[ahydra]

---

Is this hand too good for 4S (preferring 3S to save space and create a GF)? At the table, South picked 4S and we won't talk about what happened next. :/

Thanks,

ahydra

[TylerE]

4♠ looks fine. Shows about this hand. 3♠ should be more high-cardy.

[gszes]

it is best to always include the system being used

sayc AQJTxx Ax xx xxx is a very reasonable 4s bid great trumps
near min with partners clubs expected to help you make game.
The hand given is way too powerful to take up so much space.
All p needs is A xxx Qxx KQxxxx to make 6 and that is pretty close
to a min for a 2c response and p can easily have more and be
unable to move over 4s.

This hand is much closer to 3s which is game forcing and has
slam aspirations (2/1 it is still better to just bid 2s for now though
there are hands where a 2d bid will work better). The key to these
jumps in sayc it to try and keep p from worrying about trump suit
quality. Thus the 3s bid should have at most 1.5 losers
(and many play 1) in spades opposite a singleton. This normally
eliminates trump quality worries and makes slam bidding a ton
easier.

[ahydra]

gszes, on 2013-June-18, 14:09, said:

it is best to always include the system being used

Sorry - it's Acol, 4cM, weak NT. 2/1 promises 10+ HCP or equivalent - enough to rebid if opener bids a third suit.

ahydra

[ArtK78]

Much too strong for 4♠. First and second round controls in 2 side suits, third round control of the third, and a strong trump suit. No reason to use up 3 levels of bidding space. Slam is virtually cold opposite as little as Axx xxx xx KQxxx (or, mix and match - Qxx xxx xx AKxxx). And partner did make a 2/1.

4♠ would be right on a hand like AKJTxxx KQ xx xx - a hand with a powerful dominant suit but little or no slam interest.

If 2♠ is not forcing, I hate the system, but I am forced to find some other bid - I guess it would be 3♠ if there is nothing else available. Hate using up so many levels before we find out how well the hands fit.

[TylerE]

Art, that's all true, but I think you're missing the idea of downgrading a bit since trumps are KJT not AQJT.

[ggwhiz]

Closer to 5♠ than 4 but assuming it's forcing I bid 3. Plutzing along with a forcing 2♦ bid is more attractive than signing off on these cards.

[ArtK78]

TylerE, on 2013-June-18, 15:25, said:

Art, that's all true, but I think you're missing the idea of downgrading a bit since trumps are KJT not AQJT.

So I only have 8 tricks in my hand opposite a partner who made a 2/1 (admittedly an ACOL 2/1, but still a 2/1)? I don't think I have to downgrade all that much.

[CamHenry]

ggwhiz, on 2013-June-18, 16:37, said:

Closer to 5♠ than 4 but assuming it's forcing I bid 3. Plutzing along with a forcing 2♦ bid is more attractive than signing off on these cards.

This is Acol, so a 2♦ rebid would be non-forcing and could be on KTxxx/AQ/KJxx/xx. Forcing rebids would be 3♠ (unless playing with a beginner or life novice), 3♦, 4♥ (if it's a splinter - is it?)

I like 5♠ if I think partner's (a) going to understand and (b) not holding AQ/KQJx/xx/KQJxx, at which stage 7 anything looks... tricky.

[helene_t]

2♦ is forcing for many modern acolists but that doesn't make it a good bid. It is either 3♠ or 4♠. I would bid 3♠, after all partner is likely to have a club control.

[ahydra]

Lots of useful replies here - thanks all

Partner who was brought up on old-fashioned ACOL thought I had like 15+ HCPs and a strong hand (something just short of a strong 2), where me being 15 or so years younger have always played this as a long suit, not much strength but too good to open 4S. We've now cleared up that misunderstanding.

What I wasn't aware however is that 4S usually denies slam interest. I can see the logic behind it particularly after a 2/1, so perhaps 3S is better with this hand - the diamond controls are rather nice. Partner does to be aware of the possibility that 3S may not have much in high cards so he shouldn't go blasting 6NT with a good 16.

At the table partner had a truly massive hand, ♠A ♥AKxx ♦QJxx ♣AK10x, and we got into 7S after I showed my heart void as an extra keycard (not a good idea!). 7S still had some play... but didn't survive the first trick as RHO ruffed the opening diamond lead!

ahydra

[gwnn]

Isn't this a great strong 2 in Acol?

[CamHenry]

gwnn, on 2013-June-19, 04:58, said:

Isn't this a great strong 2 in Acol?

Difficult. A strong 2 typically promises "A hand of power and quality", and I'd normally expect a bit more by way of defensive values than this!

[ahydra]

Not good enough for a strong 2. Give me the CA and that's more like it.

Shows I was definitely wrong to rebid 4S though, if it's only a trick short of a strong two.

ahydra

[gwnn]

OK well with the ♣A it's almost a 2♣ opening, I thought strong twos started quite a bit below?

[Zelandakh]

This reminds me of Roland's joke in the other thread! This hand would not count as a traditional Acol 2 since it lacks the general hcp strength. The minimum is usually listed as around 16hcp in a very pure hand in the older textbooks. That said, it is legal to open this hand as an Acol 2 by agreement since it contains 8 clear cut tricks and I know a fair few Benji players who would consider this a wtp 2♣ opening. Also, I thought the most common modern Acol meaning for this 4♠ jump is simply a hand that is good for game but based on shape (long spades) rather than hcp strength (a "strong preempt"). Nothing about it being a sign off or whatever. Of course, ask 10 Acol players and you will get 10 different answers. In the BBO Acol Club, I would think the most common explanation would be the 19hcp rock-crusher, even for those playing Strong Twos or Benji.