mjj29, on Sep 11 2009, 03:06 PM, said:
A 'reputable English source' from 1962 is unlikely to bear much resemblence to what anyone under the age of 70 actually plays these days. In particular, I don't know anyone who plays that definition of a jump rebid; it's generally made semi-limiting with enough for a reverse and no second suit, even if it has broken honours.
Everyone I know plays it the Cohen-Lederer way, and some of us are under 70. I would assume it was that way with a strange partner.
Playing it as possibly a broken suit seems a terrible use for it: how do you get to 3NT now if that is the correct contract? Ok, you could play it as specifically 7+cards, completely minimum, no interest in 3NT, no club fit, and that is useful - but in my view less useful than the Cohen-Lederer way. With the hand described in this paragraph what is wrong with bidding 3
♠ then 4
♠?
Sure, not a lot of Acol is played the Cohen-Lederer way nowadays, but some is, and knowing the age of the reference does not really tell anyone how it is or should be played. Perhaps the phrase "anyone under the age of 70 actually plays" should be replaced by "anyone who lives within seventy miles of London actually plays".
dan_ehh, on Sep 11 2009, 02:05 PM, said:
I would change the result to 5S-2, maybe -3 because I haven't looked closely enough as to whether the defense gets 4 or 5 tricks, and add a procedural penalty for the NS pair, for misinformation. In such an event, the players are expected to know the correct answer to the question asked is "no agreement".
We do not rule that way these days outside North America. If you are not sure whether it should be -2 or -3, you weight the score, you do not pick one or the other. And a PP for getting your system wrong is unheard-of at this level.
1♠..P..3♣(1)..P
4♠..P..5♣(2)..P
.P...P