[daveharty]

Playing in a new partnership with few agreements, how would you interpret the following auction:

---

Your notrump range is 15-17. 2C was alerted and explained as "diamonds OR a major-minor two suiter". 2H is a transfer by agreement (your hand: Q9xxx JTxx Txx x). You have no agreements re. superaccepting in competition. Should the "default" agreement here be:

1. Natural, no implications regarding spade fit
2. Natural with a fit
3. superaccepting with stuff in diamonds
4. advance control bid superaccepting spades (more slammish than 3 I guess?)
5. something else

?

[CSGibson]

a superaccept with a max, differentiating between 3♠, which is just competitive.

[aguahombre]

CSGibson, on 2011-June-04, 18:45, said:

a superaccept with a max, differentiating between 3♠, which is just competitive.

yep....but "new partnership with few agreements" I couldn't even get past the 2H bid

[daveharty]

aguahombre, on 2011-June-04, 20:08, said:

yep....but "new partnership with few agreements" I couldn't even get past the 2H bid

LOL...few agreements yes, but one of them is "systems on over 2C unless it shows both majors".

[mgoetze]

Personally I would just take it as a random superaccept and not worry too much about the difference between 3♦ and 3♥, especially holding Q9xxx JTxx Txx x.

[JLOGIC]

Theoretically I might like 3D natural 2-6 in spades/diamonds, 3H super accept, 3S competitive. This is because 3D natural is possible and useful and it gives us 2 super accepts still. This is probably what I would assume with no discussion also, just because what else would 3H mean? And of course I would assume 3D natural as it's a bid in a competitive auction that could be natural.

However, it might also be useful to play 3D as a super accept to allow for a re-transfer. This only matters if we're going to play 3S and I'm not sure if it's more important than 3D natural.

[daveharty]

mgoetze, on 2011-June-05, 02:03, said:

Personally I would just take it as a random superaccept and not worry too much about the difference between 3♦ and 3♥, especially holding Q9xxx JTxx Txx x.

I agree that splitting these hairs doesn't matter much when we are buying the contract, but in the actual case the opps bought the contract at 4C, and a disastrous diamond lead was made.

I guess that's neither here nor there; what I was really curious about was whether there is some treatment that is "standard enough" here that I should expect it to apply in a relatively new partnership without discussion, or whether it is murky enough that we should default to some meta-agreement like "any undiscussed bid that could reasonably be interpreted as natural, is." JLOGIC's comment makes me think the latter might be true.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

we play this as superaccept with diamond values.

Natural makes sense - but only if you regular open 1NT with a 6 card minor,
we dont this.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[benlessard]

In imps I would bid 3D with 6D and 3S. With 6D and 2S, I would happily pass (id be disappointed if I have 3 baby clubs but with 3 baby clubs i would probably open 1D). Its surely possible 3D make and 3S go down.


At MP 3D would be supperaccept with retransfer. Rightsiding is important in MP.

[CSGibson]

benlessard, on 2011-June-06, 01:31, said:

In imps I would bid 3D with 6D and 3S. With 6D and 2S, I would happily pass (id be disappointed if I have 3 baby clubs but with 3 baby clubs i would probably open 1D). Its surely possible 3D make and 3S go down.


At MP 3D would be supperaccept with retransfer. Rightsiding is important in Bridge.

FYP

[Free]

I'd take it as super accept (3♠ competitive), I can retransfer with 3♥.

[Phil]

I think it should be the same as:

1N - (pass) - 2♥ - (3♣)
3♦

I would take this as 'diamonds' without discussion.

The possibility that my LHO might have diamonds in the OP isn't particularly relevant.

[aguahombre]

Yeh, I can live with 3H being the super-accept, and pass being everything else except a penalty double of 3C. But, maybe 3H is effective as a mere LAW bid, and 3D is needed for "real" super accept.