Lurpoa

♥ It is all over folks ! ♥

deleted

♥♥♥ I would say: "Indeed !" ♥♥♥

♥♥♥ Agreed, you could play it like that. Better have agreed on that possibiliity with partner; to avoid play in the 3-3 fit. When I play Acol with grandpa, it is always 4 5, and we play it as one round forcing. Supporting the second color is a proposal to play in the 43fit. Why is it that the experts, at least in SAYC, insist to play it as a game force ? And even, when, as you suggest; it could be a 3 card, why should this be now game force ? It could be simply an invite to 2NT (other possiblites are: opener rebid his color or our first colr as a proposal to end the bidding). ♥♥♥

♥♥♥ I really do not understand what you are trying to say. The responder reverse is essentially done with unbalanced hands: 5 4...s ♥♥♥

XX

♥♥♥ Yes, Thank you ♥♥♥

♥♥♥ Right ! But comming back to my question... Is that really the best treatment ? as all experts tell me... and why ? up to now, somebody volunteered "for the sake of simplicity", and why not ? But is that the only reason, tghat all the experts agree to play the responder's reverse as GF ? ♥♥♥

♥♥♥ Desperate Housewifes are on again... ♥♥♥

♥♥♥ something to say for that.... and indeed, limit-bidding was a cornerstone of the early Acol system.... I learned Benji-Acol from my grandpa...So this is probably why a lot of Acol players will consider a reponder reverse as only one round forcing.... But you clearly think, as most experts, that in SAYC it is GF. Does everybody agree with that ? ♥♥♥

♥♥♥ You seem to confirm that in Acol those responder reverses are often played as only inviting... Why would it be thatin SAYC the experts advice against such a treatment ???? ♥♥♥

♥♥♥ A Responder's reverse is best played as game forcing. That is what all experts seem to agree on. I am trying to understand the reason for that. Can you just not play it as one round forcing ? Or to 2NT ? Is this statement true for all natural systems ? SAYC ? 2/1 ? Acol ? I have to say that playing Acol, different variations, I always was teached, that the Responder's reverse was only 1round forcing, and that opener had to bid his full hand. Any opinions on this ? Many thanks. ♥♥♥

♥♥♥ Yes, a very good idea. How will your partner understand this double ? ♥♥♥

♥♥♥ Yes, indeed, a worthwhile discussion. And you certainly you should have agreed on the continuations with your partner. Note that most of the better system descriptions are giving good advice on this (cfr SAY or BWS2001) ♥♥♥

♥♥♥ Right you are. ♥♥♥

♥♥♥ Yes, very good agreement. All pairs should discuss that kind of sequences....... ♥♥♥

♦ ?

♥♥♥ You should have asked at the table. ♥♥♥

♥♥♥ That is about right..... Those are the Basics, and "open 4card major" is a result of that. Also what you said about sitting down with partner to agree, is right for whatever system you play. Right ?! ♥♥♥

♥♥♥ Yes, but you are talking about standard ENGLISH acol. Please Google it. In Basic Dutch Acol, the 1NTopener = 15-17. ♥♥♥

♥♥♥ no, 4♦, to ask for ♥A, and then 4♠, to ask for ♠A. :rolleyes: ♥♥♥

Two good points :rolleyes: ♥♥

♥♥♥ Oh Oh, my dear ♥, Tell us why please... Not Olympia here. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif ♥♥♥

♥♥♥ It is never whatever, my dear ♥. We think you should have agreed that with partner. It might influence the further bidding. ♥♥♥

♥♥♥ and the most important: agree on this with partner !!! That is more important, than knowing what is best. ♥♥♥