gordontd

It suggests doubt about playing in 3NT.

So the difference between the two was declarer's diamond play, not the opening lead.

He didn't lead a heart either.

1♦-1♠ 2♣-3♥ 3NT

I see no reverse.

It's entirely playable in a weak-NT system (because a 2NT rebid is game-forcing) to allow a 4cM in a forcing minor-suit raise. That you produce a six-year-old quotation from an un-named expert from an un-named place doesn't alter this.

Presumably you got an artificial adjusted score because of the misboard?

It seems that way to me too, but you, uniquely, seem to think there's something wrong with that. What's wrong with "improving one's own position"? Isn't that what we're all trying to do all the time when we play bridge?

...but it does sound as though it was probably a change of mind rather than an inadvertent designation.

Presumably. Though it's hard to see what there is to object to about calling it "sharing" when two tables share a set of boards.

My comment was about playing Crowhurst and a wide-range NT rebid, which were widely played after Crowhurst's book was published in 1974, but in my experience are not much played now. Clearly Cyberyeti's experience differs.

Actually I think the road name is usually pronounced Acol, but the town of the same name, from where it originated, is pronounced Aycol.

Ay as in May

Maybe you could point him to Robin's post #5 above.

I thought that went out in the mid-eighties!

Ah, you live in the North, don't you?

One might wonder why, since Acol Rd (not Street) was called after a place that pronounces its name "Aycol" we don't pronounce it the same way, but we don't. I don't see why it's backwards to call it by the suit that's bid. Well, the sentences above are contradictory. I'd have more concern about your grasp of logic than your use of English! :D

I'm sure there must be, but I don't know where (I assume you've already done a search). It's 4-card majors (unless it's Dutch Acol), although nowadays many Acol players really play 4-card minors - ie they open minors in preference to majors. It's spelt Acol not ACOL, and it has a short "A" like "rack".

I think it's close between 1♠ & 4♠, and would probably open 1♠ at MPs & 4♠ at IMPs. Even when it's wrong to have opened 4♠, the opponents often find it hard to take advantage of it.

I don't think "most events" in the UK are played at Level 2. At Level 3 & Level 4 the rule of 18 applies.

The post to which I was replying didn't see any such necessity.

What do you consider to be a minimum weak two?

I think it's their responsibility to ensure their explanation is intelligible, and if their agreement quite remarkable they should stress those aspects that no-one would expect.

It seems so unlikely that they would have to have precisely two clubs in order to open 1♣ that I would not interpret it that way, and would certainly ask further questions if the difference mattered to me.

Was it not carefully-constructed?