1C-1S-2S-3C

[johnu]

No you were talking about 4♠ and 5♣ contracts, ruling out 3♠ which I think is where this sequence should end some of the time

 

??? Responder has 4 spades and 13 HCP. Opener has 4 card support. In what world are you going to end up in 3♠ :rolleyes: I suggested that OP just bid 4♠ and forget trying to get to 5♣ as it is a bad idea.

 

I did not mention bidding 3♣ or possible meanings to various sequences because you shouldn't be bidding 3♣ with responder's hand.

[Cyberyeti]

??? Responder has 4 spades and 13 HCP. Opener has 4 card support. In what world are you going to end up in 3♠ :rolleyes: I suggested that OP just bid 4♠ and forget trying to get to 5♣ as it is a bad idea.

 

I did not mention bidding 3♣ or possible meanings to various sequences because you shouldn't be bidding 3♣ with responder's hand.

 

That's the disconnect, I thought you were talking about the sequence in general, not about this particular responding hand

[Tramticket]

Crowhurst in his book Precision Acol analysed ABBA sequences and concluded that they should be forcing if both suits are of the same rank, but non forcing if major/minor. I can’t recall his reasoning however. Having said that, with my regular partners we play them all as forcing. It certainly makes life easier.

 

My copy of Crowhurst has not stood the test of time very well - both in the literal sense that the binding is rubbish and the bloody thing is falling apart, but also in the sense that I often find myself disagreeing with much that he says.

 

But in an Acol context, I think his recommendations on ABBA hands make some sense. There are two sequence that he recommends as non-forcing: 1m-1M-2M-3m and 1M-2m-3m-3M. Stephen made a good case why it might be useful for the first of these to be a non-forcing invitation.

 

The sequence 1M-2m-3m-3M is interesting in Acol (but easy in 2over1 GF!). Say you respond 2D with KQ6 75 AJ953 872: what do you do when opener raises to three on some minimum (AJ732 Q8 Q764 K3)? Opener's rebid now promises five spades and four diamonds and you know that there is an 8-card spade fit. The four-level is too high and it would be nice to bid a non-forcing 3S. This is Crowhurst's case for a non-forcing bid.

 

BUT, I feel that Crowhurst has been pretty selective in choosing hands. Most Acol 2-over-1 hands with a double fit for partner will offer some play for game and it arguably is trying to land on a pinhead to play 3M as non forcing. So there is a pretty strong case for the sequence to be forcing. There is a final twist: if 1M-2m-3m-3M is forcing, how does it differ from 1M-2m-3m-4M? Answers on a postcard please ...

[pescetom]

There is a final twist: if 1M-2m-3m-3M is forcing, how does it differ from 1M-2m-3m-4M? Answers on a postcard please ...

It shows some degree of slam interest and invites control-bids?

Postcard from 2/1 :)

 

"Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas any more"

[kenberg]

I don't play Acol so this response might not help, but for anyone interested I note that Bridge World runs a monthly bidding contest. Problem D for this months contest, at

 

 

https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/msc/mastersolversmainpage.html

 

has an auction 1C-1H-2H and asks what should be bid nest. It notes that in Bridge World Standard 2NT over 2H would be non-forcing,but 3C over 2H would be forcing.

 

No reason an Acol player should be bound by this, it's just an observation.

[gszes]

What hand type are we catering to when playing the 3c bid as non forcing? I picture some hand like KQJT x xx 975432 where we are seriously worried about

not only being stuck in a moysian but every ruff we make at 2s can all too easily be promoting another trump trick for the opps. This is a valid concern BUT I feel the target is too tiny. Since there are an enormous number of hands that might benefit from a 3c showing extra values I feel the 3c bid should be at least forcing to 3S.

 

Once you agree that 3c has to be forcing the weaker hand can be shown with a jump to 4c over 2s. This will make balancing a bit tougher for the opps and it seems well worth it to spend the extra level showing a weak hand rather then wasting the entire 3 level when one has a strong hand. Partner will be well placed to decide strain/level over 4c and deciding to x or not to x if the opps enter the bidding.

[Tramticket]

What hand type are we catering to when playing the 3c bid as non forcing? I picture some hand like KQJT x xx 975432 where we are seriously worried about

not only being stuck in a moysian but every ruff we make at 2s can all too easily be promoting another trump trick for the opps. This is a valid concern BUT I feel the target is too tiny. Since there are an enormous number of hands that might benefit from a 3c showing extra values I feel the 3c bid should be at least forcing to 3S.

 

Once you agree that 3c has to be forcing the weaker hand can be shown with a jump to 4c over 2s. This will make balancing a bit tougher for the opps and it seems well worth it to spend the extra level showing a weak hand rather then wasting the entire 3 level when one has a strong hand. Partner will be well placed to decide strain/level over 4c and deciding to x or not to x if the opps enter the bidding.

 

System matters of course. In the context of our Acol system, opener will be very likely to hold 5+ clubs for this sequence (although 4414 is possible). In this context, even responder holding a four-card club suit might play better than the Moysian. If you are going to play 3C as invitational, it seems reasonable to allow a pass if the invitation is declined.

[helene_t]

I don't play Acol so this response might not help, but for anyone interested I note that Bridge World runs a monthly bidding contest. Problem D for this months contest, at

 

 

https://www.bridgeworld.com/indexphp.php?page=/pages/msc/mastersolversmainpage.html

 

has an auction 1C-1H-2H and asks what should be bid nest. It notes that in Bridge World Standard 2NT over 2H would be non-forcing,but 3C over 2H would be forcing.

 

No reason an Acol player should be bound by this, it's just an observation.

I don't think it should matter much whether you play Acol or SA. Either way, responder has shown (5)6+ points and 4+ spades, while opener has a minimum with typically 4 spades, but maybe 3+ depending on style.

 

In modern British Acol (weak NT), opener can't have a minimum balanced hand, which means that it is more obvious that opener shouldn't pass a 2NT bid by responder. But as for 3♣, it should depend on how often you raise a 3-card support.

 

But I think there is a tendency to play "when in doubt assume forcing" in North America, and "when in doubt assume non-Forcing" on the British Islands.

[miamijd]

As Stephen pointed out, the answer depends in large part upon whether you like or dislike opener's three-card raises of responder's major. If you frequently raise on 3 (which I hate, but which is relatively common here on the West coast, especially among Mike Lawrence disciples), then you need a method to show a minimum with 3 pieces and 4+ support for opener's minor. In the given auction, 3C fits the bill.

 

If, on the other hand, you follow the modern trend and don't raise on 3 unless there is absolutely no reasonable alternative, then you don't need a bid to cater to this specific situation (or you can use 2NT to suggest a possible 3-card raise game try).

 

Cheers,

Mike

[johnu]

As Stephen pointed out, the answer depends in large part upon whether you like or dislike opener's three-card raises of responder's major. If you frequently raise on 3 (which I hate, but which is relatively common here on the West coast, especially among Mike Lawrence disciples), then you need a method to show a minimum with 3 pieces and 4+ support for opener's minor. In the given auction, 3C fits the bill.

[hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1cp1hp2hp2s]133|100[/hv]

[hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp1hp2hp2s]133|100[/hv]

 

A lot of players use 2S in this auction as an asking bid, asking for 3 or 4 card support, and minimum or maximum. 4 steps in possible responses.

 

[hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1cp1sp2sp2n]133|100[/hv]

[hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1dp1sp2sp2n]133|100[/hv]

 

After a spade response, 2NT is used as the asking bid.

[wank]

if 2s guarantees 4s 3C should be a natural slam try. if you have an 8 card major fit you shouldn't be interested in playing 5 clubs: it's 1 trick more required.

 

however there are good reasons why many people that 2S doesn't guarantee 4. in that case, 3C can sensibly be a natural non-forcing game try.

[nige1]

I disagree, if 2M can be 3. Playing 5cd majors, we are trained to respond 1M on terrible suits. After all we kind of have to bid 1s on 5432 if partner isn't going to open 1S on AKJx. Then partner is trained to raise on something like Kxx x AKJx Jxxxx, because it simplifies auctions and also playing 2c with this suit opposite a small stiff isn't really attractive, and 2M often scores better even if 2c is playable.

But now suppose responder has a hand worth a game try, with 4xx5 or 4xx4 distribution, but opener is min and doesn't accept. Now it's no longer a choice between playing 3m and 2M. It's between 3m and 3M. Do you really want to play 3M with xxxx opposite Hxx, or would you rather play your 9 or 10 cd minor fit, even at MP?

I personally would want to be able to play 3m.I know it's not mainstream, but in my serious partnerships I use 3m as NF inv, and cheapest new suit as a simplified GF spiral-ish inquiry.

if 2s guarantees 4s 3C should be a natural slam try. if you have an 8 card major fit you shouldn't be interested in playing 5 clubs: it's 1 trick more required.however there are good reasons why many people that 2S doesn't guarantee 4. in that case, 3C can sensibly be a natural non-forcing game try.

More expert views. Thank you.

[gszes]

System matters of course. In the context of our Acol system, opener will be very likely to hold 5+ clubs for this sequence (although 4414 is possible). In this context, even responder holding a four-card club suit might play better than the Moysian. If you are going to play 3C as invitational, it seems reasonable to allow a pass if the invitation is declined.

my apologies if my response was unclear. The reason for forcing to 3s is because responder has at least 5 of them along with the club length (IF they are minimum). This is NOT because responder wishes to sign off in 3c opposite a minimum but to allow opener to better judge how their hand looks, somewhat similar to a HSGT. A simple 1c 1s 2s 3s might suffice with say Kxxx Kxx xx KQxx but 3c is a vastly superior descriptor with a holding like Kxxxx xx x Kxxxx. So they 3c bid can be used both to show this type of minimum AND anything else stronger. Again I feel it is worth the extra level of bidding if opener is minimum and prefers to play the minor vs the major (cases especially where they raised with 3 card support to begin with. This allows opener to bid 3s with a min and 4 card support (or in the instance opener is 3433 and no game aspirations) and 4c if the original raise was with 3 cards since there is a large % chance the minor will play better than the major.