[MickyB]

Scoring: IMP

1♠:2♥
2♠:?

---

Playing Acol, partner has rebid a non-forcing 2♠, typically showing 11-14 with 5+♠ - we would open most 11 counts and few 10 counts. Do you game-force with 3♣, or invite with 3♥?

[han]

invite.

[whereagles]

3H. The suit is good for an invitation.

[han]

Note that I consider this a sound opening hand, but when partner rebids spades, denies 3-card heart support and shows a minimum, the potential of this hand becomes a lot less.

[Fluffy]

it is pretty close, the suit quality is very good, I think I would trry 4♥ at IMP, only 3♥ at MP.

[mike777]

MickyB, on Sep 18 2005, 01:35 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♠:2♥
2♠:?

---

Playing Acol, partner has rebid a non-forcing 2♠, typically showing 11-14 with 5+♠ - we would open most 11 counts and few 10 counts. Do you game-force with 3♣, or invite with 3♥?

3C

Closer to making slam try than inviting.

[P_Marlowe]

3H

Marlowe

[mikeh]

I do not play Acol. Would he open 1♣ with 5-5 in the blacks (some or all of the time? If some, when?).

Would 3♣ (rather than 2♠) be a 'high-level reverse'; i.e. extra values, forcing to game?

If I knew that he could not be 5-5, then I would invite with 3♥.

However, I am influenced by my style which may be misleading here: when partner invites, I accept unless I have reason not to. The converse is to reject unless one has reason to accept. If partner plays that style, then I bid 4♥.

If he could be 5-5 (even tho relatively weak, due to the non-bidding of 3♣), I see no reason to give up on 5♣. He might have Axxxx Kx x Axxxx and now 6♣ looks pretty good. I can always get back to ♥ (I think) when that is right. So I would risk the overbid of 3♣ if he could be 5-5 here.

[the hog]

I do not play Acol. Would he open 1♣ with 5-5 in the blacks (some or all of the time? If some, when?).

A modern Acol player would open with 1C only if he were prepared to bid 4S over 4H if it came back to him. Old style Acol players will still open 1C

Would 3♣ (rather than 2♠) be a 'high-level reverse'; i.e. extra values, forcing to game?

Yes

I would bid 3H invit and would not be surprised to go off. Uh, a slam try Mike777 ???? Don't think so....

[awm]

Well, if partner is Al Roth then I think a game force is in order. But a lot of players these days seem to have the approach of opening light, distributional hands and forcing to game on light, distributional hands without a fit. I don't think this style works too well, although the players who use it always seem to ascribe their bad results to poor luck (how was I to know he had a void in hearts? so unlucky...)

3♥ for me. BTW, for those who are planning to force game, why would you choose 4♥ over 3♣? Couldn't partner be 5-5 in the black suits? I'd say one of the few justifications for forcing game is the guarantee of reaching the right strain although not necessarily the right level.

[HeartA]

awm, on Sep 20 2005, 01:04 AM, said:

3♥ for me. BTW, for those who are planning to force game, why would you choose 4♥ over 3♣? Couldn't partner be 5-5 in the black suits? I'd say one of the few justifications for forcing game is the guarantee of reaching the right strain although not necessarily the right level.

I prefer 3♣ slightly over 3♥. And I surprised to see 4♥ without mentioning ♣s.

[MickyB]

Scoring: IMP

---

I bid 3♥, missing a poorish game that most others were in. Of course, the ace of diamonds and KJx of hearts were on side, and should you need it the ace of spades was doubleton onside!

Despite the flukiness of 4♥ and 5♣, I wondered if I had underbid - after all, I would have bid the same with any hand with 1-6 in the majors that had wanted to be in game opposite 15-16 balanced, and those spots are very nice.

[mike777]

As a side note, good hand for BART for those who play 2/1.
1S=1NT
2C=2D
2S or (3C)
2S=Deny 2 hearts and often shows around 5=1=3=4 or other distros, with less than 2H, and very good spade suit.
3C=5=0=3=5 or 5=1=2=5 with not great spades.

[MickyB]

MickyB, on Sep 20 2005, 10:43 AM, said:

Despite the flukiness of 4♥ and 5♣, I wondered if I had underbid - after all, I would have bid the same with any hand with 1-6 in the majors that had wanted to be in game opposite 15-16 balanced, and those spots are very nice.

I've now changed my mind on this - I think a 9 count with 1-6 in the majors should just pass 2S, so 3H is genuinely invitational.

[paulg]

MickyB, on Sep 20 2005, 09:43 AM, said:

Despite the flukiness of 4♥ and 5♣, I wondered if I had underbid - after all, I would have bid the same with any hand with 1-6 in the majors that had wanted to be in game opposite 15-16 balanced, and those spots are very nice.

Although 4♥ needs a lot, 5♣ would appear to need a lot less. Still worse than 50% of course, but probably ok for a vulnerable game.

Paul

[MickyB]

Yes, but we were not vulnerable

[whereagles]

I think the bidding at table was fine. Misfits are not the sort of hands where overbidding pays off in the long run

[mikeh]

mike777, on Sep 20 2005, 09:48 AM, said:

As a side note, good hand for BART for those who play 2/1.
1S=1NT
2C=2D
2S or (3C)
2S=Deny 2 hearts and often shows around 5=1=3=4 or other distros, with less than 2H, and very good spade suit.
3C=5=0=3=5 or 5=1=2=5 with not great spades.

I would not bid 1N forcing in a 2/1 system at imps. This is not an 11 count hand... unless you are a walter the walrus thinker

Replace the ♥109 with the 32 and now we are getting a little closer to a Bart hand.

[han]

Agree, even though I chose not to force to game after 1S-2H-2S, I would make a GF 2H bid playing 2/1. I don't think that this is a contradiction.