oberiko

We had considered the idea of making 2NT an artificial bid of some sort (including your suggestion of showing 10+ HCP and 3 card support), but decided against it for a few reasons. 1. Adds complexity. We already have UCB to show a sound raise and a general agreement that NT in competition is (almost) always a limit bid showing range, stoppers and denying majors. 2. Natural / limit NT is pretty useful. Especially in sequences such as {1m - (1M)} where a response of 2N gives partner a good range of options (play 2N, sign-off in 3m or 3N, let opponents take the contract if they bid up further etc.) and also makes it more difficult for the advancer to get in the auction. 3. Less common. Standard English Acol uses the bid as natural / limit. Our philosophy is to try not to divert to much, as it is more likely to cause confusion when playing with different partners. No doubt we will miss the occasional 5-3 fit, and it does little to hinder the opposition in auctions like {1M - (2m)}, but we figure the benefits of customizing don't outweigh costs.

I'd take it as forcing as well. Asides from our general agreement that any constructive new suit is forcing, we also agree on what minimum strength we need to have in the partnership for each level (1 = 19, 2 = 22, 3 = 25 etc.). In this case, since the responder is forcing to the 3-level, it would convey 13+ HCP.

Hello. Can any one explain the logic behind the conventional ranges of the following two bids (Acol system)? 1 NT overcall in protective seat: 11-14 HCP Takeout then rebid: 17+ HCP It seems like it would line up better if the 1NT overcall were 13-15 (principle of borrowed king) and the double-rebid was 16+ (standard "strong" range).

Is there a general consensus on the use of splinters over an opening of 1m? If so, what's the criteria? Right now, I'm thinking it should be the following: * 13-15 HCP * 4+ card support * Singleton/void in suit bid This would be used in combination with the standard 1m - 3NT response (13-15 HCP, no four card major, stoppers in all unbid suits) and inverted minors. Since Acol uses a weak NT and four card major, that guarantees that opener has either 12+ HCP and 5+ cards in the minor, or 15+ HCP and 4+ cards on the minor. Thoughts?

Might be a bit simple, but we (in an Acol context) play the following: 1♥ - (P) - 2NT: Jacoby (4+ hearts, 16+ HCP or 13+ HCP with singleton/void) 1♥ - (X) - 2NT: Truscott (4+ hearts, 10+ HCP) 1♥ - (1♠) - 2♠: Unassuming cue-bid (4+ hearts, 10+ HCP) 1♥ - (1♠) - 2NT: Natural (10-12 HCP, 3- hearts, stoppers in all unbid suits and good ones in spades)

We play inverted minors in our Acol system. Responder first bids (assuming opener bid 1♣) 1♦: 6+ HCP, 3- clubs, 4+ diamonds (we respond longest suit, up-the-line; this could be 4441) 1M: 6+ HCP, 4+ cards in major (does not deny clubs) 1N: 6-9 HCP, 3- in all suits skipped (standard dustbin; in the case of clubs it would only be for 3334 distributions) 2♣: 10-15 HCP, 4+ clubs, 3- of both majors 2♦/2♥/2♠: weak jump-shift 2N: 16+ HCP, 4+ clubs, 3- of both majors (modified Jacoby 2NT) 3♣: 0-9 HCP, 5 clubs (preemptive, increase level for each additional card; wouldn't bid if 1M response was valid) 3♦/3♥/3♠: 13-15 HCP, 4+ clubs, 3- in both majors, singleton/void (s/v) in suit bid and stoppers in the others (strong splinter) 3N: 13-15 HCP, stoppers in all unbid suits, 3- of both majors Subsequent bids after 1m - 2m sequence Simple suit change: unbalanced with stopper(s) in bid suit, denies stoppers in all suits skipped 2-suited: shows a stopper in suit bid, denies stopper in last unbid suit 2N: 10-12 HCP, stoppers in both unbid suits 3m: 10-12 HCP, no stoppers in either unbid suit Jump-shift: 10-12 HCP, s/v in suit bid (weak splinter) 3N: 13-15 HCP, stoppers in both unbid suits 4m: 13-15 HCP, no stoppers in either unbid suit and no s/v [*]2N: 15-17 HCP, balanced (standard NT rebid, does not promise stoppers in all suits) 3m: 10-12 HCP, poor stoppers Simple suit change: 10-12 HCP, s/v in suit bid (weak splinter) 3N: Strength / stoppers for game, no slam interest 4m: Minorwood [*]3m: unbalanced, 12-15 HCP (might have been 11 w/ 6 cards), very poor hand unsuitable for game in NT or minors opposite a minimum Simple suit change: 10-12 HCP, s/v in suit bid (weak splinter) 3N: Strength / stoppers for game, no slam interest 4m: Minorwood [*]Jump-shift: unbalanced with 16+ TP and s/v in bid suit (openers splinter) 3N: stoppers in all unbid suits (good ones in partners s/v), no slam interest 4m: Minorwood [*]3N: 18-19 HCP, balanced (standard NT rebid, does not promise stoppers in all suits) 4m: Minorwood [*]4m: Minorwood Subsequent bids after 1m - 3om/3M (splinter) sequence Simple suit change: showing first-round control 3N: minimum (12-15 HCP) and good stopper(s) in splintered suit 4m: Minorwood Jump-shift: 16+ TP and showing a s/v 4N: quantitative NT (19-20 HCP, stopper in unbid suit) 5m: minimum (12-15 TP), no stopper in unbid suit Notes When using the immediate response of 3N or a splinter, having a stopper in the other minor not mandatory When exchanging stoppers, it is assumed that the other minor is already stopped unless explicitly denied (ex. 1♣ - 2♣ - 2M) Over a diamond opening, just add clubs to the end (ex. 2♥/2♠/3♣) of most sequences 4m is Minorwood in all cases except a jump from the "looking for stoppers" portion, or when made by opener after a 3m limit bid; anything else shows to much strength to stop short of game. In competitive auctions inverted minors are off if LHO intervenes, but are on if RHO does; effectively, once we start using inverted minors, we keep using it. In the latter case, the only significant difference would be that a double signifies a stolen-bid. Even though we don't really play frequently enough that most of these come up (in the rare occasion that we do get to use inverted minors, it's always been just an exchange of stoppers then signing-off in 3m, 3N or occasionally 5m), the pattern to the bids is fairly simple and similar to what we use over modified Jacoby 2NT.

Further to Zelandakh's good advice of sticking to the Acol Club, and viewing partner's profile, I'd also recommend staying away from the fancy stuff unless it's in both yours and partners profile (which most of it won't be...). I'd recommend reading Sandra Landy's "Standard English Acol", published by the EBU. I don't know of anyone who plays SE fully (seems more like a compromise system between older and more modern styles) but is probably about 80% accurate for how folks in that club play. Be sure to mark other Acol players you get along with as friends! It can help you to find a partner when the main club is emptied for the night and a few Acol-ites are out there playing in the main lobby.

Since I primarily play casually at work, we tend to keep it pretty simple and prefer that new suits are (almost) always value-showing. To clarify for the examples below, we play Acol w/ 4-card majors, weak-NT and inverted minors. Example 1: 1♣ - 2♣ - 2♥ - 3NT Shows: I have 4+ ♣'s, 12+ HCP and not a weak-1NT head I have 4+ ♣'s, 3- in both majors and 10-15 HCP I am denying a ♦-stop, but have a ♥-stop and would like to try for NT I have stoppers in ♦ and ♠ as well as 13-15 HCP Example 2: 1♥ - 2♥ - 3♣ - 3♦ - 3♥ Shows: I have 4+ ♥'s, 12+ HCP and not a weak-1NT head I have 4+ ♥'s and 9 or 10 losers I have 6 losers and good ♣'s (at most 1 loser in that suit), if this is where 3 of your losers are, please bid game My losers are not in ♣'s, but I counter-propose with a strong ♦ suit (at most 1 loser) Signing-off in 3♥ as game isn't happening For that reason, we also use the Eastern cue-bid instead of the (much more popular) Western cue-bid.

Hello, When playing Acol, should the Losing Trick Count be used in competitive auctions? I'll layout a couple of scenarios (in all auctions, assume that I open 1♥) and my assumptions. I open 1♥, partner raises, RHO intervenes I assume that in this case, I am not concerned with any kind of pre-emptive raise; any subsequent bid I make (raise ♥'s or trial bid) is the same as if intervention hadn't happened (ie based on LTC). I open 1♥, LHO intervenes, partner raises So, in this case, a direct raise (♥'s) would show a pre-emptive raise based on the Law of Total Tricks (0-9 HCP). A sound raise would be shown by either Truscott 2NT or an Unassuming Cue Bid. In this case, what should sound represent? 10+ HCP or 8- losers? I open 1m, partner changes suits to a major I can support, RHO intervenes When partner changes suits, I assume 9 losers. Once again, I assume that I have no need to pre-empt, since partnership has at least 18+ HCP, and thus I can simply ignore the intervention and bid as I would normally. Thoughts?

I was recently looking at total point (TP) requirements for contract levels and came across COLETA. In a nutshell it advocates increasing the TP needed by 3 for each additional level and giving a "bump" by playing trumps (T) w/ trump-fit instead of NT. For example: 1T: 16-18 2T or 1NT: 19-21 3T or 2NT: 22-24 And so on; further looking around seems to show a fairly universal agreement that the same contract level in trumps almost always requires less total points then that in no-trumps. This got me thinking, wouldn't it be simpler if we kept the table to static levels (i.e. 25 TP for all 3-level contracts) but included an additional set of distribution points for level-of-fit? I'm aware that many guides say not to add both "length" and "shortness" in distribution, however it looks like it is quite common among several evaluation methods. To keep it simple, what I'm thinking is a point increase for the amount of additional trumps you hold over opponents. With 8 trumps, you get +3 points (8-5); with 9, you get +5 (9-4) and so on. Does this sound reasonable, or am I overlooking something?

I should clarify my situation. Right now I only really play socially (at work) with a smallish group of people, some of whom rotate in and out. Simplicity thus needs to be one of the key factors in our conventions. The other main consideration is that one of the players is used to playing Acol with strong-2's, and Benji was the compromise we were able to reach to get my weak-2's in ♥'s and ♠'s. My question, therefore, should have been worded if there is any disadvantage to using 2♣ to signify a potential weak-2♦ when playing Benji vs. having it restricted to simply "Acol-2 or high-NT". Yeah, it gives me a pretty shabby weak-2♦ bid, but I'm thinking it's better then foregoing it entirely. For example, with the hand ♠XXX ♥XX ♦KQXXXX ♣QX (or something), I think the following scenarios are entirely possible: Regular Benji p - (1x) - 1y - (2x) p Benji w/ multi-2♣ 2♣ - (p) - 2♦ - (p) p Does anyone see something that I'm missing?

Hi, I should clarify that I don't doubt that using 2♣ as a multi to potentially have weak-2♦ is indeed inferior to an opening bid of 2♦ right out of the gate in that situation. Off-hand, there are no advantages and it has the following disadvantages: As you said, it allows 4th chair more room to bid Exposes the "better" hand (the opener) as the dummy What I'm thinking is that, assuming one is playing Benji, it's better to have the weak-2♦ option within the 2♣ then not. In terms of responder having a forcing bid, I haven't thought much about it (just playing with the idea of multi-2♣ recently), but I think I covered it (roughly) by stating that responder can bid appropriately if they have a "beefy" hand; i.e. any bid other then 2♦ would imply that responder wants opener to play on, even if all he has is a weak-2♦. I reckon in that case, opener would rebid 2NT for Acol-2 strong diamonds and 3♦ to signify a weak diamond holding (other suits and 3NT would be natural).

I think that sounds more like a weakness with the 2♦-relay bid more then including weak-2♦ as part of 2♣, no?

How does responder differentiate between your first two options and the third option? With 22+ HCP it is considered standard for the auction to be forcing up to at least 3 of opener’s real suit. So the auction goes – 2♣-P-2♦-P 2♠-P-? The 2♠ bid = 8 quick tricks in a major (16+ HCP) Forcing the auction to level 3 on a poor fit may be 1-level too high. What now? So how do I end the auction in 2♠ with these sorts of hands? I'm far from an expert on Benji, but I would think this would follow the same bidding rules as the current standard 2♣ (or Acol-2) no? Using Bridge Bum's guidelines: New suit: 5+ card suit, 8+ points and game-forcing 2NT: The negative response, showing 0-7 points Single raise: 3+ card support, with 5+ points. Game-forcing Double raise: Weaker than a single raise. Usually represents a weak hand with at least 4-card support. 3NT: Natural, balanced, 8-11 points.

I'm following the recommendation of Bernard Magee and using the following ranges: 2NT: 19-20 2♣ - 2♦ - 2NT: 21-22 2♦ - 2♥ - 2NT: 23-24

I play Benji Acol and, on reading some of the pros and cons of the system, one of the biggest complaints is the loss of the weak-2♦. Has anyone ever introduced a multi-2♣ to address this? Here's what I'm thinking 2♣ could viably represent: A strong suited hand, which could be one of the following: 19-22 HCP (unbalanced) 16+ HCP and either 8 quick tricks in major OR 9 quick tricks in minor [*]21-22 balanced [*]Weak-2♦ The responder will always respond with a simple 2♦ relay (or pass in the case of an overcall). In the first three cases opener will rebid with their suit preference, while in the last, they simply pass. At the moment, I can't really see any major downsides: If opener is strong, the bidding will proceed as per normal 2♣ If opener is weak and partner is weak, then opener proceeds as per normal weak-2 (raising above overcalls if possible etc.) If opener is weak and partner is strong, then one of the opponents will almost certainly overcall and opener will pass; this passes the torch to responder The only downside I can see is in the following scenario where opener is weak and responder is strong: 2♣ - (2x) - pass - (pass) pass Even this is, I think, fairly mild: Opponents do not have trump-fit Opponents bidding space was chewed up, fulfilling the goal of the preempt As with weak-2s, responder likely couldn't have changed the suit anyway If the responder has a sufficiently beefy hand (say, 19+ points), he will be able to discern the weak-two immediately and respond appropriately Thoughts? Edit: Corrected that it's to show 19-22 unbalanced and cleaned up the suit of strength option