Assign the blame (2)

[gnasher]

In English Acol, 3♣ used not to be game-forcing. I think that changed sometime in the 1980s.

[Antrax]

they are supposedly playing the idiotic constructive raise treatment. This shows how silly they are

-snip-

In my system, the auction would go:

2♣ (20+)

- 2♥! (2 controls, GF)

Welcome back.

[Finch]

In English Acol, 3♣ used not to be game-forcing. I think that changed sometime in the 1980s.

 

In 1983, Reese & Bird were saying it is non-forcing, never mind not game forcing.

 

But (for the benefit of other readers) it is now universally played as game forcing.

[gnasher]

In 1983, Reese & Bird were saying it is non-forcing, never mind not game forcing.

In 1974 Crowhurst said that "In traditional Acol, a bid of this sort was forcing to game. The modern practice, however, is to make it forcing for one round only." Maybe they all kept changing their minds.

[PhilKing]

In 1974 Crowhurst said that "In traditional Acol, a bid of this sort was forcing to game. The modern practice, however, is to make it forcing for one round only." Maybe they all kept changing their minds.

 

I think it was partly because people still played some variant Acol Twos, which limited the chances of having a legitimate monster for 3♣.

[Zelandakh]

In English Acol, 3♣ used not to be game-forcing. I think that changed sometime in the 1980s.

I played it as 16+ around 1990 under protest, since the alternative my partner of the time would accept was considerably worse. I thought that the blue book from the early 70s had this as a game force although it is so long since I saw it that I am not 100% sure.

 

In my system, the auction would go:

Would West still sign off in 4♠ if East had something like

♠Kxxx

♥Qxx

♦Kxx

♣Qxx

?