Posted 2007-June-27, 09:24
I blame West.
2N was a natural, limited invitational bid.
West has to be allowed to bid 3♣ to play, when west realizes that game is out of reach and his hand is ill-suited for 2N. Give West something like x AKJx Jx QJTxxx, and do we really want to be playing 2N on these cards?
3♣ here is a sign of weakness... not a choice of games.
Maybe we can construct a hand on which, opposite a responder who announces ♦ length, spade values and 10 to a bad 12 hcp, we want to offer a choice of a 9 trick notrump contract or an 11 or 12 trick ♣ contract, but I think we'd have a tough time... and it is far, far easier to construct hands on which west needs to run away from 2N.
Deciding whether 3♣ is best played forcing or weak is a matter of frequency of use, and degree of utility.
We HAVE to have it weak when we need it weak... at mps it will be critical, since all boards count equally. At imps, it is not quite as critical, but the 5-7 imps part-score swings can kill you even if you get the big decisions right.
When we have the strong hand, it will be both relatively infrequent, and we will usually (not always) break even in that 3N will usually work well even if 5♣ is theoretically better, and when slam is possible, we can usually bid beyond 3N (over 2N) with safety.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari