ahydra, on 2018-June-26, 18:52, said:
This is a really interesting question in Acol.
As you say 1♣, 1♥; 2♣, 2♦ is not a reverse. I also play this as a one-round force like you and I think that this is the recommended modern treatment. But I am aware that old Acol texts treated this sequence as non-forcing!
Now compare 1♣, 1♥; 2♣, 2♠ - a traditional responder's reverse. Opener does not have a four-card spade suit and responder is not bidding 2♠ with the intention of playing in spades. There is little point in bidding 2♠ except as a forcing-to-game bid. I would definitely play this as forcing to game but again, old Acol texts treated this sequence as a one-round force only.
Finally we have the sequence that you asked about where responder makes a two-level response and then bids a second suit: 1♥, 2♣; 2♥, 2♠. I think that this is different and I'm not sure that I think of it as a reverse. The usual advice in Acol is that responder should by-pass a four-card major only if worth two bids - normally suggested as 11+ HCP. But if you are going to take this approach with a mis-fitting 11-count, this is clearly not enough to force to game opposite a minimum opener. On this basis I think that it is standard for the sequence to be forcing for one round only, but I have encountered players who play the sequence as forcing to game. I don't have a strong view either way - as long as partner and I are agreed.
Sorry to hijack the thread with this post which has little to do with the opening post and is probably boring if you don't play Acol!