Zelandakh, on 2020-September-08, 10:45, said:
Have you tried 1♠ as "either/or"? That is an option that has gradually increased in popularity over many years. The 2♠ rebid on this hand is an illustration of why it tends to work out despite the initial ambiguity.
Yes, that was quite common in the Netherlands when I played there in the early 00s. I'm not a fan.
For one thing, the auction
1
♣-1
♦
-1
♥-1
♠
3
♠-?
is awkward. You can't make control bids as 4m
♥ is now natural. It's worse if opener bids 4
♠, and I would be nervous about the continuations if opener raises spades on something like Axx-xxxx-A-Axxxx. But OK maybe they don't do that.
Then there's the issue that with 3-4-1-5 or 1-4-3-5 and 16 points, opener can't bid a weak 1NT or 2
♣. Maybe 2NT now shows either of those hands. But then I wouldn't know if 3
♣ or 3
♦ at responder's 3rd turn would be forcing. I suppose it would have to be, most minimum hands can just pass 2NT. Or maybe 3
♣ should be non-forcing and 3
♦ forcing?
The auction
1
♣-1
♦
1
♥-1
♠
2
♣-2
♦????
could be construed as a weak hand with 4
♠-6
♦ or as a gf hand with diamonds. Assuming 2
♦ is weak, 3
♦ can't be both forcing and invitational.
1
♣-1
♦
1
♥-1
♠
2
♣-3
♣????
could be invitational, or could be forcing. Who knows.
Basically, there are lots of follow ups where I would be concerned that I would be guessing partner's hand type based on UI.
It's of course small problems, and very solvable problems, but it's just not worth it worrying about it. I am happy to play 1
♠ as FSF. It's probably not optimal to play it as a GF, but if we want something sophisticated we would be playing T-Walsh anyway.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket