Forcing? Acol
#1
Posted 2011-April-22, 03:30
1♥-2♣
3♣-3♥
#2
Posted 2011-April-22, 05:26
#3
Posted 2011-April-22, 05:37
Playing a strong notrump, it should clearly be forcing. You wouldn't want to play a 4-3 fit at the three-level, so with a 4-card suit and a 12-count opener would have to bid. If he has to bid game with his most unsuitable hand, we should be happy for him to bid with more suitable hands.
Playing a weak notrump, you could play it as non-forcing and invitational: if opener is munimum, he also has a five-card suit, so it's a playable spot. However, that leaves you with a problem when respnder has a game-force and 3-car support.
#4
Posted 2011-April-22, 05:49
On that basis I thought it should be forcing since opener's hand is narrowly defined in terms of strength. My p meant it as a contract improvement (it was matchpoints).
She had 10 points and found that too strong for an initial 2♥ bid.
#5
Posted 2011-April-22, 13:15
If you play a style where opener has implied 5 hearts by this sequence, it definitely isn't forcing, it's the way responder shows an invitational hand with 3-card support.
p.s. my Acol-style partner and I have recently agreed to play this as forcing (the idea is that once you have a double fit you may as well bid game) but we believe that is nothing like standard.
#6
Posted 2011-April-22, 13:41
There was also this one (not discussed with this partner but with some of the better Acol players in Lancaster):
1♠-2♣
2♥-2NT
3♠
which I wasn't sure about but since the auction op to and including 2NT means the same in Acol as in SAYC (ok, 1♠ and 2♣ don´t mean the same but after the second round the situation is the same), and since it is forcing in SAYC, I would think it was forcing in Acol also. But yeah, there seems to be a general principle in Acol that bidding an "old" suit without a jump is never forcing.
What do you think? Is 3♠ non-forcing for better Acol players? In Lancaster they didn't think so.
#7
Posted 2011-April-22, 13:52
Be interested to see any good quality player, recorded hand where this auction was passed.
I've seen people who would pass 3C
(and I had a surprised conversation with them long enough ago to be the stone age).
I've not met the hand that passes 3H in this auction, so far (ignoring the usual result needed).
#8
Posted 2011-April-22, 14:04
So I wouldn't say that you can always bid game in this sequence. It is just that I thought it was analogous to
1♥-1♠
3♥-3♠
where 3♠, although it is an old suit without a jump and although you could hold hands that would like to bid 3♠ NF, it is forcing.
#9
Posted 2011-April-22, 14:17
helene_t, on 2011-April-22, 14:04, said:
So I wouldn't say that you can always bid game in this sequence. It is just that I thought it was analogous to
1♥-1♠
3♥-3♠
where 3♠, although it is an old suit without a jump and although you could hold hands that would like to bid 3♠ NF, it is forcing.
Not sure, that was the point of my conversation with reasonable players about passing 3C.
If 3C says 'I'm minimum, pass with a minimum', these natural limit bid players bid what to move on?
Bear in mind that people in the stone age had their thinking influenced by rubber scoring. That doesn't mean serious players didn't understand MP and IMP scoring.
#10
Posted 2011-April-22, 18:07
gnasher, on 2011-April-22, 05:37, said:
According to Squire's Theory of Bidding, the sequence 1♠-2♣-3♣-3♠ is not forcing. I have the second (1979) edition so I don't know if this was in the first edition. Anyway I think it should be forcing but would not be 100% confident of this if undiscussed.
#11
Posted 2011-April-23, 02:08
helene_t, on 2011-April-22, 13:41, said:
There was also this one (not discussed with this partner but with some of the better Acol players in Lancaster):
1♠-2♣
2♥-2NT
3♠
which I wasn't sure about but since the auction op to and including 2NT means the same in Acol as in SAYC (ok, 1♠ and 2♣ don´t mean the same but after the second round the situation is the same), and since it is forcing in SAYC, I would think it was forcing in Acol also. But yeah, there seems to be a general principle in Acol that bidding an "old" suit without a jump is never forcing.
What do you think? Is 3♠ non-forcing for better Acol players? In Lancaster they didn't think so.
That one looks non-forcing to me as well, a weak 6-4. If I had a game force I would bid 3D (fourth suit) over 2NT.
The only slightly odd one is that 1S - 2C - 2D - 2NT - 3S feels forcing now, although similarly it never would have been. With spades and hearts you will always show both suits; with 6 spades and 4 diamonds and a weak hand, you might well not bother to show the diamonds (particularly back in the days when 2D was non-forcing).
#12
Posted 2011-April-23, 02:10
helene_t, on 2011-April-22, 14:04, said:
So I wouldn't say that you can always bid game in this sequence. It is just that I thought it was analogous to
1♥-1♠
3♥-3♠
where 3♠, although it is an old suit without a jump and although you could hold hands that would like to bid 3♠ NF, it is forcing.
Well, in old-fashioned Acol that one is non-forcing as well (and I've seen people have this sequence and pass 3S).
You are right that most Acol players nowadays have an agreed exception to the general rule and play this as forcing - but this is an exception to Acol principles, rather than a standard.
#13
Posted 2011-April-23, 02:12
AlexJonson, on 2011-April-22, 13:52, said:
Be interested to see any good quality player, recorded hand where this auction was passed.
I've already said that until very recently I played this sequence as non-forcing. If I tried I could probably find an example from BBO vugraph from the premier league (though I am not going to try).
#14
Posted 2011-April-23, 02:39
FrancesHinden, on 2011-April-23, 02:08, said:
The only slightly odd one is that 1S - 2C - 2D - 2NT - 3S feels forcing now, although similarly it never would have been. With spades and hearts you will always show both suits; with 6 spades and 4 diamonds and a weak hand, you might well not bother to show the diamonds (particularly back in the days when 2D was non-forcing).
Ah right, they use FSF by opener here also. In SA,
1♠-2♣
2♥-2NT
3♦
would be natural 5440 (not sure if it is forcing, LOL).
Last week, another partner passed me in
1♠-2♣
2♦-3♦
3♠
which I meant as forcing but presumably I should have bid 3♥ (FSF) here also. I thought 3♠ here should show better spades than 3♥, happy to be raised to 4♠ on a singleton jack or something. But I could have bid 3♥ anyway, if he then bid 4♦ I could bid 4♠.
#15
Posted 2011-April-23, 02:52
1♠-(2♣)-2♦-(pass)
2♥-a.p.
was a sequence I saw by two GIBs, although the 2♥ bid was explained as unlimited so the final pass might have been anti-system. I was surprised to see this since it would be forcing in modern Acol so surely it should be forcing in any 2/1 system as well! Lawrence wrote that a 2/1 response over an overcall does not promise a second bid but even so I would expect this to be forcing for all 2/1 players. OTOH there are tons of other auctions, such as the ones discussed in this thread, the forcing character of which I would be unsure of if there had been an overcall in between.
#16
Posted 2011-April-23, 04:09
helene_t, on 2011-April-22, 03:30, said:
1♥-2♣
3♣-3♥
A limit bid would go through 1♥ 3♥, not worth going through ♣ !!!
#18
Posted 2011-April-23, 04:17
gnasher, on 2011-April-22, 05:37, said:
Playing a strong notrump, it should clearly be forcing. You wouldn't want to play a 4-3 fit at the three-level, so with a 4-card suit and a 12-count opener would have to bid. If he has to bid game with his most unsuitable hand, we should be happy for him to bid with more suitable hands.
Playing a weak notrump, you could play it as non-forcing and invitational: if opener is munimum, he also has a five-card suit, so it's a playable spot. However, that leaves you with a problem when respnder has a game-force and 3-car support.
please, can you verify Crowhurst..... if non forcing, what were his reasons ?
Stong or weak NT: the inviting goes trough 1♥ 3♥: no need to mention ♣
#19
Posted 2011-April-23, 04:21
Cyberyeti, on 2011-April-23, 04:16, said:
English Acol, this can easily be a 4 card suit for the opener.
Right !
Indeed, the suggested sequence, is clearly inviting, now that we discovered the 5-3 fit.
#20
Posted 2011-April-23, 12:56
We do play
1♠ 2♥
3♥ 3♠
as forcing. In fact it is a cuebid for hearts. We have a general rule after we have found a major suit we don't look for another fit unless we go to slam.
After
1M 2m
3m ...
3M = non force
3other = primarily a NT try but can be an advanced cue usually for the minor
4m = sets trumps and slammish
4om = too good for 4M
4M = to play
I believe that the USA currently hold only the World Championship For People Who Still Bid Like Your Auntie Gladys - dburn
dunno how to play 4 card majors - JLOGIC
True but I know Standard American and what better reason could I have for playing Precision? - Hideous Hog
Bidding is an estimation of probabilities SJ Simon