[helene_t]

AQJ9x
AKJx
xx
Jx

Opps are silent. Matchpoints, intermediate opps, heterogenous field.

1♠-2♦
2♥-2♠
?

1♠ promised 4+, rules of 20. Major 4-card usually precedes minor.
2♦ is 9+. A natural NF 2N was available. Not sure how often this p would be 2♠ on a 3-card, club style varies with respect to this and I don't know him that well.

2♥ forcing for one round. 2N would have been 15-17 GF.

Edit: Sorry, for the 3♦ answer I should have distinguished between a forcing and a non-forcing 3♦

[paulg]

The auction is fine to this point and I'd bid 3♣, fourth suit forcing, at this point. Too much danger that we have nine tricks in notrump to pass.

Paul

[Walddk]

I assume responder has shown 9-11 with a doubleton spade and no club stopper. Wouldn't she rebid 3♠ with 3 card support?. 2♠ could well be the limit of the hand now, but I think it's a little too good to pass. I would bid 3♣ as fourth suit, indicating extras with no clear direction. If we have a game on, 4♠ is likely the spot on 5-2 after responder already implied that she has no club stopper.

It still amazes me that you must respond 2-o-1 on a 9 count. 2NT rebid (15-17) by opener is GF you say. I think that is mainstream in Acol-land, but it doesn't make sense that the partnersip is committed to game with 15 opposite a possible 9.

The system is seriously flawed. Nothing wrong with weak NT, but then 2/1 responses should have full value. If they have, the 2NT rebid as game force is much sounder.

Roland

[badderzboy]

On this hand I would have had to bid 3♥s over 2♦ as I play 2♥s n/f and showing 11-14/15pts.

Over 3♥s with a ♣ stop and 2 ♠s then I would expect ptr to bid 3NT.

This solves the issue here of has ptr shown a preference with 2 card support with 2♠s which as Paul says here by bidding FSF with 3♣s you resolve and also show the strength of the hand.

In response to Roland - I play 2 level responses as 10+ or can be tempered with a minor with additional length and means 2NT as a game-force makes the rest of the bidding easy and is the common approach I see in clubs, there are some who still play 8+ and are a joy to play against....

Steve

[helene_t]

If responder must start with 1N with 9 points, opener will have to bid again with a balanced 16 points.

Maybe a 2/1 should show something like 9.5 points.

This is one of the reasons why I don't like 4-card majors. But that's what people insist on playing here.

[badderzboy]

Simple Answer Helene,

Get partner to bid 4 card suits up the line and not major 1st then a Major bid is normally a 5 card suit and can be handled with that way.

EBU Std Acol now advocates majors 1st but I find it a real pain.

It cramps so much into the 1NT bid if you enforce 2 of a suit as 10+ if u open a 4 CM in preference to a minor and makes bidding 3NT a lottery sometimes.

There are downsides in the opps can overcall in more suits at the one-level but if you have a decent neg-dbl structure then it isnt hard to overcome and more than outweighed by 1M likely to be a 5 card suit.

Steve

[MickyB]

Walddk, on Jan 9 2008, 10:33 AM, said:

It still amazes me that you must respond 2-o-1 on a 9 count. 2NT rebid (15-17) by opener is GF you say. I think that is mainstream in Acol-land, but it doesn't make sense that the partnersip is committed to game with 15 opposite a possible 9.

The system is seriously flawed. Nothing wrong with weak NT, but then 2/1 responses should have full value. If they have, the 2NT rebid as game force is much sounder.

Roland

What's wrong with being committed to game with 15 opposite 9? Most would bid game on 9 if partner opened a strong NT.

In Acol, a 2/1 response should show a hand that wants to be in game opposite 15-16 balanced, as that hand has no option but to pass after 1M:1N. For most people, this means that their 2/1s have to be quite light.

On the original hand, 3♣ looks normal. I much prefer the style where 2♥ is forcing, having to jump on a good hand preempts your auctions horribly.

[helene_t]

badderzboy, on Jan 9 2008, 12:41 PM, said:

Get partner to bid 4 card suits up the line and not major 1st then a Major bid is normally a 5 card suit and can be handled with that way.

Agree but if p assumes my major suit to be a 5-card, with a 4333 I would rather lie about a minor suit than about a major suit. IOW we would be playing 5-card majors.

We could also switch to Moscito or Crazy Diamonds, that would probably solve this particular hand as well

[badderzboy]

Hi Helene,

the big+ is that if u only have a 4 card suit then you must be 15+ or you would have opened 1NT anyway.

I also have a simple agreement (as once suggested by PaulG on the forum) that I will only raise on 3 with a singleton somewhere and it works effectively in my experience

Steve

[helene_t]

OK, but that doesn't solve this problem which is that I cannot bid a forcing 3♠, and even 3♦ might not be forcing. And that responder could have bid 2♠ because he didn't have the values for 2N.

[Walddk]

MickyB, on Jan 9 2008, 12:42 PM, said:

Walddk, on Jan 9 2008, 10:33 AM, said:

It still amazes me that you must respond 2-o-1 on a 9 count. 2NT rebid (15-17) by opener is GF you say. I think that is mainstream in Acol-land, but it doesn't make sense that the partnersip is committed to game with 15 opposite a possible 9.

The system is seriously flawed. Nothing wrong with weak NT, but then 2/1 responses should have full value. If they have, the 2NT rebid as game force is much sounder.

Roland

What's wrong with being committed to game with 15 opposite 9? Most would bid game on 9 if partner opened a strong NT.

Most? What makes you think that? Did "most" dump invitational sequences after a 1NT opening? If your answer is "yes, you don't invite", your point is valid. If you agree that invitational auctions exist, it is not.

Roland

[helene_t]

Roland, this is flueknepperi. Feel free to change the notrump range from 12-14 to 12-14.375 and the 2/1 lower range from 9 to 9.25 or whatever.

[badderzboy]

AQJ9x
AKJx
xx
Jx


I'll try and clarify what I'm trying to say

1st as per your system (2 level as 9+ and 2♥s forcing then 3♣s 4th suit allows you to ask the pertinent Q and show your strength - ie have u got 3 or was it suit preference or do you have a club stop.

If you play 2 level as 10+ and 2♥s nf then
1♠-2♦-3♥s shows 16+ and at least 5/4 shape and doubt about a !C stop so with a ♣ stop and no fit then I would expect them to bid 3NT and with 3♠s 4♠s.

[Walddk]

I need to know the difference between

1♠ - 2♦
2♥ - 2♠

and

1♠ - 2♦
2♥ - 3♠

If 3♠ shows 3 and is invitational, then 2♠ must be a preference with a doubleton. Or do you distinguish between 9-10 and 11-12? 3♠ = 11-12 with 3 and 2♠ = 9-10 with 2 or 3?

It seems like Helene isn't sure regarding responder's 2♠ preference. What is the "rule" if there is any?

Roland

[MickyB]

Walddk, on Jan 9 2008, 11:14 AM, said:

Quote

What's wrong with being committed to game with 15 opposite 9? Most would bid game on 9 if partner opened a strong NT.

Most? What makes you think that? Did "most" dump invitational sequences after a 1NT opening? If your answer is "yes, you don't invite", your point is valid. If you agree that invitational auctions exist, it is not.

Roland

A fair few have given up most invites that don't allow you to play *two* levels below game, or at least use them very rarely, even opposite a good 14-17 no-trump. I don't think that not being able to invite opposite a range of 15-16 is Acol's biggest problem!

[helene_t]

Walddk, on Jan 9 2008, 01:34 PM, said:

I need to know the difference between

1♠ - 2♦
2♥ - 2♠

and

1♠ - 2♦
2♥ - 3♠

I haven't discussed this with this particular p (or with any Acol p for that matter). Obviously the 2nd one is a slam invite in a strong-NT or 5cM system. I think I would like it to be a slam invite in Acol as well. Of course the lighter the 2/1s the more merit a NF 3♠ has.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

voted 3C, but on reflection, I think 4S is better.

I would assume that the 2S by partner
could be passed, and that it showes a
3 carder.
We have a fit in a mayor, and at most
28HCP, so game it is, but slam is unlikely.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

helene_t, on Jan 9 2008, 06:11 AM, said:

OK, but that doesn't solve this problem which is that I cannot bid a forcing 3♠, and even 3♦ might not be forcing. And that responder could have bid 2♠ because he didn't have the values for 2N.

I would say, that 3S by opener is forcing,
and the same holds true if opener now bids
3D.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: May days I played Acol have passed a long time
ago, so take the above with a salt.

[david_c]

Walddk, on Jan 9 2008, 12:34 PM, said:

I need to know the difference between

1♠ - 2♦
2♥ - 2♠

and

1♠ - 2♦
2♥ - 3♠

2♠ just shows a minimum hand for the 2♦ response, prepared to play in 2♠. It will usually be precisely a doubleton, I suppose, but this isn't required by the system.

3♠ is invitational. Most [non-GF] hands good enough for a 2/1 with 3-card support will be good enough for this bid, but occasionally you might settle for 2♠.

With 3-card support and a game force you bid 4♠ or fourth suit. This is the sort of thing that gives Acol a bad name, but everyone does it.

[helene_t]

P_Marlowe, on Jan 9 2008, 02:00 PM, said:

I would assume that the 2S by partner
could be passed, and that it showes a
3 carder.
We have a fit in a mayor, and at most
28HCP, so game it is, but slam is unlikely.

Responder showed 9-11 points and a (false) preference for spades, so we have 25-27 and we may or may not have a spades fit.

3♠ by opener would not be forcing. In the post-mortem I agreed with p that I should have bid 3♦ which would have been forcing, but this poll is strongly in favor of 3♣, which makes sense. 3♣ as fsf is probably more useful than 3♣ as 5404.