[straube]

This structure is for super-accepts of heart transfers

.....1N-2D
..........2S-dislikes spade shortness
...............2N-splinter diamonds
...............3C-splinter clubs
...............3D-retransfer
....................3H-accepts transfer
.........................3S-RKC
...............3H-wants declaration
...............3S-RKC
..........2N-likes spade shortness, dislikes diamond shortness
...............3C-splinter clubs
...............3D-retransfer
...............etc
..........3C-likes spade and diamond shortness, dislikes club shortness
...............3D-retransfer
...............etc
..........3H-likes any shortness
...............3S-RKC

similar for 1N-2H

[Free]

You basically show opps what to lead if game isn't bid (2NT/3♣/3♥).

[Zelandakh]

I used to play lots of super-accepts like this but came to the conclusion after a while that the extra information exchanged does not make up for the lead-directing doubles they allow. So now I play a very simple 2nt = max and 3M = min, along with the lowest super-accept being a speciality bid for precisely 4414 shape (since this is also opened 1nt). If you are going to play extra super-accepts then I think showing a low doubleton is more useful.

[kenrexford]

There is nothing wrong with enabling short suit game/slam tries, but why force the issue and thereby disclose too much?

1NT-P-2♦(hearts)-P-
2♠(super-accept)-P-?

2NT = club shortness GT (or slam try if interesting things done later)
3♣ = diamond shortness GT or ST
3♦ = re-transfer (presumably no shortness)
3♥ = spade shortness GT
3♠ = spade shortness ST

1NT-P-2♥-P-
2NT-P-?

3♣ = club shortness GT or ST
3♦ = diamond shortness GT or ST
3♥ = Re-transfer
3♠ = Heart shortness GT
3NT = Heart shortness ST

This structure accomplishes most of what you are thinking without disclosure. It loses a re-transfer when a shortness GT is made with shortness in the other major, but that seems better than the alternative.

[straube]

I guess I don't think I'm disclosing too much. Opener is probably denying something like...

Kxx or QJx in a suit but may have

Axx or xxx or AJTx or Jxx or even Qxx in the suit, all depending whether the rest of his hand amounts to a super-accept or not.

As far as lead-directing doubles, if opener makes an artificial bid, LHO can double it, but will likely be on lead against the major suit contract because responder will retransfer the large

majority of the time.

[akhare]

I do think that lead directing Xs are certainly something to be worried about.

A lot of times, avoiding the adverse opening lead is just as important as right siding the contract. By not limiting responder's bid to simply the transfer bids this scheme does have additional exposure compared to simple superaccepts.

Also, this might be a case of trying to be too scientific about things, i.e., if you have a max and can superaccept, just let responder know and decide whether to bid game.

More often than not, the lack of information given the the defence will prove as effective as trying to split hairs on specific suit holdings during the bidding...

[straube]

akhare, on 2011-February-28, 15:48, said:

I do think that lead directing Xs are certainly something to be worried about.

A lot of times, avoiding the adverse opening lead is just as important as right siding the contract. By not limiting responder's bid to simply the transfer bids this scheme does have additional exposure compared to simple superaccepts.

Also, this might be a case of trying to be too scientific about things, i.e., if you have a max and can superaccept, just let responder know and decide whether to bid game.

More often than not, the lack of information given the the defence will prove as effective as trying to split hairs on specific suit holdings during the bidding...

But responder doesn't have to make any lead-directing bid that he doesn't choose to.

1N-2H
3C-3H
3S

Here opener shows that he likes heart shortness but not diamond shortness with his 3C bid.
Responder retransfers. There is only the opportunity to make a lead-direct of hearts again.

1N-2H
3C-3D

Here responder decides to show club shortness. He knows that diamonds can be doubled as
a lead direct and feels it worthwhile to risk this anyway.

[awm]

Suppose you're on lead holding a hand like:

♠xx
♥KJxx
♦Kxxx
♣xxx

You hear the auction 1NT-2♥-3♠-4♠. It's easy to imagine that either a heart or diamond lead might be necessary to set the contract (establishing our red tricks before the opponents can establish their own side suit). It's also easy to imagine that either a heart or diamond lead might blow a trick (declarer having AQ, or dummy having A and declarer Q, or several other positions). And it's possible that a passive lead of a club or spade would even set this contract (maybe responder didn't even have an invite and just pushed to game on the fit). At matchpoint scoring the problem is even uglier. In any case, it's easy to imagine making the "wrong lead" and getting a bad result.

Now suppose the auction was:

1NT - 2♥
3♣ - 4♥ (retransfer)
4♠

Where 3♣ = likes heart shortness. Now you know that opener's heart holding will be something like ♥xxx or ♥Axx. The "risk" inherent in leading away from the ♥K is now quite minimal (i.e. you're not likely to give declarer a trick he couldn't take on his own; he won't have the queen). Surely your chance of finding the right lead just went up!

Notice that an approach like Ken's where most super-accepts bid 2NT over 2♥ and then you can ask which shortness partner likes still gives you all the benefits of these anti-splinters... but you don't tell the opponents what opening lead to make on hands where you're just bidding game in the major (or just signing off) no matter what.

[nigel_k]

I also think you are disclosing too much. Probably over 90% of the time responder will choose the same contract regardless of the type of superaccept so you are helping the defence unnecessarily on those 90%+ of hands, and all you are gaining in exchange is one step compared to just bidding 2♠ on all superaccepts and letting responder describe if they want to.

[straube]

I surrender. Thanks for the feedback.