[ahydra]

System is 5cM, weak NT, Modern Acol style 2/1s (10+)

♠AKQ8xx ♥xxx ♦QJ9x ♣-

You deal, all vul, matchpoints. 1S-2D; ?

ahydra

[Winstonm]

I don't know Acol so this may not be of value but I think you must make a strong move now and to me that would be 3S. I think splinter overstates the hand.

[FelicityR]

System is 5cM, weak NT, Modern Acol style 2/1s (10+)

If you are playing a 2/1 style Acol - very rare in my opinion - I would content myself with 2♠ and see what partner bids next.

[ggwhiz]

You have to do something 100% forcing and not knowing acol maybe it's 3♠?

Maybe you are forced to splinter? That can't be right, losing spades at mp's.

Shoot 4♠ missing a small or grand slam?

Change systems? (my vote)

[ahydra]

FelicityR, on 2017-March-18, 03:59, said:

If you are playing a 2/1 style Acol - very rare in my opinion - I would content myself with 2♠ and see what partner bids next.

Not so rare over here (UK). The style is very similar to 2/1s in SAYC. Anyway, don't you feel 2S is a huge underbid with a void, a solid 6-card suit and a big fit for partner's diamonds?

ggwhiz, on 2017-March-18, 07:58, said:

You have to do something 100% forcing and not knowing acol maybe it's 3♠?

3S is GF, yes. Perhaps that is the best choice. At the table I picked 4D, partner raised to 5 on xx KQ10x AKxx xxx (I think, can't remember if the hearts were quite that good). He got the SJ lead and misplayed the hand thinking it was a singleton rather than the actual J10x, when trumps split 4-1 he finished down three.

The idea behind 4D was that there are even some minimum hands (xx Axx AKxxx xxx) where grand slam is cold so I was much more interested in a diamond slam than a spade game. Still, it eats a lot of room, hides the 6th spade and could get you too high if partner has wasted club values, so 3S is probably better.

ahydra

[1eyedjack]

I tend to play (with partner's agreement) a simple raise of responder's 2/1 as forcing, and yes, within the context of this system. I am sure that it is non-standard, but have not regretted the policy. Very useful on this hand. Perhaps not so much on others.

[ggwhiz]

ahydra, on 2017-March-18, 08:20, said:

3S is GF, yes. Perhaps that is the best choice. At the table I picked 4D, partner raised to 5 on xx KQ10x AKxx xxx (I think, can't remember if the hearts were quite that good). ahydra

I don't think you can pass 5♦ at mp's when the hand on the surface belongs in 6♦ if they split 3-2 for sure, or 4♠, period. Maybe a 5♠ here bid to hedge your bets?

Also but in a 2/1 strong notrump context but should also apply to any game forcing responders hand I was told a rare trick I kinda like and that is a 2♣ response with that shape. We would raise 2♦ freely on 3 pieces with appropriate shape and responder wouldn't know what to do but if opener next bids a red suit the trump fit is real, bids 2nt or raises clubs you belong in 3nt.

[P_Marlowe]

ahydra, on 2017-March-18, 08:20, said:

Not so rare over here (UK). The style is very similar to 2/1s in SAYC. Anyway, don't you feel 2S is a huge underbid with a void, a solid 6-card suit and a big fit for partner's diamonds?



3S is GF, yes. Perhaps that is the best choice. At the table I picked 4D, partner raised to 5 on xx KQ10x AKxx xxx (I think, can't remember if the hearts were quite that good). He got the SJ lead and misplayed the hand thinking it was a singleton rather than the actual J10x, when trumps split 4-1 he finished down three.

The idea behind 4D was that there are even some minimum hands (xx Axx AKxxx xxx) where grand slam is cold so I was much more interested in a diamond slam than a spade game. Still, it eats a lot of room, hides the 6th spade and could get you too high if partner has wasted club values, so 3S is probably better.

ahydra

If you set diamonds as trumps, than I would go with 4C.
Playing MP, ..., you have to decide, if you show the diamonds or not, the difference in wasted space
between 3S, 4C and 4D is minimal.

[jogs]

FelicityR, on 2017-March-18, 03:59, said:

System is 5cM, weak NT, Modern Acol style 2/1s (10+)

That's not Acol. Acol is 4 card majors.

This sounds more like British K-S.

[Zelandakh]

jogs, on 2017-March-21, 08:05, said:

That's not Acol. Acol is 4 card majors.

Acol is a family of systems. The very first version of Acol I learned was 5 card majors and 16-18 NT. While it is true that Standard English Acol uses 4 card majors, that should not the same as all forms. In the same way that Precision does not automatically have a 13-15 NT range even though the original form did.

In any case, the hand is a strong diamond raise in traditional Acol forms and that seems appropriate here despite the obvious drawbacks.