[kieran c]

(My background is Acol, assume 4card Majors)
Auction goes
1♣:1♠,
2♣:2♥,
2♠....is this showing 3card spade support or just "preference" with 2spades?
If this is showing 3card support, would 2NT guarantee ♦ stop?

[helene_t]

Just preference. 2NT shows a diamond stop.

[Zelandakh]

Not sure it guarantees much of a stop. What would you do with a 1345 holding ♦5432?

[kieran c]

Zelandakh, on 2014-September-04, 04:28, said:

Not sure it guarantees much of a stop. What would you do with a 1345 holding ♦5432?

I suppose least bad bid...

So 3♣ would show no 3♠s, no♦stop, 6♣s?

I can find no reference in the books for the initial question of 3card support v preference with 2...any help?

[barmar]

I think the normal expectation is that 2♠ shows 3 spades, but there are times when you might have to bid it with only 2 as the best lie.

[whereagles]

kieran, this may depend on whether

1♣ 1♠
2♣ 2♦

is forcing/artificial or not. If it is, then 2♠ might be a mere preference. Otherwise I would say opener should have 3 spades.

Odds must favour 3 cards.. still, in doubt I wouldn't assume 3 unless I really had to.

[wank]

this is very much a national style issue. for example, everyone i know in england at a decent standard raises directly on 3 on the vast majority of unbalanced hands with a minimum (yes, despite the 6 card suit), 2S here is perforce a doubleton. in some countries this is considered very very odd.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

assuming 2H showed inv. values or better, and is forcing.

If opener has 3 card support, ... I would assume he bids 3S,
opening bid, 8+ major fit, limited opener.
hence 2S is not real supp., 2NT showes a min, but a stopper,
3C would show 6+ clubs and at most spade single.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[blackshoe]

wank, on 2014-September-05, 08:52, said:

this is very much a national style issue. for example, everyone i know in england at a decent standard raises directly on 3 on the vast majority of unbalanced hands with a minimum (yes, despite the 6 card suit), 2S here is perforce a doubleton. in some countries this is considered very very odd.

Two is an odd number?

[fromageGB]

Zelandakh, on 2014-September-04, 04:28, said:

Not sure it guarantees much of a stop. What would you do with a 1345 holding ♦5432?

Pass, of course, unless that 2♥ was forcing. Have to ask an acol player. If it was, 3♥ with a minimum open. Support is usually the best option with 3 card major support and an outside shortage.

[PhilKing]

fromageGB, on 2014-September-06, 13:44, said:

Pass, of course, unless that 2♥ was forcing. Have to ask an acol player. If it was, 3♥ with a minimum open. Support is usually the best option with 3 card major support and an outside shortage.

It's comments such as this that give Acol a bad name.

[whereagles]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-05, 15:11, said:

Two is an odd number?

yes.. it's and odd number because it's the only even number that's prime

[Nabooba]

whereagles, on 2014-September-07, 04:42, said:

yes.. it's and odd number because it's the only even number that's prime

[SteveMoe]

Zelandakh, on 2014-September-04, 04:28, said:

Not sure it guarantees much of a stop. What would you do with a 1345 holding ♦5432?

1NT?

[mgoetze]

SteveMoe, on 2014-September-07, 17:33, said:

1NT?

In some countries that would be considered very very odd.

[rhm]

kieran c, on 2014-September-04, 13:58, said:

I suppose least bad bid...

So 3♣ would show no 3♠s, no♦stop, 6♣s?

I can find no reference in the books for the initial question of 3 card support v preference with 2...any help?

For me it is a strange concept that a simple preference should show 3 card support, even in a 2/1 concept.
Here, with a good hand in context and 3 card support I would jump to 3♠
I am unlikely to rebid clubs in the first place when I have three card spade support.
I am more likely to give false preference with 2♠=3♥=2♦=6♣ than holding 3 card support.
With 1♠-3♥=4♦=5♣ I am unlikely to rebid 2♣. I would rebid 1NT.
Rebidding a minor should show six cards with few exceptions.

There is a sound principle for optimal information exchange, which is the most important objective in constructive bidding:
Cheap bids should be unspecific and cover a wide range of hands while higher bids should be specific.
Good system agreements should not violate this principle.
The reason is simple: Over cheap bids there is bidding room left to refine your hands further.
For example over a 1NT rebid there are various forms of checkback, which can also be tweaked to show unbalanced hands with a singleton spade.
Over a minor suit rebid there is no checkback.

Claiming that a 1NT rebid over 1♠ (cheapest bid) should not be done with a singleton spade and forcing you to rebid a 5 card minor instead (more expensive) violates this principle.
Saying that a 2♠ preference over 2♥ (cheapest rebid) should show 3 card support also violates this principle (too specific).

Rainer Herrmann

[kieran c]

rhm, on 2014-September-08, 01:49, said:

For me it is a strange concept that a simple preference should show 3 card support, even in a 2/1 concept.
Here, with a good hand in context and 3 card support I would jump to 3♠
I am unlikely to rebid clubs in the first place when I have three card spade support.
I am more likely to give false preference with 2♠=3♥=2♦=6♣ than holding 3 card support.
With 1♠-3♥=4♦=5♣ I am unlikely to rebid 2♣. I would rebid 1NT.
Rebidding a minor should show six cards with few exceptions.

There is a sound principle for optimal information exchange, which is the most important objective in constructive bidding:
Cheap bids should be unspecific and cover a wide range of hands while higher bids should be specific.
Good system agreements should not violate this principle.
The reason is simple: Over cheap bids there is bidding room left to refine your hands further.
For example over a 1NT rebid there are various forms of checkback, which can also be tweaked to show unbalanced hands with a singleton spade.
Over a minor suit rebid there is no checkback.

Claiming that a 1NT rebid over 1♠ (cheapest bid) should not be done with a singleton spade and forcing you to rebid a 5 card minor instead (more expensive) violates this principle.
Saying that a 2♠ preference over 2♥ (cheapest rebid) should show 3 card support also violates this principle (too specific).

Rainer Herrmann

Thanks to all for their very constructive input. You have reinforced my initial impression that 2♠ by opener does not guarantee 3 card support and for sure shows a minimum hand, given the availability of 3♠ to show 3 card ♠ support and (perhaps) better than minimum hand, 2NT to show ♦ stop and minimum hand, and 3♣ to show a hand only good for ♣..minimum 6.

I particularly like the idea that opener with 3♠s should raise responder's 1♠ to 2♠ in preference to rebidding 2♣. Ron Klinger recommends this (p8 "Guide to better Acol bridge"...the blue book, and p71 "Understandiing the uncontested auction"). If so, then supporting ♠ only at second oppurtunity suggests 2 only.

Thanks again all

[fromageGB]

kieran c, on 2014-September-09, 12:21, said:

... given the availability of 3♠ to show 3 card ♠ support and (perhaps) better than minimum hand...

I think what 3♠ shows depends on the strength of the 2♥ bid. If this has to be invitational strength, then perhaps 3♠ is game forcing, because a weak opener with 3 spades could bid just 2♠, the same as he would with a doubleton. On the other hand, if 2♥ could be weaker than that, then the jump to 3♠ would be an invitation with a stronger hand.

For opener's first rebid, I would say it was normal to bid 2♣ with a 3226 shape, but 2♠ with a 3xx5. But others may have a different view on normality.