[slothy]

Scoring: IMP

---

Playing Acol,

North opens 1♣,

South responds ♦

North rebids 1♠

South responds 1NT

What is your bid over 1NT and why?


For those who bid 3♣, or assume that N did, what is South's bid over 3♣?

IF you did not bid 3♣ can you clarify why?

[mikeh]

I don't claim to know Acol, but what little I do know suggests that these sequences are pretty much the same as standard in the former colonies.

I would rebid 3♣. Short a trifle on hcp, but the extra club will usually make up for it, and partner should know that my clubs, while long, are not solid...solid should rebid 3N most of the time.

3N is still feasible: xx Kxxx QJxxx Ax.. I assume the bidding would be the same?

As south, I would pass and pray we didn't go down. I think one needs a club card or super maximum values to bid 3N, and this hand has neither. Jx might be enough in clubs (after all, picture AQ109xx or AK109xx).

[Cascade]

I think 2♣ is enough. Partner will need two stoppers in what ever suit they lead or the ♣ A and stoppers in both red suits. That seems unlikely to me.

If partner does have that hand there he might be able to raise clubs or try 2NT over 2♣ although I have to admit I hate partner's that do that.

There is also significant risk that 3♣ is too high.

[aisha759]

I was Alex's partner when this bid came up, and I took the 3 ♣ for a stronger hand, and bid 3nt..... I argued with Alex, and insulted his bidding.
I aplogize publicly for doing that. He said he would quit bridge if his bidding was wrong, thank God he was not, so he doesn't have to quit now, but I probably should... He got 2 stars'opinions and they are in agreement with his bid, saying it is non forcing, and partner should not bid 3NT.. I would still bid 2♣ with his hand, as I am not an expert and not capable of assessing hands.... I am not apologizing for bidding 3nt, I am only apologizing for being rude about Alex's bid, and not because so many of you agree with him.... I think it is possible to see my point of view also..
Sorry Alex

[gwnn]

I agree with Mike H.

[Walddk]

It's a clear 3♣ for me and also a clear pass with South's cards. In my book 3♣ doesn't show a strong hand; it shows a shapely hand with plenty of tricks in a club contract.

South has a lousy hand for clubs as well as NT. Zero hcp in partner's two suits and a singleton club. I would be worried about 3♣ even.

Roland

[whereagles]

Agree with mikeh. *shock horror*

[helene_t]

1NT is probably 6-9 in standard Acol. I like to play it as 8-10. In the latter case, Aisha has a clear pass of 3♣. If it's 6-9 I have sympathy for 3NT. Aisha's shape should be no surprise and she does have maximum HCPs.

3♣ might be forcing in some styles but not in standard Acol.

I would have bid 2♣ rather than 3♣ with Alex' hand.

IMHO Aisha was 60% right and Alex 40%. Of course I do not encourage Alex to quit bridge for that reason. Bridge is a lot more fun than gynecology and sword swallowing.

[Fluffy]

3♣ is what comes to mind with this shape, South lacks of intermediates/quakcs for bidding 3NT.

[P_Marlowe]

2C, wtp?

1NT showed 6-8/9HCP, where do
you want to go?

Depending on which flavour you were
playing 1S may have already showed a
5 card club suit.
1S denied a 4 card heart suit, and some
would open 1S with a bal. hand.
Which would mean, that 1NT may also already
have denied 3 card club support.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[the hog]

2C with the Nth hand. If Nth bids 3C I would 3NT with the Sth hand.

[mcphee]

A very easy 3C to me, I have a bunch of playing tricks, at least 7 how else do you show this potential? Do we not want to encourage partner to bid 3N? I surely is not forcing as I simply rebid 1S.

I see no reason for responder to bid over 3C, lets hope we make this contract, I expect partner to bid 3N with running C, they didn't, therefore they don't.

[whereagles]

mcphee, on Feb 26 2008, 01:30 PM, said:

A very easy 3C to me, I have a bunch of playing tricks, at least 7 how else do you show this potential?

Well, I think the point is that the clubs aren't that hot for 3NT unless pard has the ace.

But then again, I suppose we could try 5♣.. oh.. ok, you're not supposed to bid 5m games

[P_Marlowe]

whereagles, on Feb 26 2008, 08:34 AM, said:

mcphee, on Feb 26 2008, 01:30 PM, said:

A very easy 3C to me, I have a bunch of playing tricks, at least 7 how else do you show this potential?

Well, I think the point is that the clubs aren't that hot for 3NT unless pard has the ace.

But then again, I suppose we could try 5♣.. oh.. ok, you're not supposed to bid 5m games

5m games are ok.

But does one really believe that 5m is still an likely
option and that partner make a good decision?
Opposite a partner who has at most 3 spades, who
may just hold 2 clubs, and has at most 8/9 HCP?

11 tricks is a long way to go.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[han]

I would bid 3C with the north hand. This is not forcing.

[jdonn]

3♣ by north, showing the same type of hand as a 1♣ - 3♣ rebid except with four spades. It also tends to be lighter since its more shapely.

[slothy]

Thx for replying guys (and the odd meddling female, who, like the archetypal statistician, had to apportion percentages based on gender-coupling )

As was suggested by most, i think 1♠ followed by 3♣ describes this hand quite well. Not a hand to make a force of 2♠ ,or raise my ps 1NT in NT, but show that my offensiveness is based on a black-suit distributional. At least 6-4, never mind the comet-tailed 7th ♣

IMHO, 3NT is asking for trouble on this bidding. Why? A ♥ lead is 100% marked and having A to empty ♥ opposite a likely singleton, cum crappy doubleton means that 3N only coming in if black suits run. This is unlikely bearing in mind the nature of the bidding. With solid running ♣, or face-cards in reds, i am more likely to close my eyes ( well maybe squint) punt a 3Ner and hope p can stop opps running 5 in the reds.

Why dont i l personally like 2♣????? It doesn't require much from partner for a 5♣ contract to have a realisable (sic) chance. Or for that matter 3 NT if she happens to hold the Ax.

xx xxx Axxxx Jxx,
Qx Axx QTxxx Jx

(i wanna be in 5♣ defo). She has a clear pass over 2♣ but over 3 she knows her J is blubber-bound.

I have a FOUR LOSER hand... things being =, most likely 3C is gonna make whatever p has (and if a red A like she had practically lay-down...i am certainly not going to down-grade my hand in an anti-pointy-schmionty sorta way to miss a chance for game when making a 3♣ bid isnt gonna push the boat out too far.

[jtfanclub]

P_Marlowe, on Feb 26 2008, 08:52 AM, said:

But does one really believe that 5m is still an likely option and that partner make a good decision? Opposite a partner who has at most 3 spades, who may just hold 2 clubs, and has at most 8/9 HCP?

Um, yes. Heck, 5♣ has play even with this hand, especially if they lead a diamond. Switch the black suits....

x
Axxx
KQxxx
xxx

How do you like 5♣ now?

x
Axxx
xxxxx
xxx

Now on a club ace club back, you have to rely on the spade finesse. Still 50%, and that assumes a trump lead. Yes, I know partner will have more hcp, but throw in one or both red queens, and the hand doesn't change.

Qxx
xxxx
Axxx
xx

Game is still over 50%.

Qxx
xxxx
xxxx
Ax

Game is...well, pretty darn likely.

I don't think it's asking too much for partner to increase the value of the spade queen and club ace (after all, I did bid those suits) and lower the value of red quacks and unsupported kings.

[Cascade]

whereagles, on Feb 27 2008, 02:34 AM, said:

Well, I think the point is that the clubs aren't that hot for 3NT unless pard has the ace.

... and the ♣ A will account for a significant proportion of his high cards when he has shown 6-9 or so. Therefore there will not be much room for adequate red suit stoppers for 3NT opposite our singletons.

[benlessard]

3C seems obvious.Broken 7 card suit or solid 6 carder with extra HCP on the side. Not enough to GF. Its exactly what i have. The risk of going down in 3C are way way lower then the risk of missing game after a 2C underbid. For slam purpose my hand is right on target for 3C.

Edited i think south is missing a little something for 3Nt but i find 3nt reasonnable.