[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2016-August-11, 20:41, said:

I know, I just wish that people playing 2/1 GF would specify it as such, otherwise there is often ambiguity. Every single player bids 2/1 after all.

It is the same as "not playing reverses", "transfer to a minor" or "SAYC with 4 suit transfers", technically incorrect but everyone understands what is meant.

[fromageGB]

Zelandakh, on 2016-August-11, 06:54, said:

Quite so - what would you expect them to rebid with a weak 5♠4♣ hand?

I would have thought 2NT. It would seem the natural thing to me, but maybe I'm coming from a background where major length is more important to show than minors.

[Zelandakh]

fromageGB, on 2016-August-12, 02:35, said:

I would have thought 2NT. It would seem the natural thing to me, but maybe I'm coming from a background where major length is more important to show than minors.

2NT would show 15+, the exact upper range depending on the version of Acol being used. Or how else are you planning to bid a strong NT hand?

[FrancesHinden]

As everyone else has said, this is how you show an invitational hand with 3-card spade support in Acol. Before you say it is 'unplayable', perhaps you would like to explain how else you show that hand type? 2/1 with a forcing NT responds 1NT; the 'default' 5CM approach is to jump directly to 3S with three card support but that has its own problems.

I play that auction as invitational with Jallerton. I promise you that it is playable. We play 1S-2D-2S-4C as a slam try with 3-card spade support, not necessarily club shortage. I've also seen people play 1S-2D-2S-4C as a 'cue bid' agreeing spades. Otherwise the slam try hands are a bit of a pain, but that's the problem with traditional light 2/1 Acol auctions.

[Vampyr]

FrancesHinden, on 2016-August-13, 09:39, said:

the 'default' 5CM approach is to jump directly to 3S with three card support but that has its own problems.

...

...and should be avoided at all costs.

[nullve]

FrancesHinden, on 2016-August-13, 09:39, said:

I play that auction as invitational with Jallerton. I promise you that it is playable.

What's playable depends on what the field or opposing team is playing doesn't it? What if everybody else play 1♠-2♣ as "natural or Drury", enabling them to stop in 2♠ whenever you have the auction 1♠-2♦; 2♠-3♠; P?

[Zelandakh]

nullve, on 2016-August-14, 03:16, said:

What's playable depends on what the field or opposing team is playing doesn't it?

No it does not. Do you think Meckwell's system would be unplayable if the rest of the field was all playing 2/1 GF? Playing a different system, there will be some hands where you are disadvantaged and some where you do better. That does increase the variability somewhat but does not make it unplayable.

[Vampyr]

nullve, on 2016-August-14, 03:16, said:

What's playable depends on what the field or opposing team is playing doesn't it? What if everybody else play 1♠-2♣ as "natural or Drury", enabling them to stop in 2♠ whenever you have the auction 1♠-2♦; 2♠-3♠; P?

Isn't that called Drury (as opposed to Drury-fit)?

[nullve]

Zelandakh, on 2016-August-14, 04:35, said:

Do you think Meckwell's system would be unplayable if the rest of the field was all playing 2/1 GF?

No, but maybe vanilla 2/1 GF (not Big Bang) would be unplayable if the field were playing RM Precision?

Vampyr, on 2016-August-14, 04:39, said:

Isn't that called Drury (as opposed to Drury-fit)?

I've never heard of a form of Drury that doesn't require support.

[Zelandakh]

nullve, on 2016-August-14, 05:53, said:

No, but maybe vanilla 2/1 GF (not Big Bang) would be unplayable if the field were playing RM Precision?

Why would that be? Do you consider it so much better than an expert-level 2/1 system?

nullve, on 2016-August-14, 05:53, said:

I've never heard of a form of Drury that doesn't require support.

The original form of the convention did not require support. That came a little later on.

[nullve]

Zelandakh, on 2016-August-14, 06:40, said:

Why would that be? Do you consider it so much better than an expert-level 2/1 system?

I think you misread my reply, which was intended as a question to you (and Frances), btw. (I don't really have an opinion on how much better RM Precision is than vanilla 2/1 GF, either)

Zelandakh, on 2016-August-14, 06:40, said:

The original form of the convention did not require support. That came a little later on.

I thought "natural or Drury" was more of a Barry Crane invention, but I believe you (two). Thanks.

[FrancesHinden]

nullve, on 2016-August-14, 03:16, said:

What's playable depends on what the field or opposing team is playing doesn't it? What if everybody else play 1♠-2♣ as "natural or Drury", enabling them to stop in 2♠ whenever you have the auction 1♠-2♦; 2♠-3♠; P?

Then you won't have the same auction as the field.
It's a disadvantage of the system that you get to the 3-level with a minimum opening opposite an invitational 3-card raise. Sometimes you will lose imps/matchpoints when 3S goes off but 2S would have made. It doesn't really matter what the 'rest of the field' is playing: that's a bad result even if it occurs round the room/at both tables because it's a lost opportunity.

There are advantages to inviting in this manner; or to be more accurate there are advantages to the integrated system which can balance the disadvantage of forcing to the 3-level on these hands. 2C as 'natural or a 3-card raise' is a nice piece of kit, but it also has some downsides.

I won a game swing in a KO match a couple of years ago playing with (non-regular) partner gnasher when the auction 1S-2D-2S-3S allowed me to re-evaluate my hand based on my diamond holding and bid a game; the other table missed game because responder showed an 'invitational hand with 3 spades' without being able to show a diamond suit.

[fromageGB]

Zelandakh, on 2016-August-12, 02:54, said:

2NT would show 15+, the exact upper range depending on the version of Acol being used. Or how else are you planning to bid a strong NT hand?

OK, keep me off the acol tables! I would have bid 3NT with 15+, as partner is a presumed 10/11+, if I had no other 4 card suit to bid.

[nullve]

FrancesHinden, on 2016-August-14, 09:41, said:

I won a game swing in a KO match a couple of years ago playing with (non-regular) partner gnasher when the auction 1S-2D-2S-3S allowed me to re-evaluate my hand based on my diamond holding and bid a game; the other table missed game because responder showed an 'invitational hand with 3 spades' without being able to show a diamond suit.

Those playing 2♣ as "natural or Drury" could also --- if they really wanted to --- allow Opener to relay with less than GF values over

1♠-2♣(nat. or Drury); 2red-2♠(3 S, inv)

and then let 3x by Responder cover exactly the same hands as 3♠ over 1♠-2x; 2♠ in Acol.

[Zelandakh]

nullve, on 2016-August-14, 12:22, said:

Those playing 2♣ as "natural or Drury" could also --- if they really wanted to --- allow Opener to relay with less than GF values over

1♠-2♣(nat. or Drury); 2red-2♠(3 S, inv)

and then let 3x by Responder cover exactly the same hands as 3♠ over 1♠-2x; 2♠ in Acol.

You missed the point. In Frances' auction Responder has shown real diamonds. It is this information that allows Opener to re-evaluate. Your auction gets to the three level without this piece of information so it is not exactly the same hands.

[nullve]

Zelandakh, on 2016-August-17, 05:31, said:

You missed the point. In Frances' auction Responder has shown real diamonds. It is this information that allows Opener to re-evaluate. Your auction gets to the three level without this piece of information so it is not exactly the same hands.

1♠-2♣
2red-2♠
2N-3♦
?

[Vampyr]

nullve, on 2016-August-17, 06:22, said:

1♠-2♣
2red-2♠
2N-3♦
?

This is fine if 2♠ is forcing.

[nullve]

Vampyr, on 2016-August-17, 06:29, said:

This is fine if 2♠ is forcing.

It shouldn't be. I'm just saying that if a pair playing 2C as "natural or Drury" for some reason wanted Opener to be able to evaluate his hand using exactly the same information about Responder's hand as in Frances's auction, then they could play that 2N asks for Responder's "Acol two-over-one" suit.

[Vampyr]

nullve, on 2016-August-17, 06:52, said:

It shouldn't be. I'm just saying that if a pair playing 2C as "natural or Drury" for some reason wanted Opener to be able to evaluate his hand using exactly the same information about Responder's hand as in Frances's auction, then they could play that 2N asks for Responder's "Acol two-over-one" suit.

ummm.... Yeah. Nothing wrong with a game try, but it would require opener to have extras.

[Phil]

Just sit back and enjoy the stories about Churchill and the blitzkrieg, and don't worry about making subtle forcing bids. Enjoy the session. You made this dudes day.

One day you'll wake up to 89 and you won't understand why kids don't understand 2/1 and why they don't listen to your stories about Heartstone.