[1eyedjack]

Scoring: IMP

.....P
2♣ 3♦
3♥ 3N
4♥ P

---

We were playing Acol with (forcing) strong 2 openers throughout, so theoretically should have an advantage here. I was opener and felt that I was too strong even for 2♥ opener. Both of us felt that we had "bid our hands" by the time we got to 4♥ so there we stayed. Don't get me wrong I think I am mainly to blame, but any ideas how it should be bid?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

3D?

The time I played Acol is long gone,
and 2D is a neg. bid, i.e. <7HCP, but
3D? I prefer 2D, may be on hinsight.

2C (1) - 2D (2)
2H (3) - 3D (4)
4H (5) - 4S (6)
6H (7)

(1) game forcing, +23 or 9 1/2 playing tricks
(2) neg.
(3) suit (4H being an option)
(4) one could sell me 2S ...
(5) slam is far away
(6) holding 1 1/2 tricks you have to do
something
(7) the Ace of spade is not sufficient for 4S

With kind regards
Marlowe

[pbleighton]

Your partner's 3D bid is probematic, though possibly the only one he had (if you're playing 2D as 0-7). Playing 2D waiting, it might go 2C-2D-3H (self-sufficient suit, better hand than 4H)-3S(cue)-4C-5C-6H.

I hope this isn't double-dummy bidding

Peter

[kenrexford]

pbleighton, on Apr 8 2007, 10:03 AM, said:

Your partner's 3D bid is probematic, though possibly the only one he had (if you're playing 2D as 0-7). Playing 2D waiting, it might go 2C-2D-3H (self-sufficient suit, better hand than 4H)-3S(cue)-4C-5C-6H.

I hope this isn't double-dummy bidding

Peter

Almost a ditto.

Often times, bidding 3NT, whether serious or not, as a tactical move makes sense when you want to hear a 4♣ cue. I also believe it to be a long-run advantage to stretch to make a serious call when the trump suit is solid.

Thus, after 3♠ from Responder, 3NT will save space and allow a 4♣ cue, what you want to hear.

[skjaeran]

Quote

Your partner's 3D bid is probematic, though possibly the only one he had (if you're playing 2D as 0-7). Playing 2D waiting, it might go 2C-2D-3H (self-sufficient suit, better hand than 4H)-3S(cue)-4C-5C-6H.

I hope this isn't double-dummy bidding 

Peter

Not double dummy bidding at all.
I'd either bid like this, or bid 3NT (serious) over 3♠, to allow a 4♣ cue by partner, as Ken suggest.

[kenberg]

I imagine most folks will agree that the 3D bid made things difficult. That's not quite the same thing as saying 3D was wrong, I guess it depends on your agreements. However, unless I had agreements something like "2D=0 to 4" I think I would bid 2D. After that, Peter's auction seems very reasonable to me.

After 2C-3D I doubt you can get there in a confident way. You will never play partner to have all his values outside the diamonds suit, where you need them. I accept, and admire, your desire to see what you might have done rather than to shift the blame to your partner but I really find it difficult to see how this might work after 2C-3D. If the king of clubs were the king of diamonds you would need the king of spades onside. Not hopeless, but probably not a slam you want to be in. There just isn't room after 3D to get the information you need.

So if the system requires that 3D bid, well, every system has its downside. If partner had an option then 2D would have been a better choice. He could, I suppose, blast to 6H over 4H on the grounds that if you didn't find his diamond bid encouraging for slam then you will probably be delighted by what he really has. A bit far-fetched. Bidding 4S over 4H may not be so far-fetched though.

[skjaeran]

kenberg, on Apr 8 2007, 06:38 PM, said:

I imagine most folks will agree that the 3D bid made things difficult. That's not quite the same thing as saying 3D was wrong, I guess it depends on your agreements.

I often play 2♣ - 3♦ as a positive natural bid. But then we have some minimum suit quality requirements. Normally KJTxxx or better. If not, it's often very difficult for opener to evaluate his hand.

[cherdano]

If a 2♦ replay was systemically possible, then 3♦ was a crime. Taking away a full level of bidding in order to show a suit that you don't want partner to have...
If 2♦ was systemically not possible, then the sytem is a crime.
I think the auction after 2C-2D-3H given by several posters is clear-cut.

[jdonn]

I join the chorus of criticisms of 3♦. After that it was tough for either player to judge.

[hotShot]

There is nothing wrong bidding 3♦ over 2♣ with a strong hand and a good suit. The bid is forcing to slam, so I don't see how you could stop without reaching it.

OK partners hand does not fit his bid and I guess this is why he passed below slam.

[zasanya]

2♣-3♦ in my system shows 1and a half trick.So opener knows P has ♠ Ace and one/two of the missing K.If she has 3 card ♠ headed by K and ♥ break reasonably there are 12 tricks on top. If she has 3 card ♠ K and another K there are 13 tricks.If she has a minor suit K then slam is on a finesse and if she has both minor suit Ks then slam is cold and grand on a finesse.
So on 3♦ I bid 4 nt rkcb, discover that her ♦ are not headed by k and she has 1 K and settle in slam.

[Apollo81]

East's 3♦ call is an unfotunate example of bidding by rote instead of thinking.

[Impact]

Even if you were playing traditional Acol where a negative is less than an A & K (or <8HCP) from memory, opener has enough information to know that with his solid suit - and at least an AK or 8+HCP opposite he has prospects at the 5-level.

By contrast, responder does not know the extent to which opener's hand relies on some semblance of H support (ie 3 Losers but needs at least xx opposite, and hence his hand is lacking - he has "shown it all").

As has been commented by others, the 3D response is pretty grim - and will provide the wrong information for partner for any potential slam (positive opposite GF is slam zone prima facie), succeeding only opposite DAKQ precisely!!

I would prefer 2D or 2NT even playing stone age ACOL to the 3D bid.

regards

[1eyedjack]

Thanks for all the comments.
Whatever the merits of 3♦ response I was thinking that I should have rebid 4♥ over it. Perhaps this should suggest a solid suit where bidding 3♥ then 4♥ suggests a long suit with losers.

[FrancesHinden]

hotShot, on Apr 8 2007, 09:10 PM, said:

There is nothing wrong bidding 3♦ over 2♣ with a strong hand and a good suit. The bid is forcing to slam, so I don't see how you could stop without reaching it.

OK partners hand does not fit his bid and I guess this is why he passed below slam.

It is too much to play that a 3m positive response to a 2C opening is forcing to slam. It should show roughly 8+ points and a decent suit. I play it as forcing to 4NT, which is plenty of space to find out if slam is on or not. But forcing to slam? That means that if I have, say, an AKQxxx suit then partner must have a 1-loser hand outside the suit. Which is not at all certain, particularly if he has a void in my suit (and when I have an AKQxxx suit opposite a 2C opener a void is quite likely).

[HeartA]

2C(1) - 2D(2)
3H(3) - 3S(4)
3NT(5) - 4C(6)
4NT(7) - 5C(8)
5D(9) - 5H(10)
6H

(1) strong and artificial
(2) waiting
(3) H as trump, please Q-bid
(4) Ace of S
(5) waiting (what else?)
(6) K (or A) of C
(7) RKC
(8) 1 KC
(9) what else?
(10) nothing

[Free]

The 3♦ bid is really poor, it doesn't even hold a honour! 3NT is poor again, since you can miss a 4-4♠ fit. Not to mention that playing ACOL two's, a 2♣ opening is GF and responder holds 2 tricks. Slam is obligated. Opener can't do much else than show a GF hand with long ♥...

[Gerben42]

Silly question: If you play Acol 2s isn't this 4-loser hand a typical hand for it?

[Free]

Gerben42, on Apr 12 2007, 10:06 AM, said:

Silly question: If you play Acol 2s isn't this 4-loser hand a typical hand for it?

Hehe, that's called judgment

[zasanya]

Many experts have strongly disagreed with 3♦.What is wrong with 3♦ if opener knows it can be made with 5 rags and one and half trick?How can it lead to a bad result?
Will some "anti 3♦' poster elaborate?