[whereagles]

Fluffy: I don't I understand what you wrote. What exactly are you saying?

[1eyedjack]

hrothgar, on Jun 9 2004, 09:01 AM, said:

I think that there are much better response structures over 1NT than Stayman and Jacoby. I'd much rather plan SCANian, though apparantly I need to learn Keri.

I echo this

But perhaps minus the superlative "much". With fairly simple but artificial responses you cater for the vast majority of hands adequately. Each successive delve into more esoteric methods is designed to cater for greater accuracy on a diminishing minority of hands that are inadequately handled by its predecessor methods. For sure, any advantage should be embraced, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that it is a huge quantum leap forward.

Hrothgar - have you had an opportunity to look that the responses that I sent to you once by email? I think they are better than SCANian. Not come across Keri. Got a link?

[PriorKnowledge]

Yes, super accept even opening a weak NT. The LAW protects you. Players who fear getting set, maybe should not play weak NT.

An advanced form of Super Accept is for opener to show opener's doubleton so responder can better determine partnership assets.

After 1N 2D (transfer to hearts)
2H = normal accept
2S = Super Accept with 4h, max or near max and doubleton spade
2N = Super Accept with 4h, max or near max and doubleton diam
3C = Super Accept with 4h, max or near max and doubleton club
3H = Super Accept with 4h, max or near max and 4-3-3-3

Responder always has room to Re-transfer and can place the final contract.

Example:
Opener: AJx Qxxx Kx AQxx Responder: xx Kxxxx xxxx Kx
1N 2D
2N 3D
3H 4H
1N = 15-17
2D = 5+h
2N = 4h, 16-17, 2d
3D = re-transfer
Even though responder only has 6HCP, responder realizes extra tricks will be gained from trumping diam in opener's hand and bids the game which has good chances from either a 2-2 heart break, AD onside, or other chances.

[Cascade]

I think that having four or five different super-accepts is over-rated.

Nevertheless I do normally utilize them as follows:

1N 2♥

2N Good Trumps no weak Doubleton
3♣ Weak doubleton club
3♦ Weak doubleton diamond
3♥ Weak doubleton heart
3♠ Poor Trumps no weak Doubleton

The idea with 2N and 3♠ is that you grab the contract if you think their is likely to be a significant advantage of having the lead come to your hand. In fact 2NT and 3♠ are more or less evolving into I have cards outside that need protecting (3♠) and I don't need protecting (2NT).

We use a different structure over strong no trumps.

Over a strong NT where a weak doubleton is less likely we instead bid a new suit that I have a concentration of values.

Over a 2NT opening we super-accept with a cue-bid.

[Cascade]

hrothgar, on Jun 9 2004, 11:01 AM, said:

I think that there are much better response structures over 1NT than Stayman and Jacoby. I'd much rather plan SCANian, though apparantly I need to learn Keri.

Where can I find SCANian?

TIA

[Free]

I use another kind of super accept, since we use 2♦ as 5+♥ OR inv+ with or without ♥s. Answers are:

2♥ = no 4 card ♥
2♠ = min, 5 card ♥
2NT = min, 4 card ♥
3♣ = max, 5 card ♥
3♥ = max, 4 card ♥

Works quite nice Our 2♣ can ask entire shape, so we use this 2♦ only when aren't interested in ♠ and/or slam. If opener has 4+♥ we immediatly know if p is max or min, we can even find 10 card ♥ fits, but that's quite rare ofcourse...

[1eyedjack]

Cascade, on Jun 10 2004, 06:03 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jun 9 2004, 11:01 AM, said:

I think that there are much better response structures over 1NT than Stayman and Jacoby.  I'd much rather plan SCANian, though apparantly I need to learn Keri.

Where can I find SCANian?

TIA

I don't know how current it is, but here:

http://members.roger...o/ScanianNT.doc

[Trpltrbl]

It's based on "Law of Total Tricks".
But What I play with most my pd's is this ;
accept at 3 level with minimum
bid 2 NT with max and 4 trumps and no worthless doubletons
bid of other suit shows max with 4 trumps and worthless doubleton in that suit.
All really simple and make it easy on pd and hard on opps, what a combo

Mike

[luke warm]

dogsbreath, on Jun 9 2004, 07:16 AM, said:

Hi ..
another example from a recent tourney , but 12-14 NT this time..

    Holding 

♠	Qxx
♥	Kxx
♦	A
♣	AKxxxx

 

---

..esp as y now play it the right way up.
Rgds Dog

Quote

furnulum lani nolo

here's how it would be bid in our system, fwiw

1nt : 2d (game force)
2h : 2s (4 spades : asking)
3d : 3h (4 clubs : asking)
3nt : 4c (4324 : control ask)
4h : 6c (4 controls : )

responder could continue with spiral scan, but there doesn't seem to be any reason... i see no reason to superaccept here (or any other time with a weak nt)

[mr1303]

Everything I know about Keri is found in the Ron Klinger book "Bid better, much better after opening 1NT"

The main treatments are as follows:

2C = puppet to 2D. After which:

Any suit = invitational values, 4 or 5 cards if a major, 6 cards if a minor
2NT = shape enquiry, after which:

3C = no 5 card major, not 4333 shape. Responder can then bid 3D as normal Stayman
3D = 4333, 3H/S are then 4 card suits, asking for support. Opener bids 3NT without
3H/S = 5 cards in suit bid

2D and 2H are still transfers, but slightly modified. 1NT 2D 2H 2S shows invitational values and only 4-4 in the majors.

1NT 2D 2H 2NT is Game Forcing, showing 5 hearts and a 4 card minor. Therefore a new suit at the 3 level after a transfer shows 5-5

1NT 2S is a range ask. 2NT shows a minimum, 3C shows a maximum. This sequence is used when responder doesn't have a 4 card major

1NT 2NT is a transfer to clubs, showing either a rubbish hand with long clubs or a game forcing sequence with longer clubs.

My partner Mike Bell knows more about this than me, so if I've got anything wrong he can correct me

Mark

[helene_t]

I used to play weak doubleton super acceptance with repeated transfers, which means that the opponents always knew which suit to lead, even if partner didn't care about my weak doubleton.

[EarlPurple]

I like to super-accept by showing my doubleton but it doesn't have to be a weak one.

No reason why my doubleton should be the best lead against a heart (or spade) contract.

Using 2NT to show the doubleton of the suit below trumps allows partner to re-transfer, so it can be superior to bidding 3♦/3♥ but you should probably have some meaning for 3♦/3♥ as well? Maybe 1NT-2♦-3♦ could show the (relatively rare) hands where you have opened with 2-4-5-2 distribution? Otherwise you can use 3♦ to show the 4-3-3-3 hands and 3♥ to show 4 card support but not a maximum (thus pre-emptive). That is good in my opinion playing weak NT but not so good with strong NT. Pre-empting like that spades is virtually pointless. (You can bid 3♠ if you really have to later but are they really going to come in?)

[Trpltrbl]

Free, on Jun 9 2004, 06:27 AM, said:

I don't like super accepts on weak NT. Too dangerous to go for -800...

It is a very good tool with weak NT. Making it even ahrder for opps.
And if you haven't gone for 800's you don't compete enough.
And with all the overbidders here on BBO am sure they will bid anyhow, since they just can't defend. You know us weak NT'ers are trying to steal every hand so they have to make sure they keep bidding

Mike

[EarlPurple]

I agree it is better to super-accept with a weak NT opener than a strong one if you do not have a maximum. I see little point pre-empting with a good hand.

If there is a slight disadvantage of bidding the doubleton, it's that the opps may be able to double it to convey some message (ability to bid the suit etc). You may therefore wish to bid the suit below the doubleton thus:

1NT=2♦

2♥ normal transfer
2♠ doubleton club
2NT 4-3-3-3
3♣ doubleton diamond
3♥ doubleton spade

or if you want to include the pre-emptive raise then:

2NT doubleton diamond
3♣ doubleton spade
3♦ 4-3-3-3
3♥ pre-emptive raise.

1NT-2♥

2♠ normal transfer
2NT doubleton club
3♣ doubleton diamond
3♦ doubleton heart
3♥ 4-3-3-3
3♠ pre-emptive

if you don't play pre-emptive super-accept than make 3♠ the 4-3-3-3 maximum raise.

[luke warm]

this whole thread assumes jacoby transfers are good when playing a weak nt (or at least better than not using them)... i don't play them over my 11/12-14 nt, and i honestly don't know why i should... 2C is invitational puppet (or garbage) and 2D is game forcing... why play transfers if your other bids encompass most or all situations? i'd love to see a hand or two posted that show the advantages of jacoby over, say, what i now play

[1eyedjack]

EarlPurple, on Jul 10 2004, 05:43 PM, said:

I agree it is better to super-accept with a weak NT opener than a strong one if you do not have a maximum. I see little point pre-empting with a good hand.

Preemption is not the main purpose of the super-accept. The main purpose is to bid games more accurately, and that purpose is equally served when playing a strong NT as when playing weak. If it provides a preemptive benefit when playing a weak 1N that is just an added bonus.

[1eyedjack]

luke warm, on Jul 10 2004, 07:18 PM, said:

this whole thread assumes jacoby transfers are good when playing a weak nt (or at least better than not using them)... i don't play them over my 11/12-14 nt, and i honestly don't know why i should... 2C is invitational puppet (or garbage) and 2D is game forcing... why play transfers if your other bids encompass most or all situations? i'd love to see a hand or two posted that show the advantages of jacoby over, say, what i now play

I second this, and go further as to suggest that Jacoby are non-optimal opposite a strong 1N also, (although I don't play 2C/2D the same way as you either). Use of Jacoby to place the declaration in the strong hand was only ever a secondary benefit of transfers, and is overrated as a benefit IMHO.