3N, 5C or 6C?

[PMetsch]

I assume even in Acol 1c=1nt promises 8Hcp so they can invite with 15hcp yes?

I have an Acol description on my computer which says:

 

1NT response = 6-9 (but after 1♣ slightly stronger)

2♣s = 6-9, 4♣

3♣s = 9-11, 4♣

 

I guess it depends on partnership agreements (as always), but I think an 11-count is just to strong. It's the same thinking as with a 2/1 after a major, which should be made with a hand that wants to be in game opposite a strong no trump. If you bid only 1NT, partner will pass with a balanced 15-count.

[david_c]

I think at one time 1♣:1NT may have shown 8-10 in Acol with a 1♦ bid manufactured on 6-7 bals, but it's certainly not standard now.

Not quite - with a 6-7 hand you were supposed to either bid a 4-card suit at the 1-level or raise to 2♣. We never manufacture anything in Acol :P

 

Still, nowadays everyone seems to play 1NT as denying the values for game opposite a balanced 15-count, just like it does over a 1♥ or 1♠ opening. So that rules out a 1NT bid on this hand, for sure. 3♣ is completely obvious if you're not playing an invitational 2NT; I really don't understand why people don't like the look of it - I mean, I'm no fan of Acol, but these sorts of raises are one of the good parts of the system.

[MickyB]

Never manufacture anything? Acol strong NT had 4cM but was forever opening a short club, and we still have to bid a new suit any time we want to make a forcing bid, unlike these 2/1 ppl :P

 

I can understand why people have a problem with a 3♣ limit raise - It may have the playing strength in NT to be in 3N opposite a flat 15-16, but it is pretty shocking in clubs compared to some 3145 10 or 11 counts that would have to make the same bid. My pard has asked me a couple of times if we can play inverted minors, maybe I should give in...

[david_c]

Never manufacture anything? Acol strong NT had 4cM but was forever opening a short club, and we still have to bid a new suit any time we want to make a forcing bid,

Sounds like a dangerous modern idea to me. You wouldn't want to try anything like this at the club where I learnt to play - if you bid a new suit in order to make a forcing bid, you will be passed out :P Well, OK, if it's a jump bid, you might get away with it ...

[MickyB]

Even 1H:2D, 2H:3C? Doh...

 

What about if you think for a while then make the bid while looking thoughtful?

[david_c]

Even 1H:2D, 2H:3C? Doh...

"I don't understand - if you want to bid game, why didn't you bid 5♣?"

 

Seriously, if you put one of the older members of my club in this position, and they have a minimum hand with maybe four clubs, they will pass some days of the week. Admittedly, this has less to do with the fact that we play Acol, and more to do with the fact that they don't understand the game.

[toothbrush]

I would have bid 1NT :) :)

Playing ACOL, you are too strong for 1NT B)

My hand for the limit raise was Qxx Kxx AJx Jxxx.

 

Well you may right. My partner always has:

 

AXX=XXXX=X=AKXXX or less so I do not want to get up high with these partners.

 

So over 2nt we are stuck.

 

I assume even in Acol 1c=1nt promises 8Hcp so they can invite with 15hcp yes?

I think in acol 1NT over 1♣ shows about 8-10hcp with about a 4333 (certain no 4M), so 2NT like 11-12hcp and the same distribution, and that's what you have. If opener has a minimal opening with 5♣ he can always bid 3♣, but if he has good values he should bid 3NT.

With what else can one bid immediately 2NT? You cannot have a 4card M, but you should have SOMETHING in those majors, else opps can have a lot of fun...

Immediately 3♣ then shows a more ♣-oriented hand, that's why people play inverted minors. It's nice when you can bid 3♣ with a weak hand and a 6card ♣. If opener invites next, it's first to find game and not immediately slam.

[mr1303]

AS I've said many times before, there's an easy solution to this problem. Don't play Acol.

 

Weak NT only works sensibly with a limited opening system. Relatively unlimited opening systems have the problem with having to make 2/1s on completely unsuitable hands to avoid missing the 16 opposite good 8-9 3NT. Thus making 1X 2Y 2X NF, which is revolting and leads to silly contracts.

[mr1303]

And another thing: Baron 2NT should have died out in the middle ages. Don't reinvent that most shocking of conventions. It's one thing using it as a balanced game force (13-15 or thereabouts), using it as 16+ AND BALANCED WITHOUT A MAJOR is a waste of a bid.

[mike777]

I think my hand is "about 8-10 hcp" and as I said before my partners have poor unbalanced 10-13 on these auctions never the strong nt type hand. You guys play with better partners.

[reisig]

I'd bid 3♠ - planning on 4♥ next ...so partner can easily judge I'm headed toward slam and "know" where the problem is. Also - when I bypass a cue and later cue bid that suit ...I show 2 cues in 1st suit and one in second suit.

[toothbrush]

I think my hand is "about 8-10 hcp" and as I said before my partners have poor unbalanced 10-13 on these auctions never the strong nt type hand. You guys play with better partners.

There are many reasons why a weak 1♣-opening in 3rd hand should be based on GOOD clubs:

1) it doesn't take any space away for opps (it takes away the 1♣-bid but it gives a DBL-possibility

2) it should show a good lead for partner, so if opps get to 3NT and partner has to choose between a ♥KQxxx and ♣xxx, he can start ♣!

3) if the opener has a fair 4card Major with his 5card ♣, it should be seriously considered to open the major because it has a more preemptive value, e.g. with ♥KQJx and ♣Axxxx I would open 1♥ in third hand and not 1♣

 

If my parner would often open 1♣ with some poor unbalanced 10-13 I look for another partner.

[MickyB]

And another thing: Baron 2NT should have died out in the middle ages. Don't reinvent that most shocking of conventions. It's one thing using it as a balanced game force (13-15 or thereabouts), using it as 16+ AND BALANCED WITHOUT A MAJOR is a waste of a bid.

It doesn't deny a major.

 

But yes, I don't like it either - unfortunately my two most regular partners do! I'd play it as split range bal GF (12-15 or 18-19, or something similar), so the same problem would still exist on this hand.