying to cater for here.

I quite like the approach of using step 2 to cover most of your breaks. If we are always going to game (or stopping in 3) anyway, I'd rather not tell the opponents how to defend it.

[Mr. Dodgy]

My way:

After 1NT-2♦...
2♠ max 3+♥s 4(+)♠s
2NT max 3+♥s 4+♦s
3♣ max 3+♥s 4+♣s
3♦ not allowed
3♥ max 4(+)♥s

After 1NT-2♥...
2NT max 3+♠s 4+♥s
3♣ max 3+♠s 4+♣s
3♦ max 3+♠s 4+♦s
3♥ not allowed
3♠ max 4(+)♠s

Responder can pass, bid short suit(s) if possible, NT, or retransfers with the 'not allowed' call.

[firmit]

This is something I have not given much thought. What is the general consensus? I use normal super-accept: jumping in the transfered-to-major with 4 card support and maximum.

What is prefered, or what makes the other better-off := a "natural"-suit vs xx-suit.

[brianshark]

It's dangerous to break the transfer when you can't guarantee a 9 card fit, even if you have a maximum (LOTT etc.)

A fairly simple way to play it is all breaks show 4. The jump to 3 of the Major shows 4 and a minimum. Any other bid shows 4, a maximum and some feature. You can define what the features mean yourself. You can't go wrong with anything really, side-suit, honour, ace, small doubleton, etc. Go nuts with the feature. But I recommend only breaking with 4+ card support.

Regarding which feature is better, well I really don't think it makes much difference what feature you show as long as it's defined. So if new suits show an ace, then 2NT can be a super-accept without a side-suit ace and the negative inference comes into play as well.

[han]

Echognome, on Feb 13 2007, 05:56 AM, said:

I don't really see the point of breaking with 3 card support, but to each their own.

I imagine the point is that some hands with 3-card support are so good that you may have game opposite many hands that wouldn't move after you complete the transfer. For example, ♠KQx ♥Axx ♦xx ♣AK109x (assuming 15-17) is an unusually good hand if partner shows spades. Would partner invite with AJxxx xxx xx Qxx? You likely have 11 tricks.

Having said that, I never break the transfer with 3-card support.

[cherdano]

Hannie, on Feb 13 2007, 10:15 AM, said:

For example, ♠KQx ♥Axx ♦xx ♣AK109xx (assuming 15-17) is an unusually good hand if partner shows spades. Would partner invite with AJxxx xxx xx Qxx? You likely have 11 tricks.

I always break transfer when I have 14 cards.

[han]

You added that extra club yourself, look at my post!

There is a Dutch saying "for a good listener half a word is enough", I don't know if there is something similar in English.

[paulg]

We found that we were missing some thin games when we had 3-card support and excellent controls. Breaking with this type of hand is rare but, in our experience, the upside is worthwhile.

This may be nonsensical but we felt that showing the weak doubleton was more aimed at avoiding game than bidding it and was not as constructive as showing where your values lay. Perhaps also looking for 3NT when you have a fit which is more (but not exclusively) a matchpoint device.

[kenrexford]

The focus on a super-accept is on facilitating one of two goals. Primarily, it is used to find a better game. Secondarily, it is used to facilitate slam probes.

In either event, partner will be interested in the location of your values. If he is marginal and undecided (for either goal), he probably has an unbalanced hand. If you imagine a classic 5431 hand as a start for discussion, you will see that he might be interested in a few assets from you:

1. A doubleton opposite an Ace-empty or plain empty 3-card or four-card side suit.
2. For slam purposes primarily, a fit for the four-card side suit would be great.
3. No wasted values opposite his stiff.
4. A good four-card suit opposite a doubleton honor would be great, but only if partner is 55/64 will he be likely to have a doubleton.

You also need to assess whether partner, with 5-5 unbalanced invitational, has an alternative auction, like 2♣...2♠ or 2♦...2♠. This will limit his hand types and, accordingly, his possible sources of interest.

When you, as Opener, have a four-card fit and a doubleton, you also will have a second four-card suit. (Conversely, with 4-4, you'll have a doubleton.)

Bidding is also best if it caters to a future auction. In other words, if a call makes a later call easier to read, great. If not, you lose something.

For this reason, I'd suggest focusing on the four-card side suits rather than on the doubleton. Why?

Consider two auctions. Both times, Opener holds 4342 pattern and super-accepts a spade transfer.

If his super-accept is in clubs (show shortness), you will know that he has a doubleton there. However, there is no focus side suit. So, any cue by you of diamonds will be straight control, possibly your shortness, and any cue by partner of diamonds will similarly be just a control (Ace or King). If he holds AQxx in diamonds, he won't be able to show the Queen, and your cue may be useful or useless to him, let alone try finding 6♦.

If, however, your super-accept is 3♦ (show side four-card suit), you will know that he has diamonds. If you later cue diamonds, you will be showing A/K/Q, any of which will help his second suit trick source, and you will not cuebid a stiff there; further, you will immediately spot the duplication. Further, if he later cues diamonds, you will know that this is his second suit, such that his diamond cue will show two honors, not just one, greatly important. Finally, finding 6♦ as the potentially superior strain is easy now.

So, if there is a marginal difference between the utility of a shortness bid and a trick-source bid for game purposes, there is a huge gainer from source-bidding from slam perspectives, such that the latter should be elected, IMO.

Notably, as suggested, you might collapse calls into artificial bids with relays for clarification, and/or you might invert one-under for 2NT or 3M for one-under, to retain re-transfer ability. If the latter, perhaps consider one-under for 5-card support (it happens).

[Apollo81]

whatever you decide, make sure to have at least 1 "non-serious" superaccept and at least 1 "serious" superaccept

[BillHiggin]

I have had less than spectacular success with showing a doubleton and have switched to:
2N: 3 card support with max and great controls
new suit : 4 card support with max and good controls, cheapest cue bid
jump in suit: 4 card support with less than max, but great controls.

2N = hand that is better than partner would expect.
cue bid = since always the cheapest available, usually leaves open the option to retransfer.
jump in suit = again the hand has improved, but do not want to over encourage partner.

It might be useful to define a separate meaning for the maximal suit (which cuts off the retransfer option at least at the 3 level).

These treatments are NOT my own invention, but a suggestion from a trusted mentor.