Posted 2006-September-28, 14:54
It may be 'a' standard expert treatment to play 3♣ as weak, but it is not 'the' standard expert treatment. While some pairs have pet methods, the 'standard' expert treatments in my part of the world are either 2N weak with 3♣ limit or reverse: 2N limit (plus) in ♣s and 3♣ weak. There are arguments pro and con. If playing that 3♣ is limit, then with this hand, being gf, the standard treatment would be to redouble then raise... not perfect, but I did acknowledge that both treatments suffer from some disadvantages, and this is one of them for the 3♣ limit school... the main disadvantage of the 2N limit or better is that it will occasionally wrong-side 3N.
However, that is picking nits with Roland's main point which is that 3♣ is wrong here, on any expert-style agreement. And his second (also valid) point is that opener should pass 3♣...
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari