1444 and Acol

[helene_t]

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.

I'm not worried about this particular problem in relation to [4441]. I chose to open 1♥ , or occasionally 1NT, or pass with a marginal hand.

 

FWIW this is the first time I hear someone advocating 2/1 being forcing to 2NT, or 2/1 promising a rebid. If you tell me it's standard in Australia I believe you but I'm pretty sure it is not standard in the UK (except maybe when vulnerable for those who play a variable 1NT).

 

I like Wayne's idea that responder's subsequent 2NT is forcing.

[Gerben42]

What I know from Acol is that if opener rebids his suit, that is NOT forcing, for example 1♦ - 2♣ - 2♦.

 

I guess the best solution is that 1♦ - 2♣ - 2NT does NOT shows extras but shows the 4441 hand, because this is more usual than having exactly 3352 (balanced without 3 ♣.

[helene_t]

What I know from Acol is that if opener rebids his suit, that is NOT forcing, for example 1♦ - 2♣ - 2♦.

 

I guess the best solution is that 1♦ - 2♣ - 2NT does NOT shows extras but shows the 4441 hand, because this is more usual than having exactly 3352 (balanced without 3 ♣.

But if opener is 3343, 2353 or 3253 with 15-16 points, he cannot rebid 3♣ since that would show a minimum. The modern trend is that a 2NT rebid is forcing.

 

I don't think many would open 1♦ with 4441 and 12-14 points.

[Gerben42]

Unless you want to play a gadget, which I guess you don't, the singleton ♣ hand is a bad one for the system. After 1♥ - 2♣ you are equally stuck.

[helene_t]

Unless you want to play a gadget, which I guess you don't, the singleton ♣ hand is a bad one for the system. After 1♥ - 2♣ you are equally stuck.

I have to rebid 2♦, then. Yes I know it shows 5 hearts. What can you do.

[david_c]

I dunno what they do in Australia, but let's get this straight - if you're playing Acol here in England, then:

 

1. After a 2/1, opener's rebid of his suit is non-forcing.

 

2. With 4441 (singleton club) you open 1♥ and rebid 2♦. (It's actually very playable to agree that you can open 1♦ and rebid 2♦ on four, but it's not Acol.) Orginally people used to open 1♠ on this hand, but it has long been realised that this just doesn't work.

 

For 1444 hands, there is indeed a split between 1♦ and 1♥.

[the hog]

I dunno what they do in Australia, but let's get this straight - if you're playing Acol here in England, then:

 

1. After a 2/1, opener's rebid of his suit is non-forcing.

 

2. With 4441 (singleton club) you open 1♥ and rebid 2♦. (It's actually very playable to agree that you can open 1♦ and rebid 2♦ on four, but it's not Acol.) Orginally people used to open 1♠ on this hand, but it has long been realised that this just doesn't work.

 

For 1444 hands, there is indeed a split between 1♦ and 1♥.

Can you point us to any authority to back this up? I am not talking about your average club player. Which top class English players who still play Acol play that a 2/1 does not promise another bid? Can you post a link to their convention cards? Could you send this question to Tim Bourke and David Bird for reference for example? I am curious to hear the replies.

[david_c]

Can you point us to any authority to back this up?

If you're not satisfied by Wayne's references I doubt I can do any better. What I say is based on the fact that I'm a regular club and tournament player, and I talk with and play against people playing standard Acol all the time - and this is what these people play. It's not the sort of thing that gets written down very often. If you're not prepared to believe me then there's nothing I can do.

[zasanya]

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.

There seem to be some who disagree re the 2/1 response and I do believe that 1NT response is 6-10 hcp in almost all natural systems..There can be no harm in suggesting reasonable alternatives keeping the basic elements same.As for the purpose of the thread Helen asked a question as to how 4-4-4-1 patterns are handled by others who profess to play acol and I made suggestions.You may accept them or you may reject them.

[Cascade]

What I know from Acol is that if opener rebids his suit, that is NOT forcing, for example 1♦ - 2♣ - 2♦.

 

I guess the best solution is that 1♦ - 2♣ - 2NT does NOT shows extras but shows the 4441 hand, because this is more usual than having exactly 3352 (balanced without 3 ♣.

It is not just 2=3=5=3, 3=2=5=3 and 3=3=5=2 hands that would want to rebid 2NT but you are missing 3=3=4=3, 4=3=4=2, 4=2=4=3, 3=4=4=2, 2=4=4=3 and even 4=4=4=1 hands with 15+ hcp that might want to rebid 2NT.

 

I guess leaves later hands could reverse into a major but that introduces other distortions.

[Cascade]

Further I just did a simulation and just including 5332 hands with five diamonds 15-17 hcp and 4=4=4=1 12-14 hcp. The balanced hands outnumbered the three-suiters nearly 3:1.

[Cascade]

Unless you want to play a gadget, which I guess you don't, the singleton ♣ hand is a bad one for the system. After 1♥ - 2♣ you are equally stuck.

I have to rebid 2♦, then. Yes I know it shows 5 hearts. What can you do.

This exact auction is why you want to consider doing something else with these 4=4=4=1 hands. With this hand a heart contract on the 4-3 fit can be horrid if partner's clubs will not sustain the force.

 

You may also need some specialized agreements to confirm opener has five hearts on some continuations.

[Cascade]

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.

There seem to be some who disagree re the 2/1 response and I do believe that 1NT response is 6-10 hcp in almost all natural systems..There can be no harm in suggesting reasonable alternatives keeping the basic elements same.As for the purpose of the thread Helen asked a question as to how 4-4-4-1 patterns are handled by others who profess to play acol and I made suggestions.You may accept them or you may reject them.

I rarely bid or see others bid 1NT over a one-level opening with 10 hcp when playing a weak NT.

 

I actually play a variable 1NT and when our 1-level openings could include a weak NT we will respond 1NT to a suit with up to 10 or even a bad 11.

 

There is a subtle difference in approach when your 1-level openings include weak balanced hands compared with when they include strong balanced hands.

[the hog]

Can you point us to any authority to back this up?

If you're not satisfied by Wayne's references I doubt I can do any better. What I say is based on the fact that I'm a regular club and tournament player, and I talk with and play against people playing standard Acol all the time - and this is what these people play. It's not the sort of thing that gets written down very often. If you're not prepared to believe me then there's nothing I can do.

David, sorry my post may have come across a bit stong. I really was trying to differentiate between strong players and what the rank and file play. You might be interested in an email I received this morning:

 

5/2/08

 

Ron,

You asked about responder's two over one bids in Acol, particularly whether responder could pass a simple rebid of opener's suit. The answer is somewhat more complicated than you might imagine. When I first started playing Acol responder 2/1 bids could be rather light, (AKJxx and out for example), and certainly did not promise another bid. This was also in the days when openings were sounder than they are today. As opening bids became lighter strong players realised that this style was no longer tenable. You might remember the Borin's played that 2/1 was forcing to 2NT. Di and Felicity* have played this way for many years and it really became the norm, and still is for those who still play Acol. At the time Jim and Norma had the reputation of being one of the best natural bidding pairs around.

I can't thoroughly comment on overseas trends, but I did discuss this with Munir from Pakistan at one of the Bermuda Bowls. You might remember that he played a system called "Stone Age Acol". He certainly played the bid as forcing to 2NT. I think you exaggerate slightly when you say that playing the bid as non forcing is virtually unplayable. It is very difficult to play and requires excellent judgement and certainly a modicum of luck. You are attempting to stop on a very narrow band and may well miss some marginal 3NT contracts. Perhaps there is an argument for playing this way at MPs?

I have not played in England for some time, but I did ask Courtney about this. As you know he played in England a good deal at very high levels. He said that many strong pairs no longer played Acol. Of those that did, even if the 2/1 bidder could pass opener's simple rebid in theory, in practice it was never passed.

Hope this helps,

Bill.

 

*My note: Di and Felicity are many times members of the Aust. womens' team.

[helene_t]

Interesting. Tx for posting this, Ron.

 

I wonder how literal this forcing-to-2NT is. Would even

1♠-2♣

2♥-2♠*

be forcing?

 

I suppose one could require a 10 points for a 2/1 (this is what Cascade plays so it's probably playable ;) ), then opener would have to rebid 2N over 1N with 16. Requiring just slightly more than that, say "a good 10-count" seems unplayable to me.

 

Even so, after a 2/1 we can have 10+10 points and a misfit. OK, a two-level contract in a 5-1 fit may be worse than 2N (except that 2N might get doubled). I see it happen very often, it is amazing so many 2x-1 after an uncontested auction that come up here in Lancaster. This is partly due to people refusing to open 1NT with a 5-card major.

[Ant590]

Thanks everyone for a really interesting thread.

 

For what it's worth I currently play acol with 2/1s promising a rebid unless opener rebids his opening suit. Often this is a simple (false) preference to opener's first suit, which is non-forcing. This has seemed to work out fine (all be it in the poor arenas it is tried in), but neither me nor my partner are good enough players to be sure that this is internally consistent.

 

So therefore a question to players better than us (i.e. everyone) – does making a 2/1 forcing to 2NT have significant benefits over what we currently play?

[helene_t]

One advantage of opener's rebid of his suit being forcing is that he doesn't have to jump rebid to create a force with say 15 points and a moth-eaten 6-card. Another advantage of "2/1 promising a rebid" as in SAYC is that with support for responder's suit, you can distinguish between

1♠-2♦

3♦*

and

1♠-2♦

2♠-2NT

3♦*

the latter being weaker. Not sure if you would really want to play that style in an Acol context, though.

 

You may also win when opener has 5-5 rounded suits and it goes

1♥-2♦

2♥-2NT

3♣-pass

and you may have found a better partscore than the field which plays 2♥. But you might want to play a sounder preempt style because with a 6-card and 10 points, the "rebid of opener's suit over a 2/1 forcing" style would make you play in 3M where you could stop in 2M with the style you currently play.

 

It is not what is described in books and on the EBU site etc. Personally I would rather switch to a strong notrump or to 5-card majors (or to a completely different type of system) if I were to play more forcing 2/1 auctions. Cascade's idea of playing 2NT as second bid by responder after a 2/1 as forcing sounds better to me. It seems to offer a significant advantage without requiring further modifications of the system (except that you would have to open 1NT with all 5M332 hands in range, but maybe you do that already).

[Finch]

David_c sounds as if he could do with some support.

I don't pretend to be able to speak for anywhere outside England, but

 

It is true that many of the top pairs do not play Acol. However, of those that do:

 

- I am not aware that any play that a 2/1 promises a rebid, nor that it is forcing to 2NT.

- This is quite playable, although have some specific agreements/gadgets is helpful (in particular 4441s are a problem in all systems, not just Acol)

- Every pair that I know of who claim to play Acol or an Acol-based system can stop in 2 of opener's major or 3 of responder's minor i.e. 1S - 2C - 2S, 1S - 2C - 2D - 2S, 1S - 2C - 3C are all played as non-forcing.

 

 

(In my Acol-style-2/1 partnership we play two gadgets to cope with the 4441s: with a singleton club we open 1D and after 1D - 2C rebid 2H to show 12-14/18-19 either balanced or 4441, rebid 3NT to show exactly 4441 15-17; with a 4414 we open 1C but after 1C - 1D - 1H responder bids 2S to show an invite with exactly three clubs. But this is a 5CM partnership and isn't really Acol)

 

Speaking personally, I can see little benefit in playing 2/1 forcing to 2NT or, even worse, to play it as promising a rebid (not at all the same thing). If you are going to do that then just play 2/1, which I do in one partnership.

 

"Of those that did, even if the 2/1 bidder could pass opener's simple rebid in theory, in practice it was never passed"

 

Of course it is, and frequently. Michael Courtney played a great deal of high stakes rubber, but not a huge amount of duplicate. Perhaps that is different.

[Cascade]

One advantage of opener's rebid of his suit being forcing is that he doesn't have to jump rebid to create a force with say 15 points and a moth-eaten 6-card.

This is a two-edged sword and I am not sure you can say that it is always an advantage.

 

Sure there are gains when you jump rebid say

 

1♠ 2♣

3♠

 

your hand is better defined but consequently when you rebid only 2♠ your hand is less well defined which can become a disadvantage in later bidding. There is another thread at the moment where IMO this disadvantage is highlighted albeit in a 2/1 context.

[Cascade]

Cascade's idea of playing 2NT as second bid by responder after a 2/1 as forcing sounds better to me. It seems to offer a significant advantage without requiring further modifications of the system (except that you would have to open 1NT with all 5M332 hands in range, but maybe you do that already).

We only play 2NT as forcing after opener rebids the suit opened e.g.

 

1♠ 2♦

2♠ 2NT * forcing

 

We do not play 2NT as forcing after opener rebids a second suit e.g.

 

1♠ 2♦

2♥ 2NT natural invitational

 

On the second auction we have fourth suit forcing to force.

 

The 2NT forcing idea does come at a cost. We cannot directly invite game in No Trumps.

 

We do open 1NT with all hands with 5Major-3-3-2. This means that sometimes our simple rebid in the suit opened shows six cards.

 

1♠ 2♣

2♠ - guarantees six since we did not bid a second suit

 

but

 

1♠ 2♦

2♠ - might be based on a five-card suit with four clubs and not sufficient strength to rebid 3♣ which would be forcing to game opposite the ten points shown by partner.

 

So after opener rebids the suit opened we only have two invitational bids.

 

1. Raising partner

 

1♠ 2♦

2♠ 3♠

 

We will sometimes do this on a doubleton even though opener has not guaranteed six cards. Opener can of course choose to offer 3NT when accepting.

 

2. Rebidding our own suit

 

1♠ 2♦

2♠ 3♦

 

This is invitational with a six-card suit and usually without significant support (not Hx etc) for opener's suit.

 

Forcing hands with six diamonds would go through the forcing 2NT or if very distributional and not interested in other contracts jump immediately to 4♦.

 

The way we play this forcing 2NT is my own but it was inspired by a Polish pair playing in the NOT in Canberra about six or seven years ago who bid to slam against us thus:

 

1♦ 1♥

2♦ 2NT* forcing

3♦ 4♦

4♥ 4NT

5♠** 6♦

 

** As an aside this was also interesting as they flowed on to show kings and so stopping at 5♠ denied a side king. This knowledge had a consequence when I was on lead with ♣Axxx I knew the king was in dummy so underled. Sadly on this occasion declarer had the queen so the story does not have a happy ending. Except that 6♦ was cold on any lead.

[helene_t]

Tx for elaborating on this, Wayne. I'll see if I can convince my p to play this, it makes a lot of sense.

 

Btw I have been checking some web resources on the [1444]. It seems that opening 1♦ rather than 1♥ is now EBO standard and that it is also what Bird/Bourke recommend.

[Cascade]

Btw I have been checking some web resources on the [1444]. It seems that opening 1♦ rather than 1♥ is now EBO standard and that it is also what Bird/Bourke recommend.

What I teach my face to face learners is:

 

1. With a red singleton open 1♣

 

2. With a black singleton open the middle suit

 

1♦ with 1=4=4=4 and 1♥ with 4=4=4=1

 

I would always allow some variation depending on suit quality and intended rebid (possibly based on the overall strength of the hand).

 

So while I usually tell them the rule above I say it is relatively unimportant - there are much more important things to learn. What is better is to look ahead and imagine partner responds in your short suit and plan the rebid.

[helene_t]

What is better is to look ahead and imagine partner responds in your short suit and plan the rebid.

Absolutely. That is also much more fun than learning some (seemingly) arbitrary rule. Also, being prepared for a rebid is important in so many other situations. And if they switch to a different system with different rules-of-thumb they will still need the routine of thinking of possible rebid problems.

[Cascade]

Tx for elaborating on this, Wayne. I'll see if I can convince my p to play this, it makes a lot of sense.

Here is some further elaboration.

 

After 1x 1/2y; 2x 2NT forcing this is what we play:

 

3x confirms a six-card suit. Sometimes opener's rebid has already shown a six-card suit then this guarantees a good quality suit or seven.

 

3y shows three-card support. We very freely raise with three-card support (especially a major) so for us this has an added inference that partner has a good six-card suit. This inference has been a springboard for many successful slams

 

3z we play this as a side feature with doubleton support for partner's suit. The 2NT bid is most often made with support for opener's suit (2 or 3-card and needing to confirm the six-card suit or to initiate a slam try or with a single-suit game/slam hand of our own)

 

3NT almost all other hands - so a five-card suit and a singleton or worse in partner's suit or a bad six-card suit.

 

A jump to 4x is possible with extra distribution (unsuitable for 3NT) and a very good suit

 

Note: 2NT almost always denies a second suit. We prefer to rebid a natural forcing new suit to using the artificial 2NT. An exception would be a slammish 4-4-3-2 hand with three-card support for partner where we would use 2NT.

 

We have some changes on this specific auction:

 

1♠ 2♥

2♠ 2NT ...

 

We would already have raised with three trumps so now:

 

3♥ shows two hearts

3♠ shows six spades

 

3minor is natural showing a five-card suit in a hand that was too weak to bid 3minor over 2♥.

 

In my mind I am flirting with bidding more natural five-card suits after 2NT when the suit could not have been shown at a lower level. As at the moment we sometimes need to bid 3NT with relatively unsuitable hands e.g.

 

♠ AJxxx

♥ xx

♦ x

♣ AQJxx

 

After 1♠ 2♦; 2♠ 2NT; ?

 

Our current methods require 3NT since 3♣ would promise a doubleton diamond.

 

Any way this is enough for now - maybe too much since we are posting in the Beginner-Intermediate forums.

[the hog]

David_c sounds as if he could do with some support.

I don't pretend to be able to speak for anywhere outside England, but

 

It is true that many of the top pairs do not play Acol. However, of those that do:

 

- I am not aware that any play that a 2/1 promises a rebid, nor that it is forcing to 2NT.

- This is quite playable, although have some specific agreements/gadgets is helpful (in particular 4441s are a problem in all systems, not just Acol)

- Every pair that I know of who claim to play Acol or an Acol-based system can stop in 2 of opener's major or 3 of responder's minor i.e. 1S - 2C - 2S, 1S - 2C - 2D - 2S, 1S - 2C - 3C are all played as non-forcing.

 

 

(In my Acol-style-2/1 partnership we play two gadgets to cope with the 4441s: with a singleton club we open 1D and after 1D - 2C rebid 2H to show 12-14/18-19 either balanced or 4441, rebid 3NT to show exactly 4441 15-17; with a 4414 we open 1C but after 1C - 1D - 1H responder bids 2S to show an invite with exactly three clubs. But this is a 5CM partnership and isn't really Acol)

 

Speaking personally, I can see little benefit in playing 2/1 forcing to 2NT or, even worse, to play it as promising a rebid (not at all the same thing). If you are going to do that then just play 2/1, which I do in one partnership.

 

"Of those that did, even if the 2/1 bidder could pass opener's simple rebid in theory, in practice it was never passed"

 

Of course it is, and frequently. Michael Courtney played a great deal of high stakes rubber, but not a huge amount of duplicate. Perhaps that is different.

Courtney also played a lot in serious events with Charles Wigodor.

 

Anyway it seems there is a big difference in Acol styles on different sides of the pond.

I would still differ greatly with you Frances; I really don't see how a sequences like 1S 2C 2S pass is logical, let alone a sequence Wayne proposed in another post:

1S 2H 2S 3H as nf. This is totally illogical for me.