arrows

I guess there's probably some valid argument on why weak NT works better with 5 card major and strong NT works better with 4 card major... But what I could see here is only some barren claims without any reasoning or argumentation. 1♣-(2♠)-? Playing 5 card major, here I couldn't see how you are able to bid 3♣ with only 4 cards support. First, let me clarify the terminology, What I am talking about is 4 card SUIT open (the way ACOL is), it's different from the term "4 card major". That is, with 4M & 4m, I open the minor. For me, I play 4 card SUIT open with weak NT. When I open 1M, it's either 5 cards or 15-18 HCP, promising more playing strength. also, as Adam pointed out, the sequence 1m-1M-2M promise more playing strength, too. in 5M system, opener may have a shape of 4432, 3 cards in the opened minor, But in 4 card suit open+ weak NT system, it's guaranteed 5-4 distribution, or 4-4 with side singlton. 1NT response are limited up to 9HCP usually, with 15-16 HCP, opener passes, with 17-18 HCP, opener invites. Two over one can be light(8+HCP with fit), that means wider range and harder to command, but it is not inferior. For example, After a 1M open, a major-game invitation may start with 2 over 1, which gives the opener a good chance to evaluate the fit in the side suits. It's definitely better than 1M-3M or any type of artificial raise, or forcing 1NT then 3M raise. The later leaves less room for judgement.

You don't have to give up transfers while playing inv/forcing stayman. ETM Weak Notrump Version of 1NT Structure This Weak notrump structure is "simply"(just ignore the relay part after 2♦ response) cool.

Very good points, Adam. That's exactly some of the benefit of playing Acol.

I happen to be someone know a little bit about ACOL and actually play it seriously once a while. In risk of huckstering my bidding philosophy here, I would like share some of my opinions. In my ACOL system, I dumped strong twos, play multi 2D and muiderberg 2M. I play weak NT throughout and 1NT rebid 15-18HCP. Special effort made for 4441 hands, because I firmly believe that the reason one bid 2nd suit is showing 5+ cards in one's first suit, and this is particularly important when the first suit is a major. I suggest that integrate strong 4441(16+HCPand 5+ controls) into strong open, (2C or 2D as you wish). Not because we are having fancy weapon specially for these hands, rather, it would make our reverse more robust (longer first suit guaranteed). For 4441 hands with less high card value, I open 1♣ with red siglton, open 1♦ with black siglton. Hence, If I open 1M, and rebid a new suit, I show 5+ cards in the major. I solve the 1♦-1♠-? problem by tuning the response structure, rather than the rebid. Facing the open of 1 minor, just make the response of 2♥ show 4-5 ♥ and 5♠, below invitational value. Yeah, I give up the strong jump shift, which could be useful for a slamish one suiter. But it's far less frequent and the problem of not having SJS is far less severe.

of course it's NOT forcing.

I guess you made a claim you could hardly defend. At least, in the old days, to bid twice is stronger than bid once, especially when one bids a new suit, it almost always shows further interest rather than none. These treatments maybe old-fashioned, but it doesn't hurt to learn some of the logic behind them on the way of becoming a "modern" master. BTW, I did made my argument in the context of not play 2-way checkback, didn't I?

One simple difference between weak NT and strong NT. when you play strong NT, your opponents can resolve to just bid destructively, esp. in MP game, occasionally lose a game is not a problem at all. Hence, they would try to jam the auction with almost anything plus some shape.. This approach obviously won't work for them when you play weak NT....

http://public.aci.on.ca/~zpetkov/ No doubt many have already read it. Those who have not, I think it's worth a visit. Personally, I found it enlightening.

I see many top experts playing negative double against 2 level overcall.

2♣ is quite sound an overcall to me, except the 3 cards of ♠, but when one overcall a minor suit, one's partner always first think of notrump, if s/he could bid notrump, all is OK. Pass with too much value seems no good to me.

Here is the link of some convincing argument made by Dr. Chris Ryall. http://www.cavendish.demon.co.uk/bridge/1nt-complex.htm#opps And I am convinced :rolleyes: Whoever bid their par first win the auction, and to open 12-14 1NT, 1NT is your expected par, as Chris explained. Also, I believe playing weak NT does give you an edge against non-world-class players. 99% players do not know how to deal with it in a correct way, I am not exaggerating at all.

Simplified Version of ETM 1NT: 2♦2♥2N3♣ transfer. (2♦ might be GF stayman, too, Yes, it WORKS!) 2♠ asking range and possibly asking minor(s). with 5♠ unbalanced (possibly 5m) invitation: start with 2♣ stayman and rebid 2♠, natural continuation. with 5♥ and 5m invitation: transfter ♥ and rebid 3m, it's not forcing! with 5♥ and 5m GF: bid 3♦ -> 3♥ deny interest in ♥, asking minor suit; other bids=♥ fit. Personally, I think this structure is delicate yet fairly simple and very efficient, esp. in terms of ratio of effectiveness to memory burden.

Presume that not playing two-way checkback, the first sequence need discussion is: 1m 1♠ 1N 2♥ What is it? Intuitively, it's natural and with a flavor of invitation. It then follows that when answering a checkback (new minor forcing), the opener should focus ONLY on responder's first major. Because responder could have bid a natural invitation, or if s/he has GF value, you have a chance to investigate ♥ fit later. Many failed to appreciate this fact and its inference, though they also play "NMF". The original structure of NMF, as written by Hardy in his book, is 2♦: 5+ ♦, without support. 2oM: Min without support. 2M: Min with support. 2N: Max without support. 3X: Max, naturally descriptive, and support. That's all.

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=s8h643dj8752cak104]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] You RHO, East deals and opens 1♠, west responds 1NT as forcing, East rebid 2♣, west make a preference to 2♠, passed to you. What is your choice?

I think the most significant feature of Acol is 4 card suit open. Both strong/weak notrump okey, but seems to me weak notrump plus wider range 1NT rebid works better, it make sense because opener already bid once. Various weak twos. One or one and a half strong two bid is enough. Many dislikes acol, IMO, because it's hard to command the "pure" natural auction.

IMHO, Bridge is doomed when some genius came up the idea that one must provide defense against one's own methods... To be honest, I was really shocked when I first appreciate the profound absurdity of this idea... Amazingly brilliant.

I like your auction because it is concise and entreprenant.

Would have doubled the first round. Yeah, stretched more than a little bit.....

I see, hehe, didn't notice it's artificial ;) then seems to me the responder has yet to show invitation, 2NT or 3♠.

Really? Am I reading this correct? 2♣ over double could be this kind of hand? MHO, the responder should have bid redouble, 1NT or even pass, or yet even 2♦, rather than 2♣. 2 level new suit is not constructive over double, it's a runout bid.

I am looking for 8♠ in the bidding box....

MHO Maybe 2♣ is not an overbid, but one has to realize that it's awkward because the high level and limited strength. Many play 2♣ promise 6 cards. I found that with a void 3 suiter, it pays to underbid a little when things are not clear. if partner bid our suit, great, splinter to the moon. if partner bid our void, great, what a penetrating vision we have! already underbid in advance for the hand doesn't fit. if partner bid NT, not bad, at least we can bid our 2nd suit. Hence, open 1♦ is a good idea for this hand. in practice, 2♥ is mandatory, pass is inconceivable. pass 2♥ is very hard, but that's called discipline....

MHO, I would say that if negative double have never been invented, one wouldn't have this problem, west would have to bid some number of clubs, or getting fancy, cue 2♠. I would have cued 2♠, for me it doesn't deny ♥ strain. East cannot double because lack of extras. bid with extras is the rule of physics. West's double does have extras, says "this hand belong to us", East might have to find a bid other than pass, for there's 10 cards in two suits.

It's of course NOT randomized. I cannot see how a randomized strategy win in bridge. We, of course, choose strategies or tactics depending on who are the opponents. We don't use cannons to shoot flies, just like we don't use swatters to hit tanks. Now, Am I supposed to tell the opponents: " Hey, I tends to be more random in this weak two, because I think you guys suck" I don't think that's good idea, not because it's offensive to the respectful opponents, but because if I said that, my strategy would surely become less effective.

my humble opinion. That's what I said, "I wanna play 2H" is the only appropriate answer here. If they have question regard to your agreement of strength, "below normal opening" is the apppropriate answer. But I am the minority here, many self-assigned ethical players deem me as unethical. For me, bridge is a game of anything, such as, strategy, tactic, psychology, mathmatics, logic deduction, but not "Tell me how many HCP you have" That's just exceedingly silly. I totally support the spirit of full disclosure, but pratically, I believe it has largely been abused by those incompetent directors and players, who have little idea about bridge, other than count HCPs, and even worse, some cunning ones deliberately use this to make a issue out of nothing. It's just rediculous (at least to me) to refuse to admit "I wanna play something" is a legitimate explanation of a call, because that is the very original meaning of every single bid. Yeah, I might be setting up trap and wants to get you, but why I am supposed to tell you about that? I 've said many times, those "ethical" players have no interest in what your agreement is, since they know it's boring. What they want to know is how much you have deviated from the agreement in this particular hand, so that they could make a smarter decision. I think asking question such as "HCP range" in some situation is totally inappropriate, if not "unethical".