Awkward hand opposite partner's opening

[AL78]

This hand came up at IMP pairs earlier this evening. I was playing with a partner I have not played with since before the pandemic, and she hasn't played for a couple of months so was a bit anxious when we were discussing Lebensohl and multi-Landy earlier in the week.

 

♠AQ862

♥KT98

♦A8

♣93

 

The agreed system is Benji Acol, weak NT.

 

At green vuln, LHO passes, partner opens 1♠, RHO passes. You have not discussed Jacoby 2NT and it isn't on your card. What do you respond?

[DavidKok]

Some people agree to bid 2♣, 2NT or 3NT with this hand type. Which one is appropriate depends on your partnership. I have to bid 2♣.

If you are forced to improvise on the spot 2♥ might work, but I think it is theoretically worse. In particular if the auction goes 1♠-2♥; 3♥-? you are in serious trouble.

 

I once held a slightly worse version: ♠KQxxx, ♥AJx, ♦AJxx, ♣x and partner opened 1♠. This is too strong for our splinters, so I chose 2♦. In the post-mortem partner suggested that 2♣ was better.

[AL78]

Some people agree to bid 2♣, 2NT or 3NT with this hand type. Which one is appropriate depends on your partnership. I have to bid 2♣.

If you are forced to improvise on the spot 2♥ might work, but I think it is theoretically worse. In particular if the auction goes 1♠-2♥; 3♥-? you are in serious trouble.

 

I once held a slightly worse version: ♠KQxxx, ♥AJx, ♦AJxx, ♣x and partner opened 1♠. This is too strong for our splinters, so I chose 2♦. In the post-mortem partner suggested that 2♣ was better.

 

I would have bid 2♦ on that hand, why not show a suit you hold?

 

If you respond 2♣ on my hand, partner raises to 3♣. What now?

[DavidKok]

Now you bid 3♠, to show that you had a hand with spade support, not promising club length.

 

The reason not to bid 2♦ on that hand is that partner will count an extra diamond trick with some support.

[Cyberyeti]

Now you bid 3♠, to show that you had a hand with spade support, not promising club length.

 

The reason not to bid 2♦ on that hand is that partner will count an extra diamond trick with some support.

 

No you don't, that's not forcing in the Acol the OP specified

[AL78]

No you don't, that's not forcing in the Acol the OP specified

 

Yes, at the table I responded 2♣ and jumped to 4♠ opposite the 3♣ response and partner played there.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skj953hadt5cqj862&w=s74hqj64dq6432ct4&n=saq862hkt98da8c93&e=sth7532dkj97cak75&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p1sp2cp3cp4sppp]399|300[/hv]

[Douglas43]

Some people agree to bid 2♣, 2NT or 3NT with this hand type. Which one is appropriate depends on your partnership. I have to bid 2♣.

If you are forced to improvise on the spot 2♥ might work, but I think it is theoretically worse. In particular if the auction goes 1♠-2♥; 3♥-? you are in serious trouble.

 

I once held a slightly worse version: ♠KQxxx, ♥AJx, ♦AJxx, ♣x and partner opened 1♠. This is too strong for our splinters, so I chose 2♦. In the post-mortem partner suggested that 2♣ was better.

 

I would prefer to respond 2♥ as it's more descriptive than bidding a minor. I know 2♥ normally shows five, but where's the harm? If partner raises we can always go back to spades. 1♠-2♥-3♥-3♠ should be forcing in Acol, but with a rusty partner I'd prefer 4♦ or 4♠ over 3♥.

[Cyberyeti]

I would prefer to respond 2♥ as it's more descriptive than bidding a minor. I know 2♥ normally shows five, but where's the harm? If partner raises we can always go back to spades. 1♠-2♥-3♥-3♠ should be forcing in Acol, but with a rusty partner I'd prefer 4♦ or 4♠ over 3♥.

 

The harm is that partner has ♥AQJ counts 5 tricks and contracts for 13 when you only have 12 or 12 when you have 11

[FelicityR]

Hello again. I had to reply as this is an Acol question. Why is your partner opening 1♠ here instead of 1♣? With 5/5 in the black suits I usually open 1♣. There are a few reasons why I would not open 1♠ here: rebidding a poor ♠ suit as my next bid; and if game is on partner will have a better hand than me and you'd want the lead coming up to him/her.

 

It might be acceptable in 2/1 to open 1♠ here, but it doesn't fit well into Acol bidding. Let's say you open 1♠ and partner forces with 3♦ in Acol? What now? It's bad enough rebidding 2♠ after 2♦ but make that a level higher and it becomes impossible to describe your hand accurately.

[DavidKok]

Oh, I missed the Acol. My mistake. I think this hand hits a seam in a lot of methods, but if 2♣ doesn't even establish a game force I don't see the appeal at all. If 2♣ is natural it seems crazy for 1♠-2♣; 3♣-3♠ to be NF - wouldn't responder pass 3♣ with a minimum? Or is 3♣ forcing, but not forcing to game/4m? What contracts can you stop in after that start to the auction?

Also if 1M-2m can be invitational, what does 1M-3m show?

 

Douglas, you are quoting my example hand with 3♥4♦. But I don't like 2♥ for the same reason I don't like 2♦ on my example hand. Also 1♠-2♥; 3♥-3♠ is not an auction I would ever inflict on partner without thorough discussion. Sure, it's GF, but is this a double fit? A cue for hearts? Shorter hearts with delayed spade support? Choice of games, or at least mild SI? A 'picture bid', something like ♠KQ, ♥AKJxx, ♦xxx, ♣xxx? I think partner is never going to suspect 5♠4♥ on that auction.

[Cyberyeti]

Hello again. I had to reply as this is an Acol question. Why is your partner opening 1♠ here instead of 1♣? With 5/5 in the black suits I usually open 1♣. There are a few reasons why I would not open 1♠ here: rebidding a poor ♠ suit as my next bid; and if game is on partner will have a better hand than me and you'd want the lead coming up to him/her.

 

It might be acceptable in 2/1 to open 1♠ here, but it doesn't fit well into Acol bidding. Let's say you open 1♠ and partner forces with 3♦ in Acol? What now? It's bad enough rebidding 2♠ after 2♦ but make that a level higher and it becomes impossible to describe your hand accurately.

 

Old fashioned Acol does indeed open 1♣ on this and I think I would if not playing 2N as a raise. Playing 2N as a raise, I'd open it 1♠.

[AL78]

Hello again. I had to reply as this is an Acol question. Why is your partner opening 1♠ here instead of 1♣? With 5/5 in the black suits I usually open 1♣. There are a few reasons why I would not open 1♠ here: rebidding a poor ♠ suit as my next bid; and if game is on partner will have a better hand than me and you'd want the lead coming up to him/her.

 

It might be acceptable in 2/1 to open 1♠ here, but it doesn't fit well into Acol bidding. Let's say you open 1♠ and partner forces with 3♦ in Acol? What now? It's bad enough rebidding 2♠ after 2♦ but make that a level higher and it becomes impossible to describe your hand accurately.

 

I wouldn't worry about what to do if I bid 3♦. Firstly, it has been years since I ever had a hand suitable for a strong jump shift after partner has opened. Secondly, make the two of clubs the two of hearts and you'd open 1♠ and have the same problem. Is there not a risk of missing a 5-3 spade fit if you open 1♣ and opponents decide to overcall in a red suit, and opening 1♣ makes it easier for them to do that?

[pescetom]

Old fashioned Acol does indeed open 1♣ on this and I think I would if not playing 2N as a raise. Playing 2N as a raise, I'd open it 1♠.

 

Playing 2♣ as a semi-artificial GF raise (as we do) I would also open it 1♠ and then raise clubs.

We would then bid comfortably to 4♠, with North knowing that I control hearts but not the minors.

 

I'm curious to know how things would develop after an Acol 1♣ here?

[Cyberyeti]

 

I'm curious to know how things would develop after an Acol 1♣ here?

 

1♣-1♠

2/3♠ and you will end up in 4♠ once you realise nobody has a club control if you don't get there fast.

 

I haven't bid like that for a while, 1♠-2N would be our start (high card raise to 3 or better, unlimited)

[pescetom]

1♣-1♠

2/3♠ and you will end up in 4♠ once you realise nobody has a club control if you don't get there fast.

 

I haven't bid like that for a while, 1♠-2N would be our start (high card raise to 3 or better, unlimited)

 

And if it was slightly different, how would you proceed in either scheme?

[hv=pc=n&s=skj953hadt5cqj862&w=s74hqj64dq643ct43&n=saq862hkt98da82c9&e=sth7532dkj97cak75&d=e&v=0&b=14]399|300[/hv]

 

We would start as before, but now North no longer stops in game:

1♠ 2♣

3♣ 3♠

4♥ 4NT

5♥ 6♠

p

 

North could also splinter, but is a bit too heavy for our style.

[Cyberyeti]

And if it was slightly different, how would you proceed in either scheme?

[hv=pc=n&s=skj953hadt5cqj862&w=s74hqj64dq643ct43&n=saq862hkt98da82c9&e=sth7532dkj97cak75&d=e&v=0&b=14]399|300[/hv]

 

We would start as before, but now North no longer stops in game:

1♠ 2♣

3♣ 3♠

4♥ 4NT

5♥ 6♠

p

 

And how would your auction differ if the S hand was 5134 with the same high cards ?

[akwoo]

The lack of a game forcing major suit raise is probably the biggest hole in Acol. There's a reason that 1M-3M is game forcing in Goren. 1M-3M became limit in Standard American *after* the widespread adoption of Jacoby 2N.

 

Playing Goren with the original hand with the A♠ replaced by a low spade has the same problem, except 4♠ is not quite as terrible since, with the weaker hand, slam is much less likely given partner couldn't manage a Benji 2♣ (or am I confusing Benji with reverse Benji?)

[pescetom]

And how would your auction differ if the S hand was 5134 with the same high cards ?

 

The hand would now be too weak to raise clubs (the original hand is borderline already given the minimal HCP, but the shape narrowly clinches it) and S would have to rebid 2♠, over which N will probably signoff in 4♠.