Such a move, even if not optimal, can't be really bad ; of course you can use it for a playable position, also in long games or against strong opposition. However what's the point? You get a fairly tipycal QGA position, you're not posing black any particular/unusual problem. Why not playing a standard line? It's not like not knowing the theory will killl you, as long as you play natural moves.
Queen's Gambit Accepted/ Accelerated Mannheim Variation
Sort:
Who accepts the Queen's Gambit?
Thousands of players ranging from patzer to strong GM.
Taking a look at the Queen's Gambit on the chess365 database, there's 170,000 queen's gambit games, and only 20,000 accept it. That's less than 12% of games, so obviously not many people accept it...
Not the majority, just thousands of players as I said. It's one of the main answers to the QG (not very common at super-Gm level at the moment, but that's another story; in the past even Kasparov played it). I don't get your point.
Well e6 and c6 are more than 3 times more common, so I would focus on refuting those.
You can't refute mainlines like 2...e6, 2...c6 and 2...dxc4. And you must be prepared for all three (plus maybe 2...Nc6) if you want to play the QG. It's a bit like saying "I play 1.e4, i will not look at 1...e6 since 1...c5 and 1...e5 are more common...".
No, it's actually like playing e4 and studying ...d6 in depth and not looking at the sicilian. Maybe refute isn't the right word, more like "play against" than "refute"
No, it's like not looking at the french, the third most popular answer (2...dxc4 is the third most popular, right?). As you certainly understand, it would be pure madness. Also do you understand that nobody said he didn't look at 2...e6 and 2...c6? For what we know he might tave spent his life preparing 2..e6 and 2...c6 and now finally moving to the accepted variation 
e6 is the third most popular response, but more than half as popular as e5. the QGA is less than a third as popular as c6, so it is rarely seen. I personally wouldn't be worried about QGA, black gives away its bid in the center, and if they try to hold onto the pawn, they instantly lose.
A guy called Kasparov (among many others) tought that 2...dxc4 was good enough, so I hope you understand if I don't take very seriously your claim that it's weak...
I'm sure Kasporav has also declined the Queen's Gambit, many more times than he has accepted it....
Of course he played lots of stuff during his career. And so? It's a surreal discussion. 2...dxc4 is a very common and certainly good move, and a 2.c4 player obviously wants to know something about it.
But, why would you want to waste time recovering the pawn with the Q? You could use the time to bring more pieces out to grab the central squares, and gradually mount an attack on the Kside.
okiemark, exactly what I was trying to get across
We all agree on the fact that Qa4+ is a lame move.
agreed
Thanks. I was intertested in it because someone said its what makes the QGA a misnomer since its not really a gambit if you can instantly recover the pawn. I didn't know if that was an interesting sideline point or actually a playable postion. And does anyone know who/what Mannheim was or is? I discovered the name for it on the internet but no detail as to where the name came from.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 Qa4+ Nd7 4 Qxc4 c5 is a staightforward line. Now white has the choice between allowing the isolated d pawn with 5 e3 cxd4 6 exd4 or avoiding pawn weaknesses with alternatives like 5 dxc5 Bxc5 or 5 Nf3 cxd4 6 Nxd4, but any case the Q on c4 has to lose time as other pieces attack it. In Andersson's Catalan, it is difficult for black to achieve the c7-c5 pawn push, so the position is not as open and retreating the Q to c2 is only one tempo loss.
Does anyone have any opinions of this opening variation of the QGA? 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Qa4+. This gives white the opportunity to win back his pawn immediately, though admittedly at the expense of perhaps developing his queen a little too early. It's a bit brash for longer games, but has anyone had success with it in blitz or bullet?