1444 and Acol

[helene_t]

I'm new to Acol land so I haven't formed my own opinion about three-suited hands yet. Of course this is a very different issue compared to 3-suited hands in SA, since the Acolists have the option of opening 1M yet they don't have the option of rebidding an off-shape 1NT with a minimum when p hits their singleton. (I had some success with the following joke when teaching the 1444-issue to beginners: "Which suit is p going to bid? Especially if you are playing with your spouse ..."

 

With a singleton spades and 12-14 points, Henderson's book says you must open 1♥. Most seem to follow that advice, while a minority (including some who seem to have thought about it) open 1♦. I like to open 1♦ in order not to have to sell my 4-card major as a 5-card, but I'm not quite sure if this is playable.

 

One reason for opening 1♥ is that in the uncontested auction

1♦-1♠

2♣-2♥*

you cannot raise hearts since that would take you too high if p has an invitational hand without hearts. But I like to play FSF as GF and most partner's are fine with this (many bids are more likely to be forcing in Lancaster than in other parts of UK anyway) so this is not an issue.

 

What is an issue, though, is

1♦-(2♣)-2♠-(p)

?

 

Presumably you would have to bid an NF 3♦ on a moth-eaten 5-card, but a moth-eaten 4-card would really make me nervous.

 

Btw 2♠ is non-forcing in Henderson's book but nobody plays that here. (It happens to be a popular treatment in the Netherlands, though).

[zasanya]

My Partner who loves acol says with a 4-4-4-1 black singleton open 1♦ and with a red singleton open 1♣.

For us 1♦-(2♣)-2♠=10+ 1RF-2NT=minimum 1-4-4-4-shortage in ♠.A suit rebid is always 5+ carder minimum (12-14) .With extras (15+) we will bid 3nt.

[helene_t]

Thanx, Zasanaya, this is probably the best solution. Will discuss this with p, hopefully he agrees :)

What should the rule be? Something like "if p makes a freebid above the 2-level of the opening suit, a 2NT rebid does not show extras"?

[zasanya]

What should the rule be? Something like "if p makes a freebid above the 2-level of the opening suit, a 2NT rebid does not show extras"?

Yes we play it that way.

[Cascade]

My Partner who loves acol says with a 4-4-4-1 black singleton open 1♦ and with a red singleton open 1♣.

1♦ 2♣ will cause you problems following this advice when you have 4=4=4=1.

[skjaeran]

My Partner who loves acol says with a 4-4-4-1 black singleton open 1♦ and with a red singleton open 1♣.

1♦ 2♣ will cause you problems following this advice when you have 4=4=4=1.

Some solve this by rebidding 2♥ - excluding that bid from the normal reverse meaning (or have it 2-way with some mecanism to explore). I don't fancy that solution myself.

[Cascade]

If you want a suggestion from left field...

 

within range for a weak NT we open:

 

1NT with 1=4=4=4 or 4=4=4=1

 

usually 1♣ with 4=4=1=4 but might consider 1NT

 

usually 1♣ with 4=1=4=4 but might consider 1NT or 1♦

 

Outside the range for our NT we usually open a minor and will normally rebid NTs.

[NickToll]

1♦ seems the best choice to me holding a 4441, 4144 or 1444. 1♣ is the obvious choice with 4414.

 

Points of discussions with partner:

- 1♦-1♠-2♣ does not promise more than four diamonds (1444);

- 1♦-2♣-2♦, once again, can be bid with a minimum and four diamonds only (4441).

 

Both the treatments are not perfect, but the alternatives are worse.

 

Alternative n.1: minimum 1444s and 4441s could be included in the 1NT opening bid. Matter of style: it is relatively common with a stiff King (if you are allowed to do so under your local regulations). If you choose to do so, your weak NT will include hands with 6-8 losers instead of the usual 7-8: moreover, you will never discover the ruff potential when a 4-4 fit is found.

 

Alternative n.2 (for the second point only): minimum 4441s could be bid via 1♥-2♣-2♦. This is the standard Acol route. Anyway, playing four-card majors and weak notrump, when partner opens 1♥ or 1♠ you are entitled to assume a five-card suit or extra values: this enables you to raise with three cards only, knowing that partner will usually have the strength to correct in notrump when appropriate. To me, this principle is so valuable that I won't give it up.

 

Compared to the alternatives above, opener's rebid showing five or rarely four diamonds seems more than acceptable.

[zasanya]

My Partner who loves acol says with a 4-4-4-1 black singleton open 1♦ and with a red singleton open 1♣.

1♦ 2♣ will cause you problems following this advice when you have 4=4=4=1.

Agree.If responder bids openers singleton and opponents do not intervene then rebid of minor is our somewhat dissatisfactory solution.

[helene_t]

- 1♦-2♣-2♦, once again, can be bid with a minimum and four diamonds only (4441).

But in Acol, the 2♦ rebid is frequently passed. We could easily be playing in a 4-1 fit, then. I'd rather open 1♥ or 1NT.

 

I like 2♦ on a 4-card in a 5-card major system with the 2♦ rebid being forcing, though.

[NickToll]

- 1♦-2♣-2♦, once again, can be bid with a minimum and four diamonds only (4441).

But in Acol, the 2♦ rebid is frequently passed. We could easily be playing in a 4-1 fit, then...

Well, responder is not likely to pass 2♦ with a singleton diamond. A minimum two-over-one promises 10-11 points or a good club suit, usually with no four card major (otherwise 1♥ or 1♠ is probably more appropriate than 2♣, even with five clubs). Hence, a singleton diamond means a 3-3-1-6 hand: with that shape, a 3♣ rebid seems much better than pass...

[csdenmark]

I wondered this discussion. I remember I learned Goren openings, 4 card major. 4-4-4-1 openings - open the suit below the singleton.

 

I took a look into Terence Reese - Acol today 1961 - same advice for acol. Open the suit below the singleton.

 

Easy to remember and you find fit in 2-level.

[helene_t]

Yes, below the singleton is classical. Hearts with a singleton clubs.

[csdenmark]

Yes, below the singleton is classical. Hearts with a singleton clubs.

No the suit below clubs is spades

[zasanya]

- 1♦-2♣-2♦, once again, can be bid with a minimum and four diamonds only (4441).

But in Acol, the 2♦ rebid is frequently passed. We could easily be playing in a 4-1 fit, then. I'd rather open 1♥ or 1NT.

 

I like 2♦ on a 4-card in a 5-card major system with the 2♦ rebid being forcing, though.

2♣ by responder should promise at least 1 more bid.So 2 ♦ should not be passed.The way we play it 2NT or 3 ♣ as responders rebid is passable; shows 9-11 and no 4 card major.With 4 card major longer ♣ and 9-11 range we respond 1 M so 4-4 fit will not be lost.With 12 + you are strong enough to rebid major after 2♣ and insist on game.

[helene_t]

2♣ promising one more bid creates problems. Not saying that it's bad since it obviously solves some problems also. But if responder has a 3325 9-count he cannot respond 1NT since opener would pass 1NT with a balanced 16-count. Yet responder needs at least 11 points to bid again over 2♦, considering the 3451 11-count opener might have.

[zasanya]

2♣ promising one more bid creates problems. Not saying that it's bad since it obviously solves some problems also. But if responder has a 3325 9-count he cannot respond 1NT since opener would pass 1NT with a balanced 16-count. Yet responder needs at least 11 points to bid again over 2♦, considering the 3451 11-count opener might have.

Since the range for 1NT is 6-10 Opener will try 2NT over 1 NT with a balanced 16+.

We are experimenting with a 2♣ relay promising 15+ by opner where responders rebid of 2♦ shows 6-7 ;other 2 level calls show 7-8 and 3 level shows 9-10

[helene_t]

But if responder bids 1NT with as many as 10 points, opener will have to try 2NT with 15 points, so you will be playing 2NT with 6+15 points, right?

[gwnn]

Zasanya, the purpose of this thread is not to invent a new system. Acol, as it's played by most, does not use the treatment "2/1 promises a rebid" and does not have the 1NT response to a 1 bid showing "6-10". It's a hand that has no interest in game opp. a 15-16 NT.

[the hog]

2♣ promising one more bid creates problems. Not saying that it's bad since it obviously solves some problems also. But if responder has a 3325 9-count he cannot respond 1NT since opener would pass 1NT with a balanced 16-count. Yet responder needs at least 11 points to bid again over 2♦, considering the 3451 11-count opener might have.

Helene virtually all Acol players these days play that a 2/1 is forcing to 2NT. If you are so worried about 4441 shapes, play 2D as mini Roman.

[Cascade]

2♣ promising one more bid creates problems. Not saying that it's bad since it obviously solves some problems also. But if responder has a 3325 9-count he cannot respond 1NT since opener would pass 1NT with a balanced 16-count. Yet responder needs at least 11 points to bid again over 2♦, considering the 3451 11-count opener might have.

Helene virtually all Acol players these days play that a 2/1 is forcing to 2NT. If you are so worried about 4441 shapes, play 2D as mini Roman.

We play a 2/1 is forcing for one round.

 

We frequently pass on auctions like 1x 2y; 2x especially on misfit hands.

 

Partly this is because we play 1x 2y; 2x 2NT as forcing and not invitational.

[the hog]

2♣ promising one more bid creates problems. Not saying that it's bad since it obviously solves some problems also. But if responder has a 3325 9-count he cannot respond 1NT since opener would pass 1NT with a balanced 16-count. Yet responder needs at least 11 points to bid again over 2♦, considering the 3451 11-count opener might have.

Helene virtually all Acol players these days play that a 2/1 is forcing to 2NT. If you are so worried about 4441 shapes, play 2D as mini Roman.

We play a 2/1 is forcing for one round.

 

We frequently pass on auctions like 1x 2y; 2x especially on misfit hands.

 

Partly this is because we play 1x 2y; 2x 2NT as forcing and not invitational.

This is not standard these days amongst Acol players, Wayne. Certainly 2NT by responder as a GF has NEVER been standard. In fact in Baronised Acol, many years ago, Don Evans recommended playing 2/1 as forcing to 2NT or 3m.

[Cascade]

2♣ promising one more bid creates problems. Not saying that it's bad since it obviously solves some problems also. But if responder has a 3325 9-count he cannot respond 1NT since opener would pass 1NT with a balanced 16-count. Yet responder needs at least 11 points to bid again over 2♦, considering the 3451 11-count opener might have.

Helene virtually all Acol players these days play that a 2/1 is forcing to 2NT. If you are so worried about 4441 shapes, play 2D as mini Roman.

We play a 2/1 is forcing for one round.

 

We frequently pass on auctions like 1x 2y; 2x especially on misfit hands.

 

Partly this is because we play 1x 2y; 2x 2NT as forcing and not invitational.

This is not standard these days amongst Acol players, Wayne. Certainly 2NT by responder as a GF has NEVER been standard. In fact in Baronised Acol, many years ago, Don Evans recommended playing 2/1 as forcing to 2NT or 3m.

Certainly 2NT forcing is not standard.

 

However I have also never heard anyone promote that a 2/1 response promises a rebid (below 2NT) in New Zealand and I have frequently seen players pass on the second round below 2NT.

 

The first I ever came upon the concept of responder promising any sort of rebid after a 2/1 was when reading the SAYC notes when I started playing online.

 

Crowhurst's Acol Index published in 2000 does not note that a 2/1 is forcing to 2NT. He is not usually my authority but perhaps at least an indication that forcing to 2NT is not standard.

[the hog]

Did you look at Don Evan's notes? Suggest you speak to McCance about this; he's the Acol authority in Australia. (Or Norma if you like).

[Cascade]

Did you look at Don Evan's notes? Suggest you speak to McCance about this; he's the Acol authority in Australia. (Or Norma if you like).

No where do I find Don Evans notes.

 

The Standard English Acol 2005 also does not suggest that a 2/1 is forcing for more than one round.

 

I am sure that 2/1 forcing to 2NT is playable but I am far from convinced that it is anything close to standard.