[benlessard]

If you want to invite and be able to stop in 2M. This is what we play in a weak NT setup.


1Nt --??

2C is all GF with MM and all invite without a long m
2red = Transfer are W or GF (could be 4M+5m if slammish)
2S inv with 5S (MMS stayman is probably better)
2Nt = transfer inv or better
3C = transfer inv or better
3D puppet

We dont have a club signoff (not a loss in a weak nt IMO) We do however have a D signoff at 2C--2D (almost forced) (sometimes we will play 3D however)
--------------

1Nt--2C--??

2D = almost forced
2H = 4or5 H minimum
the rest doesnt exist (could be max with 5D)


------------------
2C-2D--??

2H inv with 5H
2S inv with 4S
2nt inv (may have 4H)

This is way better than Keri (that I find awful) because you reach 43 fit only if you want to, plus an inv with a 5M is just not the same than a inv with a 4M.

Agree with Justin that supper accept should clearly be under 30% of the hands with 4 trumps. When I see people supper accepting a spade transfer with a middle range 4333 I just dont understand.

[gnasher]

lalldonn, on 2013-January-05, 18:44, said:

80%? I didn't realize Britain was a different planet than the US but it must be. I would have said 20%. I super accept when I am worried about missing game or slam if I don't, not to announce to the world I have four cards and get higher than I have to. I'll try a Bridge Winners poll.

Yes, this is definitely different between (good players in) England and the USA.

The rationale for routinely breaking a transfer with 4-card support is this: when we have a nine-card fit without game-values it's likely that one or both sides can make a partscore, and unlikely that the opponents will let us play at the two-level. By jumping to 3♥ on a 15-count with 4-card support, we make it harder for them to judge whether to compete to 3♠ or 4m. Most pairs can't show a takeout double of the major on the first round, so it's still possible that 4th hand has a good hand.

However, I don't think that this argument has as much force when applied to Phil's methods. In his sequence
1NT-2♣
2♠-3♥
we've given them an opportunity to double 2♠, so the preemptive effect is reduced. Furthermore, opener has presumably denied four spades, which makes it safer for them to intervene.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-January-06, 07:22

[PhilKing]

gnasher, on 2013-January-06, 07:16, said:

However, I don't think that this argument has as much force when applied to Phil's methods. In his sequence
1NT-2♣
2♠-3♥
we've given them an opportunity to double 2♠, so the preemptive effect is reduced.

I can't think of many hands that can sensibly double 2♠ to show spades - it should be a take-out double, just as if we had transferred to spades. But I am glad two people so far have suggested otherwise.

Also, if we remove to 3♥, they do not know that we have five hearts - we could have bid 2♣ on a 4441 five count, for instance (yes, I know, I have got one higher than everyone else again).

[FrancesHinden]

Zelandakh, on 2013-January-04, 05:24, said:

The simple rule I learned is that you show the minor if you are willing to commit to 5m opposite a fit. Nowadays, with transfer rebids you can more easily show the minor without making a commitment but I think the concept is still valid. If you would never be interested in 5m (or 6m) then there is no reason to show it.

Back to the original point of the thread....

I don't entirely agree with this. There's another reason to bid your shape out even if you aren't often intending to play in 5m. Consider:

Kx
xxx
AQx
AQJxx

opposite
AQxxx
x
Kxxx
xxx

4S is on a finesse or 3-3 break, but it's a rather better contract than 3NT. Give South 2-2 in the rounded suits and you'd still rather be in 4S

[JLOGIC]

5c seems even better and biddable depending on methods.

Needless to say I am in the camp that would never suppress a minor with 5431, it is always possible that 3n is the worst game when you have a stiff. Same with 5422 and weak doubletons.