Wackojack Posted January 3, 2015 Report Share Posted January 3, 2015 You play strong jump shifts and Acol, so:1. 1♦-1♠-2♦-2♠ is to play2. 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted January 3, 2015 Report Share Posted January 3, 2015 You play strong jump shifts and Acol, so:1. 1♦-1♠-2♦-2♠ is to play2. 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 constructive2. GF3,4. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahydra Posted January 3, 2015 Report Share Posted January 3, 2015 2 is GF, 3 is a slam try and 4 is INV ahydra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tramticket Posted January 3, 2015 Report Share Posted January 3, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tramticket Posted January 3, 2015 Report Share Posted January 3, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted January 3, 2015 Report Share Posted January 3, 2015 2 is GF, 3 is a slam try and 4 is INV ahydra 2 and 3 are the same though; why are you differentiating between the two? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tramticket Posted January 3, 2015 Report Share Posted January 3, 2015 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts