Question about 3...d3 in Smith-Morra

Why should you prefer a bad move (3...d5) to a good one (3...d3) ?

After 3...d5 4.ed5 Qxd5 5.cd4 it's an Alapin Sicilian, where Black has prematurely (and quite wrongly) swapped pawns on d4, allowing white the luxury of Nc3.

LOL, wow pfren, you're right, they were blitz games on ICC (I thought they were standard time controls games). Hmmmm, maybe 3. ...d3 isn't so horrid (white still seems better...... The position after 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cd4 3. c3 d3 4. Bd3 Nc6 is sort of like 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 g6 5. c4.... Except the bishop is on d3, the knight is on g1, and it's white's move. Not sure if this helps or hurts white!)

In my own opinion i think refusing the gambit goes away from the theory of smith mora gambit ive never had any problem transposing from the smith mora gambit to the alapin variation

I find it funny, that advocates of a bad opening love to analyse bad moves (3...d3 +=/=, 3...Nf6 +=/= (alapin main line), 3...d5 +/-), while dxc3 is equal only if white plays with a great accuracy

In my opening book it states in the alapin variation d5 push with exd5 ends whites hopes of constructing an ideal centre

Accepting the pawn is not better than 3...Nf6 (quite equal, with chances for both sides), and more than that, with 3...Nf6 Black kills two birds with one shot.

yes 3...Nf6 is equal and comfortable, simply because the alapin is not the best way to meet the sicilian. 3...dxc3 and white struggles to even equalize. it's like the king's gambit, white hopes for 2...Bc5 or 2...d5 but after exf4, white should think about equalizing !! (with white at move 2). it reminds me kosten's book about the latvian gambit. during the 200 first pages, he gives the refutation of all white suboptimal moves, then says why the latvian is refuted in just 1 page