[Lurpoa]

What is best after the superacceptance of a minor suit transfer on a 1NT opening:
- playing 3♥ and 3♠ as shortness, or as an ace (or many a Kx combination), OR simply one of the two.

Any good reasons for choosing one or the other ?

What if there was no superacceptance, but a simple acceptance ? Does that change reponder's second bid ?

Thanks for your help.

[Zelandakh]

It depends on which hands you include within the transfer. If you do not include the minor one-suiters (as I play it) then the rebid is best used showing a second suit. If you only include one-suiters then shortness is probably best. If both are possible then I am not sure but shortness opposite a super-accept and a second suit without would be logical; but to some extent that might depend on what hands super-accept. If Opener super-accepts on any maximum, as with the popular scheme involving 2♠ range ask including clubs, there could easily still be a good major fit. In this case you might be better off just deciding that the sequence is overloaded and redesigning though.

[CSGibson]

evaluating fit vs shortness is key in these sequences. You have transfered to the minor because either you want to suggest the minor as a place to play or to make a slam try. Both evaluations are helped by bidding shortness (below 3N, anyway). If you want to cue aces and kings, you can do that above 3N.

For example, shortness opposite KQTx would probably elicit a 3N, suggesting lots of wastage and a bad fit, in context. Shortness opposite xxx or Axx would, on the other hand, have a return cue and almost a drive to a minor suit slam.

These evaluations are equally valid vs a super accept and a non-superaccept, no matter what your criteria points are for those bids.

[Lurpoa]

So for you 3♥/3♠ show shortness. Right ?
Any reason you prefer not to play them as ace showing ?

CSGibson, on 2013-October-24, 10:48, said:

evaluating fit vs shortness is key in these sequences. You have transfered to the minor because either you want to suggest the minor as a place to play or to make a slam try. Both evaluations are helped by bidding shortness (below 3N, anyway). If you want to cue aces and kings, you can do that above 3N.

For example, shortness opposite KQTx would probably elicit a 3N, suggesting lots of wastage and a bad fit, in context. Shortness opposite xxx or Axx would, on the other hand, have a return cue and almost a drive to a minor suit slam.

These evaluations are equally valid vs a super accept and a non-superaccept, no matter what your criteria points are for those bids.

[Lurpoa]

Thanks for help.
But in our sequences the minor suit transfer denies a 4card major.

Zelandakh, on 2013-October-24, 04:07, said:

It depends on which hands you include within the transfer. If you do not include the minor one-suiters (as I play it) then the rebid is best used showing a second suit. If you only include one-suiters then shortness is probably best. If both are possible then I am not sure but shortness opposite a super-accept and a second suit without would be logical; but to some extent that might depend on what hands super-accept. If Opener super-accepts on any maximum, as with the popular scheme involving 2♠ range ask including clubs, there could easily still be a good major fit. In this case you might be better off just deciding that the sequence is overloaded and redesigning though.

[CSGibson]

Lurpoa, on 2013-October-24, 23:07, said:

So for you 3♥/3♠ show shortness. Right ?
Any reason you prefer not to play them as ace showing ?

Yes, the reasons I gave already are all of them, though.

[Lurpoa]

Clear !
You are a firm believer that showing shortness is more important.
Why is that ?
I understand that Mr Lawrence believes that showong an ace is more important...

I trying to understand what is best.

CSGibson, on 2013-October-25, 01:05, said:

Yes, the reasons I gave already are all of them, though.

[CSGibson]

You have transferred to the minor because either you want to suggest the minor as a place to play or to make a slam try. Both evaluations are helped by bidding shortness (below 3N, anyway). If you want to cue aces and kings, you can do that above 3N.

[awm]

Agree with CSGibson.

Another point is that after the minor transfer you basically have one bid to decide if you need to stop in 3nt or go on to 5m or 6m. An ace does not really help with the 3nt decision, whereas shortness is huge (since a weak holding opposite shortage and 3nt isout).

Aces matter in picking 5m vs 6m but you can show those at the 4-level.

[Lurpoa]

awm, on 2013-October-25, 09:00, said:

Agree with CSGibson.

Another point is that after the minor transfer you basically have one bid to decide if you need to stop in 3nt or go on to 5m or 6m. An ace does not really help with the 3nt decision, whereas shortness is huge (since a weak holding opposite shortage and 3nt isout).

Aces matter in picking 5m vs 6m but you can show those at the 4-level.

Thank you my friend.

That is clear.
Be the ♥ with You !

[Free]

I prefer to show shortness because it helps us to decide between 3NT and 5/6m. When opener holds xxxx in responder's shortness, all his HCP are working in a minor suit contract even if he's minimum. Holding something like KQTx however is a waste of values when playing in the minor, so 3NT is a lot more attractive. Qxx for example isn't attractive for a minor suit slam but would make 3NT unattractive. 5m is much more appealing, but slam may still be possible if responder is strong enough.

Showing an Ace, King, values, length or whatever else, doesn't give us any useful information below 3NT to make a good decision between playing NT or a minor suit contract.

[1eyedjack]

I must led a sheltered life. The only superacceptance of minor suit transfers that I have ever encountered before this thread have been the intermediate step (ie 2N/3♣) between the transfer bid (2♠/2N) and the suit shown (♣/♦ respectively)

[TWO4BRIDGE]

1eyedjack, on 2013-October-27, 02:55, said:

I must led a sheltered life. The only superacceptance of minor suit transfers that I have ever encountered before this thread have been the intermediate step (ie 2N/3♣) between the transfer bid (2♠/2N) and the suit shown (♣/♦ respectively)

That crossed my mind too until I re-read the opening sentence:

" What is best after the [ EDIT: Opener's ] superacceptance of a minor suit transfer on a 1NT opening " ...