[nige1]

phoenix214, on 2015-May-26, 06:22, said:

Scoring - IMP pairs. NV vs VUL you deal. You have:
♠ A K J 8 ♥ A K Q ♦ J 9 7 5 ♣ K 8
You open 2NT: Partner bids 3♥ - standard transfer. What do you do now?
(Your pair does not have any relevant agreements over this, anything besides 3♠, should be a super accept by common sense)
Relevant information: 4♥ would be a transfer to spades as well. 3♥-3♠, then 4♠ invites slam by pd.
Most of the field play a strong club, and not neceserally have 2NT for a natural opener.

IMO 3N = 10. 4♣ = 9. 4♠ = 8. 3♠ (Intending to bid 4♣ over 3N and otherwise investigate slam) = 8.

[Vampyr]

1eyedjack, on 2015-May-27, 01:33, said:

14 votes (to date) is of course not a representative sample. But the proportion of 10:4 in favour of moving is roughly in line with my experience of popularity of super-accepting in principle in real life.

It is too bad there is not the option of "not 3♠".

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-28, 08:38, said:

It is too bad there is not the option of "not 3♠".

The option of "not 3♠" is currently leading 16-10. At the table, I would suspect 3♠ to gain (from allowing partner's intended rebid to happen), gain if partner passes and we don't have game, and lose if we score up 170. That seems +< ev for those 10 people when they are playing against the other 16... and probably +< ev versus the others as well since I think my partner's judgement about when to xfer to 3S and pass might be better than theirs.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2015-May-28, 15:46, said:

The option of "not 3♠" is currently leading 16-10.

But many people may not have voted because if the didn't bid 3♠, what they would bid would demand on whom they were playing with.

[Trinidad]

At MPs, I would bid 3♠, but at IMPs (and this is IMPs) I would make sure we get to 4♠.

Rik

[aguahombre]

Trinidad, on 2015-May-29, 01:07, said:

At MPs, I would bid 3♠, but at IMPs (and this is IMPs) I would make sure we get to 4♠.

Rik

non vul at IMP pairs, to be exact; I believe that makes it pretty much like a MP decision to do better than the field.

[WesleyC]

This hand is an extremely obvious super-accept.

In a pickup partnership I'd try 4C but without agreements anything other than 3S is fine.

[phoenix214]

A pretty interesting discussion:
In real life partner had -
♠:QT6432
♥:T7
♦:K8
♣:A92
Intending to try for 6S. The problem as it is. If the hand is played by the 2NT opener, then 6♠ is good, if diamond ace is one-side or if no diamond lead.
If the spade hand plays then 6♠ is basically cold. I was mostly curious if somebody would find this as a problem or not. As the cards were, diamond ace was off-side, and we had a diamond lead(Although we finished up in 4♠) we still lost lots of imps because for most tables the auction starts 1♣-1♠, and now they have right-sided their slam.

[1eyedjack]

Haha it would not have helped me. In most strong club partnerships I play 1H response to 1C as a transfer to spades.

[KurtGodel]

I think we can eliminate 3♠ immediately, partner can put down a balanced yarborough and game will have play. E.g. partner has xxxxx xxx xx xxx and game is still Q♠ coming down and A♣ onside, yes this isn't great but it's still about 25%. Shuffle a card xxxxx xxx x xxxx and suddenly game is now either Q♠ coming down or A♣ onside, which is pretty good. Giving a sixth spade et cetera are all ways to make game better than 50%

In terms of super accepting: I don't really want to bid diamonds as partner might think something like Qx is useful, but the holding we really want them to have is x. 3NT has the big advantage of hearing 4♣, over which we can bid 4♥ - showing our lack of diamond control, now if partner has the diamond king they can right side, and they will feel very good about a diamond stiff. Over 4♦, you can still try 4♥. I'm sure if P has ♦AK and ♠Q they will bid 5♦, if they take control with key card we are also happy.