[AL78]

---

MPs playing Acol weak NT. I took the double as do something intelligent rather than strictly penalties and I reasoned that partner didn't have a robust heart stop else would have bid 3NT, hence we are not getting a big enough penalty if we have game on so decided to bid my long suit again (maybe I could have bid 4♣ instead). As it happens partner has the ♥A and eight outside tricks so 3NT is there but so is 5♦. How should we have bid this?

[DavidKok]

West's bidding is OK, though I would have introduced the clubs on the second round or, failing that, on the third round.
East took a very dim view of the auction. Generally with a nice 12 points facing an opening it pays to force to game. When partner voluntarily rebid the diamonds East's Kxx are massive and scream that the suit is likely to run in 3NT. The double is misguided - the opponents likely have 8 or 9 hearts, so partner probably bid with heart shortness and won't produce a stopper. Failing to bid on over 4♦ is a clear mistake, East's hand has only gone up in value for a diamond contract.

I think in this partnership it pays to agree that 4m is always forcing.

[AL78]

DavidKok, on 2023-August-25, 15:54, said:

West's bidding is OK, though I would have introduced the clubs on the second round or, failing that, on the third round.
East took a very dim view of the auction. Generally with a nice 12 points facing an opening it pays to force to game. When partner voluntarily rebid the diamonds East's Kxx are massive and scream that the suit is likely to run in 3NT. The double is misguided - the opponents likely have 8 or 9 hearts, so partner probably bid with heart shortness and won't produce a stopper. Failing to bid on over 4♦ is a clear mistake, East's hand has only gone up in value for a diamond contract.

I think in this partnership it pays to agree that 4m is always forcing.

Thanks, I agree I should have bid clubs on the third round having shown the diamond length. I thought 3♣ on the second round would be game forcing and I felt I didn't have enough to force to game opposite a 1/1 response.

[apollo1201]

AL78, on 2023-August-25, 17:49, said:

Thanks, I agree I should have bid clubs on the third round having shown the diamond length. I thought 3♣ on the second round would be game forcing and I felt I didn't have enough to force to game opposite a 1/1 response.

Not sure how this is dealt with un Acol but as a general rule, when the auction gets competitive, bids that are « forced » at a level don’t have the same meaning as if unobstructed.

Here, 3C is mandatory with a nice 2-suiter and a not too minimal opening. The more shape, the less points are required. You need to find your fit quickly in case opps bid a high number of tricks in their suit.

So pass with x Qx KJxxx AJxxx but bid 3C (minimal) with xx x KQxxx AQJxx or (maximal) with x Kxx AQxxx KQJx (and obviously X with majors reversed even with a Q or K less).

Up to partnership agreement, stronger hands either X (so the bid no longer promisses a 3-cd support when 17 or 18+) or cue (so the bid not promiss a huge fit in a very strong hand).

As regards your partner, they probably did not appreciate their hand up to its real value (opening facing an opening, no wasted H points facing your presumed shortness, Kxx in your twice repeated suit - even if C should have been introduced earlier). X was a bit useless, it is not penalties and we are not necessarily better if you bid 3S facing that. It is either 5D or an optimistic 4H cue to look for 6.