[gordontd]

cardsharp, on Dec 19 2009, 12:16 PM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Dec 19 2009, 10:26 AM, said:

2♦ is fine in the UK where it's forcing, and probably my choice of rebid. Not sure how forcing it is in the US. I can now bid 3♣ over the likely 2♥ to show a big hand. If partner does pass 2♦, he will have something that wasn't really a response with short hearts Qxxx, x, Qxxx, Jxxx or similar and 2♦ isn't so bad.

2♦ is not forcing in the UK.

Indeed not.

[shintaro]

gordontd, on Dec 19 2009, 06:22 AM, said:

cardsharp, on Dec 19 2009, 12:16 PM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Dec 19 2009, 10:26 AM, said:

2♦ is fine in the UK where it's forcing, and probably my choice of rebid. Not sure how forcing it is in the US. I can now bid 3♣ over the likely 2♥ to show a big hand. If partner does pass 2♦, he will have something that wasn't really a response with short hearts Qxxx, x, Qxxx, Jxxx or similar and 2♦ isn't so bad.

2♦ is not forcing in the UK.

Indeed not.

SNAP gordon

[gwnn]

The_Hog, on Dec 19 2009, 11:10 AM, said:

Isn't this oxymoronic?

Agree, you have to be an ox AND a moron to pass it

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on Dec 19 2009, 06:22 AM, said:

cardsharp, on Dec 19 2009, 12:16 PM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Dec 19 2009, 10:26 AM, said:

2♦ is fine in the UK where it's forcing, and probably my choice of rebid. Not sure how forcing it is in the US. I can now bid 3♣ over the likely 2♥ to show a big hand. If partner does pass 2♦, he will have something that wasn't really a response with short hearts Qxxx, x, Qxxx, Jxxx or similar and 2♦ isn't so bad.

2♦ is not forcing in the UK.

Indeed not.

It's forcing for one round over 1♥-1♠ in every version of acol I've ever played over the last 35 years.

My point above about passing forcing bids was that I normally play a system with no strong bids other than 2♣, so we'll sometimes respond with what's not really a response and settle that we've improved the contract if partner changes suit and we pass a technically forcing bid. We'd certainly bid 1♠ over 1♥ and pass 2♦ with a 4144 4 count, playing in a 4-1 fit sucks.

A better description would be to say we play it as forcing if you actually had a standard response.

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on Dec 20 2009, 03:27 AM, said:

It's forcing for one round over 1♥-1♠ in every version of acol I've ever played over the last 35 years.

That makes it forcing in your partnerships.

This sequence is not widely played as forcing in the UK. Agreeing to play "Acol" certainly implies that it's non-forcing. I would be astonished if you can find any published description of Acol by a British author that says it's forcing.

[gwnn]

huh??? hasn't there been a controversy in acol whether 1♥-2♣; 2♦ is forcing? until maybe 10 years ago?

[Cyberyeti]

gnasher, on Dec 20 2009, 04:52 AM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Dec 20 2009, 03:27 AM, said:

It's forcing for one round over 1♥-1♠ in every version of acol I've ever played over the last 35 years.

That makes it forcing in your partnerships.

This sequence is not widely played as forcing in the UK. Agreeing to play "Acol" certainly implies that it's non-forcing. I would be astonished if you can find any published description of Acol by a British author that says it's forcing.

Interesting, I learned none of my acol from books, all from the very wide variety of people I've played with and around from the Gold cup winners to the complete idiots, and all have played this as forcing. "Change of suit forcing" has seemed to be absolutely standard.

[gnasher]

gwnn, on Dec 20 2009, 10:56 AM, said:

huh??? hasn't there been a controversy in acol whether 1♥-2♣; 2♦ is forcing? until maybe 10 years ago?

In Acol as played by most British tournament players, 1♥-2♣;2♦ has been forcing since some time in the 1980s. 1x-2y;2z is treated differently from 1x-1y;2z, for exactly the same reasons as it's treated differently in Standard American, SEF, and, I imagine, most other natural systems.

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on Dec 20 2009, 12:19 PM, said:

Interesting, I learned none of my acol from books, all from the very wide variety of people I've played with and around from the Gold cup winners to the complete idiots, and all have played this as forcing. "Change of suit forcing" has seemed to be absolutely standard.

Hmm. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there are Gold Cup winners who prefer to play 1♥-1♠;2♦ as forcing, but I'd be very surprised to learn that any of them think it standard.

[pooltuna]

Cyberyeti, on Dec 19 2009, 05:26 AM, said:

2♦ is fine in the UK where it's forcing, and probably my choice of rebid. Not sure how forcing it is in the US. I can now bid 3♣ over the likely 2♥ to show a big hand. If partner does pass 2♦, he will have something that wasn't really a response with short hearts Qxxx, x, Qxxx, Jxxx or similar and 2♦ isn't so bad.

By the methods I play (unusual even here), my choice would be a GF unbalanced 2N or 2♦, 3♦ is 2 good suits but not a great hand, AQJxx, KQ10xx or similar.

if 2♦ is forcing, systemically what does 3♦ show? And if the answer is "stronger than 2♦" , what do you want for your last meal and do you want a blindfold for the firing squad?

[Cyberyeti]

pooltuna, on Dec 20 2009, 09:20 AM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Dec 19 2009, 05:26 AM, said:

2♦ is fine in the UK where it's forcing, and probably my choice of rebid. Not sure how forcing it is in the US. I can now bid 3♣ over the likely 2♥ to show a big hand. If partner does pass 2♦, he will have something that wasn't really a response with short hearts Qxxx, x, Qxxx, Jxxx or similar and 2♦ isn't so bad.

By the methods I play (unusual even here), my choice would be a GF unbalanced 2N or 2♦, 3♦ is 2 good suits but not a great hand, AQJxx, KQ10xx or similar.

if 2♦ is forcing, systemically what does 3♦ show? And if the answer is "stronger than 2♦" , what do you want for your last meal and do you want a blindfold for the firing squad?

Some people play it as a splinter, we play it as 2 good suits, but not necessarily a good hand NF. AQJxx, AJ10xx and out or similar where you have plenty of playing strength and not that much defence. With suits of lesser quality and more defence we bid 2 then 3.