Help
You play strong jump shifts and Acol, so:
1. 1♦-1♠-2♦-2♠ is to play
2. 1♦-1♠-2♦-3♣. Is this a game force or just forcing to 3♦?
3. Then 1♦-1♠-2♦-3♣-3♦-3♠. Is this stronger than:
4. 1♦-1♠-2♦-3♠?
Identical or different in Standard?
Page 1 of 1
Acol sequences Identical or different in Standard
#1
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 925
- Joined: 2004-September-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:England
- Interests:I have discovered that the water cooler is a chrono-synclastic infundibulum
Posted 2015-January-03, 12:54
May 2003: Mission accomplished
Oct 2006: Mission impossible
Soon: Mission illegal
Oct 2006: Mission impossible
Soon: Mission illegal
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,611
- Joined: 2009-September-15
- Gender:Female
- Location:London
Posted 2015-January-03, 13:06
Wackojack, on 2015-January-03, 12:54, said:
You play strong jump shifts and Acol, so:
1. 1♦-1♠-2♦-2♠ is to play
2. 1♦-1♠-2♦-3♣. Is this a game force or just forcing to 3♦?
3. Then 1♦-1♠-2♦-3♣-3♦-3♠. Is this stronger than:
4. 1♦-1♠-2♦-3♠?
Identical or different in Standard?
1. 1♦-1♠-2♦-2♠ is to play
2. 1♦-1♠-2♦-3♣. Is this a game force or just forcing to 3♦?
3. Then 1♦-1♠-2♦-3♣-3♦-3♠. Is this stronger than:
4. 1♦-1♠-2♦-3♠?
Identical or different in Standard?
1. To play potentially. It is constructive
2. GF
3,4. Yes, because 3 is GF
Sorry I can't answer your last question because I have no idea what you mean by "Standard". If you mean "Standard American", this is a pretty loosely-defined system and answers will probably vary.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
#3
- AQT92 AQ --- QJ6532
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,840
- Joined: 2009-September-09
- Gender:Male
- Location:Wellington, NZ
Posted 2015-January-03, 13:57
2 is GF, 3 is a slam try and 4 is INV
ahydra
ahydra
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,091
- Joined: 2009-May-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:Kent (Near London)
Posted 2015-January-03, 15:19
I also like to play sequence 1 as constructive. If so, you can agree to play sequence 4 as forcing - this would need prior discussion. Sequences 2 and 3 are game forcing.
#5
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,091
- Joined: 2009-May-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:Kent (Near London)
Posted 2015-January-03, 15:34
The sequence 1D-1H-2D-2H should definitely be constructive. The 2D rebid promises a 6-card suit so there is little need for a weak 2H bid.
It is less clear when the response is spades (opener might have 5 diamonds and 4 hearts for the 2 diamond rebid, in which case 2S as a weak bid is reasonable), but I still like to play it as constructive.
It is less clear when the response is spades (opener might have 5 diamonds and 4 hearts for the 2 diamond rebid, in which case 2S as a weak bid is reasonable), but I still like to play it as constructive.
#6
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,611
- Joined: 2009-September-15
- Gender:Female
- Location:London
Posted 2015-January-03, 15:41
ahydra, on 2015-January-03, 13:57, said:
2 is GF, 3 is a slam try and 4 is INV
ahydra
ahydra
2 and 3 are the same though; why are you differentiating between the two?
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
#7
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,091
- Joined: 2009-May-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:Kent (Near London)
Posted 2015-January-03, 15:48
The sequence 1D-1H-2D-2H should definitely be constructive. The 2D rebid promises a 6-card suit so there is little need for a weak 2H bid.
It is less clear when the response is spades (opener might have 5 diamonds and 4 hearts for the 2 diamond rebid, in which case 2S as a weak bid is reasonable), but I still like to play it as constructive.
It is less clear when the response is spades (opener might have 5 diamonds and 4 hearts for the 2 diamond rebid, in which case 2S as a weak bid is reasonable), but I still like to play it as constructive.
Page 1 of 1