32519

As the 4441 hand pattern is rare, does this post of yours imply that, effectively, you are playing 5-card major Acol? If yes, then you are the perfect poster to give us a list of all the differences between regular Acol and 5-card major Acol.

Paul Mendelson’s 1995 book “100 Tips for Better Bridge” had this to say in tip number 7: Don’t open 4-4-4-1 hands with 12 or 13 points [here is an extract] In most natural bidding systems, opener’s first two bids contain, by far, the largest amount of information that is imparted in any auction. In Acol – with a Weak NT – these are the two vital bids that describe the shape of the hand. The problem with the 4441 hands is that, as they contain three features, they really need three bids to convey their content. In systems, like Acol, when you can’t freely bid two different 4-card suits, a considerable degree of lying is involved. The result of all this is that you frequently end in 4-3 trump fits (having to trump in your own hand) and hopeless misfit NT contracts, short on points. The solution is a simple one: don’t get yourself into this situation – don’t open the bidding with this distribution with only 12 or 13 points. With 14 points or more, if your partner responds your singleton, you can rebid NTs without risking too much – it is not perfect, but it’s better… With 12 or 13pts you have the perfect take-out double when the opponents open your singleton.

Thanks a ton for this Zel. The link to the Pattya Website also has the answer to the 4441 hand problem which falls within the 12-14 HCP range (something which I never had a satisfactory solution for).

Zel Do you perhaps have a comparison table somewhere that you can upload here setting out the differences between Dutch Acol and regular Acol? It will be hugely appreciated. Thanks

Thanks for this Frances I find myself in the camp who believe that Acol is very effective if you have decent agreements/continuation bidding structures. When my partner opens 1-of-a-suit, I expect one of the following hand types, a) an unbalanced hand, or b) 15+ HCP, or c) sometimes both. Opening 1NT with a 5M332 12-14 HCP hand makes sense. If partner can’t make a move over 1NT, that’s fine. I’ve limited my hand to 14 HCP. If the opponents make a penalty double of the 1NT bid, I can escape to the 5-card major. [This happened recently in our local club. Dummy held the ♥AK and 2 small trumps, just enough to get to dummy twice for declarer to finesse me (the doubler). The 2♠ contract made when a 5th trump was produced by declarer.] When the bidding goes e.g. 1M-1NT-2m I expect partner to be showing a 5/4 distribution. The one hand pattern that I haven’t been able to find a decent solution for in Acol is the 4441 12-14 HCP hand. Do you (or any other Acol player) have a good solution for these hand types?

What do ACOL players use the 2♦ bid for? The Benjamin 2♦ bid here didn't get any votes.

What the heck is 5-card major ACOL? I always thought ACOL invoked 4-card majors. I often get random pick-up partners in the Main BBO Club with "5-Card Major ACOL" in their profiles. In how many other ways does regular ACOL differ from this? Or is this the only difference? Do these guys allow the 5-card major in their 1NT bid as well and then follow this up with some sort of Puppet sequence to discover the 5-card suit?

Where did I read someone describing bridge as playing chess against three opponents? :P

Over 30 years ago when I was a university student, there was always a bridge game underway in the cafeteria, mostly run by the engineers. These guys even had a league of their own among the different university hostels. Playing bridge was regarded as a “mandatory extra subject” for them. As an accountancy student, we never had something similar and I often found myself joining the engineers whenever they were a player short. Today the engineers qualifying and starting employment at the petro-chemical plant in my hometown have no interest in the game. It appears as though the “mandatory extra subject” is no longer applicable for the guys qualifying today. So yes, a big shift away from the game has occurred in my home country as well.

Isn't this perhaps tied in with what Mike Lawrence calls "Action Doubles?" You can read all about it in his book "Double! New Meanings for an Old Bid."

Ken’s approach is moving in the direction of my own agreements – A direct 3♣ overcall = both majors, longer ♥ A direct 3♦ overcall = both majors, longer ♠ A direct X = both majors, majors equal in length A direct X followed by a suit bid = a powerful 1-suited hand A direct X followed by 3NT = natural balanced (if partner can make a bid showing some life). [This post has been edited]

What the heck is flamingo?

The OP stated the 18-19 HCP balanced hands. I was trying to find out how the 4441 hands are dealt with when holding 18-19 HCP balanced. Does the hand still qualify as balanced? Or is it now opened with something else. If "something else," then what is the "something else."

West has enough ♥ to hold up the Queen long enough to stop the opponents from running the suit.

How does the Mexican 2♦ bid cope with 4441 hand patterns?

This is an interesting thought. 1. What would be the “minimum number” of robodupes to play in, in order to start calculating a meaningful average? 2. Would everyone also be expected to play in a “minimum number” of robodupes every month in order to keep the average up to date?

After reading this thread, I’m not entirely convinced with everything said here. My current F2F partner has excellent bridge savvy, logic, flair and very often bidding (and making) 3NT contracts on an outright gamble that the opponents are going to start off the defence with a) either the wrong suit, or, b) the wrong card in a suit. Yet her general (overall) knowledge of the game is extremely low when measured against the plethora of systems/conventions/methods of signalling etc. Yet she has won a number of regional red point events (with different partners) on raw talent alone. So how does one really define an expert? Roland’s post above is certainly a yardstick.

When I see people playing conventions that I am either, a) unfamiliar with, or b) cannot see any benefit in using them, I start threads such as this one to try and find out what the reasoning is behind the convention. If the reasoning makes good sense and is better than my current agreements (or has a higher frequency of occurrence than my current agreements, coupled to its benefits), inevitably I temporarily switch to the new convention to test its effectiveness in my overall agreements. This temporary switch can become permanent once I get enough positive feedback at the table using any new convention.

I too am a bridge teacher, giving classes to novices and beginners (sometimes intermediates as well). I teach them SAYC for two reasons – 1. It’s the least complicated to learn. 2. Some of those students go on to play on BBO where SAYC is the default system. From the OP I can tell that Hanoi5 is probably teaching his students 2/1 who are familiar with SAYC. In the auction posted, SAYC and 2/1 differ substantially. Some extracts from the SAYC booklet: 1M-3M = limit raise (10-11 HCP with 3+ trump support) 1M-4M = 5+ trump support, singleton or void, less than 10 HCP COMPETITIVE BIDDING Bids mean the same things they meant without the intervening bid [so if SAYC was being taught, then 3♥ would still show the limit raise, despite the opposition intervention. The fact that your students keep bidding this way is probably an indication that they are familiar with SAYC]. Cue-bidding right-hand opponent’s suit shows values for game without clear direction for the moment. This is often used to show a game-forcing raise: e.g. 1♠-(2♣)-3♣ = game force; usually a raise. Max Hardy and Steve Brunno’s book on 2/1 agrees with the limit raise except for showing 10-12 HCP (versus 10-11 HCP). Ok, so this book is old and bidding theory has moved on. Paul Thurston’s Pocket Guide to 2/1 is more modernized. Using this as a reference then: 1M-2M = 3-card raise 7-10 HCP 1M-3M = 4(5)-card pre-emptive raise, less than 7 HCP 1M-4M = 5+ card support, less than 10 HCP, singleton or void (same as SAYC) Paul uses Bergen raises to show the in-between raises with 4(5) card support. To show a 10-12 HCP and a 3-card limit raise, he goes via 1NT and then a jump to 3M. With GF values, responder’s first bid is obviously a 2/1 bid. When the opponents overcall, the cue-bid raise is used to show 4+ card support and limit+ raise (includes the possibility of GF strength). An exception to this rule occurs when responder has a limit raise but only 3-card support. A negative double followed by a raise to 3M shows the limit+ raise. SAYC and 2/1 have a lot in common. My suggestion to you to fix this problem is this: Compile a conversion table from SAYC to 2/1. You might be pleasantly surprised to see how little actually changes from SAYC to BASIC 2/1. Obviously the more conventions you start adding on increases the complexity. Good luck. I have a full understanding of your frustrations! (Zel: What does IANAE stand for?)

I can only partially agree with you here e.g. Precision, Romex, Benjaminised ACOL have a systemic bid for the 2♦ bid. However, when I scrutinize the CCs of some top international players, I have seen some who have deviated from the standard systemic bid. Precision is an example I can think of here with some players moving the 4414/3415/4405 hands into the 2♥ bid in order to free up the 2♦ bid for something else (usually Multi). In general, most players tend to use the 2♦ bid for whatever fits in best with their system. I am curious as to what others are using the bid for, and hence this thread.

Richard was brave enough to offer an answer here. I’ll make an alternate one and see how others react to it. The simple truth is that you and partner need to agree on what each bid means in different bidding sequences. 1. So in the auction posted by the OP: 1♥-(1♠)-2♠ I don’t believe that the 2♠ bid in this sequence should ever be used to show the limit plus raise (10-11 HCP) as responder is an unpassed hand. Neither should it be used as a Western Cue-Bid. Which therefore leaves it as a game-forcing cue-bid (option 3 above). 2. In a different auction: P-(P)-1♥-(1♠) 2♠ by the player in first seat now becomes the limit plus raise (option 1 above). 3. In yet another different auction: 1♦-(P)-1♥-(1♠) 2♣-(P)-2♠ The 2♠ bid in this sequence becomes the Western Cue-Bid, asking for a ♠ stopper to play in NT. A direct 2NT bid would indicate that the player has the ♠ stop himself.

I am well aware of that. I chose to list the uses for the 2♦ bid which I believe are amongst the more popular uses for it. If you use it for something else, then vote "Something Else" and then tell us in a post what you use it for.

Are 5-card majors permitted in the 18-19 HCP balanced 2♦ opening bids?

This is yet another poll attempting to find out what other players use the 2♦ bid for. I have no idea what the frequency of occurrence for Multi is. The frequency will be affected by the version you play. Of the others listed here, Ekren’s has the highest frequency of occurrence. The natural Weak 2♦ and Polish 2♦ are second and third by some distance. I still play a natural Weak 2♦. The nuisance factor is greater than many would care to acknowledge. The entire 1-level has been taken away from the opponents. Our continuations are really basic: Pass (the hand belongs to the opponents) 2♥/2♠ (natural, non-forcing) 2NT (natural, inviting 3NT when opener is max [9-11 HCP], or with a suit containing the top 3-honours) 3♣ (natural, non-forcing, no fit in the ♦ suit) 3♦ (natural, lifting the pre-empt) 3♥/3♠ (natural, invitational) 3NT (to play, good fit in the ♦ suit)

What is the rationale behind the Mexican 2♦ bid (18-19 HCP balanced)? I have seen it all too often that players using this bid, end up in 2NT going down 1, or 3NT also going down 1. In a previous thread, Too Many 2NT Contracts are Going Down it was already identified that the 2NT contracts were fairing poorly. So how many of these 2NT contracts going down can be attributed to players using the Mexican 2♦ bid?