Is this forcing in 21st century Acol

[Wackojack]

21st century Acol might be an oxymoron to some. However:

 

1. 1M-2LR-2NT? OK unanimously forcing. Just checking!

 

2. 1♣-1♠-2♣-2♥?

 

3. 1♠-2♣-2♥?

 

4. 1♠-2♣-2♦?

 

5. 1♥-1♠-2♣/♦?

 

If you have the time please explain why forcing or non forcing. Assume weak no trump.

[helene_t]

1 is forcing of course, if responder doesn't want to force (or at least invite) opposite a balanced 15 he could just have responded 1NT

 

2 yes for the same reasons as in SA, but in Acol it is somewhat more likely that opener has only five clubs (and hence length in one of the red suits) so you would like to be able to look for a better strain with a very light invite. So I wouldn't be opposed to playing this as NF.

 

3 Similar to above but obviously this could be NMF (which would make the above NF). OTOH it is not so bad to have to jump to 3♦ to force (having to jump to 3♥ would be worse). So there is a case for playing this as NF but the above as forcing. Then again, let's keep things symmetric and treat 2 and 3 the same (if not playing NMF).

 

4 yes of course, no merits at all of playing this NF.

 

5 No, The 10-17 range is wide enough, let's not make it 10-21.

[whereagles]

The rule is usually that a 2/1 is forcing up to 2NT.

 

1. 1M-2LR-2NT? OK unanimously forcing. Just checking!

2. 1♣-1♠-2♣-2♥?

3. 1♠-2♣-2♥?

4. 1♠-2♣-2♦?

5. 1♥-1♠-2♣/♦?

 

1. 2NT is 15-19 (or 15-17? dont remember acol), so yeah forcing. Game forcing.

2/3/4. Forcing.

5. Not forcing. Economic two suiter, 11-17 HCP or thereabouts. Resp passes with preference for minor and less than 9 HCP.

[Zelandakh]

1. 1M-2LR-2NT? OK unanimously forcing. Just checking!

2. 1♣-1♠-2♣-2♥?

3. 1♠-2♣-2♥?

4. 1♠-2♣-2♦?

5. 1♥-1♠-2♣/♦?

As always Acol is a broad church so it depends on other agreements. For 2 you could agree to use a 2♦ rebid gadget and for 3 and 4 you might want to make an agreement that a 2/1 is "forcing to 2NT" or "promises a rebid". Assuming no 2♦ gadget and F->2NT,

 

1. forcing (to game)

2. forcing

3. forcing (to 2NT)

4. forcing (to 2NT)

5. not forcing

 

but I would not be confident of a random partner seeing it the same way with the only agreement being "Modern Acol".

[Wackojack]

The rule is usually that a 2/1 is forcing up to 2NT.

This is not so. 1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠ is definitely not forcing. Acol 2 over 1 responses only promise a good 9 points even in the 21st century. If it is forcing to 2N it is not Acol.

[helene_t]

 

3. forcing (to 2NT)

4. forcing (to 2NT)

So you would play

1♠-2♣

2♦-2♠

as forcing? Given that the 1♠ opening is 15-19 balanced or 10+ unbalanced I think responder could be in a position in which he wants to invite (or even GF) opposite 15 balanced while at the same time wanting to stop ASAP opposite an unbalanced minimum.

[Vampyr]

This is not so. 1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠ is definitely not forcing. Acol 2 over 1 responses only promise a good 9 points even in the 21st century. If it is forcing to 2N it is not Acol.

 

Right. A "rule" would be that 2/1 is forcing to 2 of the suit opened.

[helene_t]

is it considered off-topic to add one more? I wonder about this one:

1♠-2♣

2NT-3♣

[Zelandakh]

Yes that is precisely what F->2NT is. It means that to make a 2/1 you have to have enough to at least invite opposite a minimum opening (so typically 10+ rather than 9+). An advantage is that Opener can avoid jumping or making some temporarising call with, for example, a good hand and a bad suit. The given sequence shows either a 3 card invite or a doubleton spade. This is one of the major differences between F->2NT and "promises rebid".

 

The real question in this thread should be whether the sequence 1♠ - 2♣; 2♠ is forcing or not. In traditional Acol it is not forcing whereas in both PR and F2N it obviously is forcing. The answer to this one has the most knock-on effects to the rest of the structure imho.

 

Edit: an addition for the last post:

is it considered off-topic to add one more? I wonder about this one:

1♠-2♣; 2NT-3♣

 

1. forcing (to game)

[Vampyr]

is it considered off-topic to add one more? I wonder about this one:

1♠-2♣

2NT-3♣

 

Well, we were asked about 21st Century Acol, and I think that it is very old-fashioned for this 2NT to not be forcing to game.

 

The real question in this thread should be whether the sequence 1♠ - 2♣; 2♠ is forcing or not.

 

Of course it isn't.

[MickyB]

An Acol 2/1 shows you wish to be in game opposite a 15-16 NT. If you think that gives you the values for 2NT opposite a minimum opening then you must open more soundly than I do.

[ahydra]

FWIW I play 1x-2y-2x as NF but 1x-2y-2z as F1 (but not to 2NT: opener is able to pass after e.g. 1S-2C; 2D-2S).

 

ahydra

[the hog]

This is not so. 1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠ is definitely not forcing. Acol 2 over 1 responses only promise a good 9 points even in the 21st century. If it is forcing to 2N it is not Acol.

 

I disagree. 2/1 has been forcing to 2NT in Acol played in Australia for the last 30 years.

[gordontd]

I disagree. 2/1 has been forcing to 2NT in Acol played in Australia for the last 30 years.

But not in Acol in the UK.

[gordontd]

Right. A "rule" would be that 2/1 is forcing to 2 of the suit opened.

Or it could be put another way, that new suits are forcing after a 2/1. Similarly, new suits by unlimited responders are also forcing.

[WGF_Flame]

1-4 forcing,

5 nf

[Cyberyeti]

For us:

 

1: FG (and unusually we play this as not necessarily balanced)

2: NF because we play a 2♦ relay here

3/4: F1

5 F1 unless you didn't really have a response and were just trying to improve the contract

[gwnn]

(boldface mine)

Yes that is precisely what F->2NT is. It means that to make a 2/1 you have to have enough to at least invite opposite a minimum opening (so typically 10+ rather than 9+). An advantage is that Opener can avoid jumping or making some temporarising call with, for example, a good hand and a bad suit. The given sequence shows either a 3 card invite or a doubleton spade. This is one of the major differences between F->2NT and "promises rebid".

I don't get it. Opener just bids (1♠-2♣; ) 2♥ with all sorts of hands and then can clarify over 2♠. Responder will know that opener has more than a minimum from his non-pass. I always thought that the above argument applies much better to the sequence from your second paragraph:

The real question in this thread should be whether the sequence 1♠ - 2♣; 2♠ is forcing or not. In traditional Acol it is not forcing whereas in both PR and F2N it obviously is forcing. The answer to this one has the most knock-on effects to the rest of the structure imho.

Precisely here must opener make up something with a good opening, be it 2NT, 3♠, or fake a diamond suit (?).

 

It is very much possible that I misunderstood something but at least I can help make Cyberyeti's case in another thread that many Acol ignorami chime in to threads where they don't belong. ;)

[Zelandakh]

But not in Acol in the UK.

That depends on which book you read! The first place I came across this idea was a book from the master series in the eary 80s. It effectively forces 2/1 responses to be slightly stronger and therefore distributes the hands more economically between the available calls and this benefit is as true of Acol in Engliand (where I played it on occasion) as of other systems that use this or similar mechanisms.

[helene_t]

You could make the 2/1 responses a bit sounder, say 10+. With most 11 counts responder is probably worth a second bid so passing the 2M rebid is a narrow target.

 

It certainly has advantages to play 1M-2m-2M as forcing. My guess would be that it isn't worth the costs but I could obviously be wrong. In any case, I don't see much advantages of playing

1♠-2♣

2♦-2♠

as forcing.

[rhm]

Without special agreements consider

 

New suit bids of a potentially unlimited responder as forcing, with possible exceptions if opener has rebid 1NT.

New suit bids of opener without reverse as non forcing, if responder has responded at the one-level.

Otherwise consider new suit bids by opener as forcing.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Vampyr]

That depends on which book you read!

 

I am pretty sure that the OP was asking about actual current practice, not about what material is in books.

[gordontd]

That depends on which book you read! The first place I came across this idea was a book from the master series in the eary 80s. It effectively forces 2/1 responses to be slightly stronger and therefore distributes the hands more economically between the available calls and this benefit is as true of Acol in Engliand (where I played it on occasion) as of other systems that use this or similar mechanisms.

There was a time (about 20 years ago) when 2/1 responses had been strengthened in Acol and some pairs (but still a small minority as I recall) played 2/1s as forcing to 2NT. I have never seen it in a book (though I don't doubt you when you say you have) and I haven't knowingly encountered this for quite some time. The only person with whom I ever played it suggested we abandon it a few years ago.

[Zelandakh]

I am pretty sure that the OP was asking about actual current practice, not about what material is in books.

Generally things that appear in books have some basis on what is done in practise. As an example:-

 

I disagree. 2/1 has been forcing to 2NT in Acol played in Australia for the last 30 years.

 

I think I made it quite clear that there are many different agreements possible here and that these affect the forcing nature of some calls. As I wrote in my original post, Acol is a broad church. You might be making the classic English mistake here of thinking that only a particular version of Acol can be considered genuine. Gordon is probably quite right that I am quite old-fashioned in my interpretation of Acol. My theoretical thinking moved on from Acol some time ago and I cannot imagine myself making another a big effort here when I found the 2/1 strengthening a plus in the past.

[gordontd]

My theoretical thinking moved on from Acol some time ago and I cannot imagine myself making another a big effort here when I found the 2/1 strengthening a plus in the past.

I think most players found that a plus, and it has remained in the modernised system with it's attendant forcing 2NT rebid and forcing new-suit rebids. It's just the forcing to 2NT thing that doesn't seem to have survived.