oldfogey

What is Acol? That is the topic - the definition of the Acol system. About three replies addressed this. The question on the use of weak NT was relevant, but became a point of divergence as we got Matchpoint Precision, Kaplan-Scheinwald, Nightmare, Moscito, and question and answer about the definition of Keri. Of course no topic is banned to any poster, but if he is going to contribute to it he might have the consideration to keep to the topic, even if a query, such as the weak NT one, tempts him to branch into his pet systems and theories. There must be forums or topics that cover these, or they could be started as "Scientific Systems", "Modern Systems", "Advanced Systems", or whatever he prefers. I promise I will not trespass on his patch to talk about Acol, etc. My other topic received worse treatment. It was under 'Find a Partner', and sought an Acol-using partner. Yet again we got Nightmare, Moscito, Forcing Pass, as well as game theory, the science of information exchange, and scientifically designed systems. What have these to do with finding an Acol partner? One expert poster has expressed disregard for Acol, and described Acol, SAYC and 2/1 as obsolete. Maybe they are, but one wonders why he bothers to read such topics as Find an Acol Partner.

On the two occasions I've started a topic it's been invaded and taken over by 'high-flyers' ("advanced" or "world-class" posters, like US Generals with rows of medal ribbons) talking at great length about things irrelevant to the subject. I wish they'd keep to their own patch. No offence X,Y, Z and W. ;D

An earlier correspondent mentioned variable NT, e.g. 12-14 non-vul, 15-17 vul. This is logical at rubber bridge and IMPs. Responder could still be too weak to try Stayman opposite a 15-17 NT. I believe SAYC and 2/1 don't allow 12-14 NT.

Thanks for the replies. I'd forgotten 2-level response on 8+ and 5+ suit. I stand corrected about Acol not ACOL. 5-card spade suit implied by opening 1H when 4-4 in majors? But what if the hand, eg, AKxx, Kxx, QJx, Kxx and NT weak: prepared minor?

The ACOL bidding system was devised by leading British players using a club in Acol Street, London. It is a basically natural system, apart of course from Stayman, Blackwood, and any other conventions agreed by a partnership. As far as I know the only features that make it ACOL as distinct from any other system are:- * Weak NT, 12-14 (because of its preemptive value and greater frequency); * Ability to open a 4-card major if that's the best bid (don't like missing a 4-4 fit); * Limit bids in partner's suit and NT responses and rebids (bid what you've got); * In standard ACOL strong 2 openings (in Benjaminised ACOL wk 2s in majors with 2C showing a strong 2 in any suit); * 2C opening is game forcing except in the sequence 2C - 2D - 2NT. So there are not many features defining ACOL. Yet we see described as ACOL, e.g. 15-17 NT, 5-card majors, 5-card Spades (why?), weak 2s in S, H and D, and sometimes a 2C opening which obviously isn't good enough to force to game. If you take away more than half the few definitions of a system, how much is left of it? When a partner wants to play ACOL with 15-17 NT, 5-card majors, and weak 2s in 3 suits, I say lets just call it SAYC.

The type of super-scientific system desired by hrothgar if he could achieve it would be better played by four computers. It's fair enough that the authorities should discourage such systems from other than top competitions, since the great majority of players do not understand or wish to use them. Surely there's no satisfaction in winning by using methods that confuse opponents by their complexity? oldfogey

I would think that true expert (as distinct from some self-proclaimed experts) and world-standard players are guided more by logical reasoning and knowledge of their partner's bidding style, rather than by ANY rigid system. Presumably an exception would be the Italian Blue Team with their very precise Blue Club. oldfogey

Undo should not be allowed if the next player has played (revealing a card), or bid (revealing a suit). oldfogey

My method is:- Before pd has bid, count 1 each for 5th and 6th cards in a suit; 2 each for cards beyond the 6th. Nothing for shortages. When supporting pds suit, still count for length, but add points for shortages: 1 for xx, 2 for x, 3 for void. I believe this comes to the same as the 1,3,5 count, but is more reliable. oldfogey

My method is:- Before pd has bid, count 1 each for 5th and 6th cards in a suit; 2 each for cards beyond the 6th. Nothing for shortages. When supporting pds suit, still count for length, but add points for shortages: 1 for xx, 2 for x, 3 for void. I believe this comes to the same as the 1,3,5 count, but is more reliable. oldfogey

My method is:- Before pd has bid, count 1 each for 5th and 6th cards in a suit; 2 each for cards beyond the 6th. Nothing for shortages. When supporting pds suit, still count for length, but add points for shortages: 1 for xx, 2 for x, 3 for void. I believe this comes to the same as the 1,3,5 count, but is more reliable. oldfogey

Could the loud clicking while waiting to get in be toned down a bit? When, as often, it goes on for quite a long time it gets a bit wearing. OK, I know I can turn down sound on my speakers, but like to have restful music playing during bridge. (Don't know if that improves my temperament!) ;)

Overwhelmed by SAYC and 2/1, I would like to find ACOL-talking partners - basic and Benjaminised. It's very easy and logical. Basic ACOL is just 12-14 NT, the ability to open a good 4-card major (if that's the best bid), strong 2's (8 playing tricks - forcing for 1 round), and limit bids in suport of pds suit, or in NT (if that's the obvious bid). Plus any conventions you agree on, including all the usual SAYC gadgets. (How can a system be defined as a collection of conventions which MUST be used?). Please don't talk to me about ACOL with 5-card majors, 15-17 NT, and weak 2's, lol! Benji ACOL DOES use weak 2's in majors. So a 2C opening shows a strong 2 in any suit, and 2D opening is GAME-FORCING with 2H negative response. 2D-2H-2NT shows 23-24 points, so is the only time bidding can stop short of game - if responder has almost nothing. I prefer Benji, as the reason for weak NT is its greater frequency and pre-emptive value, so logically weak 2s shd be preferred to strong, for the same reason. Apart from all that bidding and play are common sense as they shd be in any system. Grrrr, Old Fogey