Chess: Opening Analysis Question

[Will Durant]

I was playing with my wife last night, and the game proceeded as follows:

1. d4 d5
2. c4 dc (my wife never met a gambit pawn she didn't like)
3. Nf3 (book)

Now my wife responded 3....Nc6. She proceeded to win in the middle game thanks to a couple of serious blunders on my part.

My question is about 3....Nc6. I know that the main line is 3....Nf6, and that on general principle 3....Nc6 is bad since in the Queen's Gambit, Black wants to play c5 if at all possible, but in my post-game analysis I couldn't find any specific refutation of my wife's move. I looked in all the opening books and could not even find it mentioned.

* MCO13 discusses c5 and a6.
* BCO2 discusses c5 and a6, and mentions Bg4, e6 and Nd7 in the footnotes.
* ECO2 has a section devoted to a6. It also discusses Bg4, c5, e6 and Nd7, and mentions b5? and c6 (transposing to the Slav) in the footnotes.
* A book by Ludek Pachman which I own in Spanish (I believe it does not exist in English translation) discusses a6, Bg4 and c6, and has a footnote on c5.
* Chess Openings Theory and Practive discusses a6 and has footnotes on Bg4, c5 and b5.

Is 3....Nc6 so bad that it does not even warrant mentioning? Is there an obvious refutation which I am overlooking?

:-?

[Macroman]

I think it's a variation on what's called the Chigorin Defense. Supposedly there have been a few GMs to play it with favorable results, but not many. Most of the analysis you see is for what GMs play most of the time.

Obviously if you lost the d pawn without compensation you could have played it better. e3 or e4 and d5 at some point both of which would support the d pawn seem like good candidates.

GMs don't play this much because they know that an opponent relying on general principles and a little knowledge of the opening will be able to obtain a good position.

[Will Durant]

Obviously if you lost the d pawn without compensation you could have played it better. e3 or e4 and d5 at some point both of which would support the d pawn seem like good candidates.
Not sure if you mean c pawn. (I definitely did not lose my d pawn in the game.)

:-?

Not sure what I wrote that gave the impression that I lost the pawn. My wife did not attempt to hold on to the gambit pawn (she's tried b5 in past games and has learned that the pawn should be not be held). But she did get a good (at least even) position out of the opening, as I was unable to exact any advantage out of 3....Nc6 (which I still consider bad). I was just wondering if there were any thoughts out there on outright refutation of this move.

[Jonas Grumby]

How weird is that? I can't find the move anywhere, not even online. But I don't see an obvious refutation, as white I'd do something like Nc3 and e4, but I'm not seeing any problem for black.

[edited] Actually, what about just d5? The knight has to go somewhere awkward now, like back to b8.

[Will Durant]

I didn't play 4. d5 because I was thinking my wife had 4....Nb4 (I overlooked 5.Qa4+).

It still seems somewhat odd that something like 3....b5 which is clearly poor is footnoted in ECO, so one would think that 3....Nc6 would get some kind of mention.

[Jonas Grumby]

There's some laziness in opening books in that they go with moves actually played. So some lucky loser guaranteed himself immortality by playing b5, but I guess no fool has gone down yet with Nc6.