1444 and Acol

[Cascade]

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.

Crowhurst (twice Precision Bidding in Acol 1974 and Acol Index 2000) and Truscott (Bidding Dictionary 1996) both describe 1S 2H 2S 3H as non-forcing. Truscott of course is not writing in an Acol context but some sort of Standard American.

 

Admittedly Crowhurst does not specifically discuss 1♠ 2♥; 2♠ 3♥. In Precision Bidding in Acol the sequence is categorized under 1♦ 2♣; 2♦ 3♣ where the index refers to the most economical auction with a similar pattern. In the Acol Index he writes " A simple rebid of responder's suit is mildly constructive. It shows a good six-card or longer suit ...". Again he does not specifically discuss the auction where both majors are bid but neither does he go out of his way to make an exception.

 

More interestingly Truscott specifically discusses this sequence and describes it as "Suggest an End to the Auction - Partner is not barred, but usually passes". Further he has the note "A good suit, not solid, with invitational values. Two top honors is typical, but one top honor and the jack may be acceptable. Weaker suits should bid 1N and then the suit. If opener continues game should be reached. The bidding can die in the suit at the 3-level, but not if opener shows extra values."

 

It seems that the tradition on both sides of the pond as they say at some time was to play this auction as strictly not forcing. We find it playable. How else do you bid an invitational hand with long hearts? We have invented some gadgets to help with the auction. Not least of which is the forcing 2NT through which any hand with serious slam ambition and single suited in hearts would go after the 2♠ rebid.

 

1♠ 2♣; 2♠ Pass seems a standard Acol sequence to me. Especially when you open reasonably light and stretch to show some values in response. To me it doesn't seem logical when you have a minimum for your first bid (the 2♣ response) and partner shows a minimum with 2♠ that you should be forced to keep the auction open.

[Wackojack]

Helene, permit me to to try to get to the root of your questions. You have recently settled in Acol land. You have found some Acol playing partners at your local bridge club. You have encountered some problem hands and not being entirely familiar with Acol, you wish to understand more about the system and how best to accomodate you new partners in an intelligent way. This thread comes up with lots of interesting points, but many of them are probably irrelavent to the problems you face.

 

First of all, I have to assume that your new partners play 12-14 no trump and 2 over 1 responses need something like 9 points or an equivalent 8 with a decent 5 card suit. If this is so, then a few things follow:

1. If a 4 card major suit is opened it has be on a hand with 15-19 points. There is a possible exception to this: a 4441 distribution.

2. No trump rebids show 15-19 points.

3. 1x-2y-2x is obviously non forcing.

 

This method of bidding has advantages and disadvantages compared with a strong no trump 5-card major system. The pre-emptive style of the 12-14 no trump and 4 card major opening bids often give you an advantage over the minor suit openings of a 5-card major system. Nevertheless, as always, there are some problem hands as have already been pointed out in this thread.

 

4441 distributions

 

This distribution presents problems in all systems, but 12-14 with a singleton club is perhaps uniquely problematical in Acol. My advice is to try to narrow the range. So consider passing with 12 points. Perhaps borrow an extra point with a 14 pointer. Otherwise with a mid range hand use judgement as whether to open 1 no trump or to open 1 heart and rebid 2 diamonds. Let the quality of the heart suit dictate.

 

5332 distribution with 12-14 points

 

Most importantly here is to get yourself a reputation for being a wizard declarer player. Thus your partner will have no qualms about raising 1M to 2M when holding 3 trumps and 5-9 points. Let your partner assume that you relish the challenge of playing in a possible 4-3 fit.

 

As opener you have some opportunities to be creative. Weigh up the options of:

1. Opening 1NT

2. Opening 1M and rebidding 2M.

3. Opening 1M and rebidding a 3 card suit.

If you consistently make the right choice, then maybe your partners will follow your example. If they do this already, then you will understand. With 3532, opening 1no trump gets you to play the hand if partner is balanced or has 5 spades.

 

Find out from your partners what they consider to be forcing and accomodate to their style. One example 1x-2y- 2nt many but not all Acol players play as forcing. I would doubt that many (if any) play 1x-2y-2x-2nt as forcing, although it does seem like a good idea.

 

Good luck

[helene_t]

Hi Jack,

 

I like your idea of making a reputation as a declarer wizard :) Otherwise my p's will soon refuse to play transfers since I open 1NT with any excuse.

 

I have asked all my partners (I have had ten in the two months I have been here, it's a very promiscuous club) which 2/1 follow-ups they consider forcing, which suit they open with a 4432-pattern and how much they require for a 2/1, and also how penalty-oriented various fuzzy doubles are. They are remarkably consistent. Some like Lebensohl and Ogust and some don't, and some like variable-strength jump overcalls and some don't, but those are about the only differences.

 

As for the poll question: The majority believes that 2N shows no extras here. The rule that

2N shows 15+ (forcing) if the response was below 2 of the opening suit

2N shows some 11-13(14) (?) non-forcing if the response was above 2 of the opening suit

 

seems sensible. Is this standard in the UK?

[Zelandakh]

There are so many variations of 4441 opening strategies in Acol-land it's hard to keep track of them all; and worse almost every player is convinced their method is 'standard'. Ideas I have seen in recent times are:-

 

1) Stone Age Acol = open suit below the singleton

2) Modern Standard = open suit below red singleton, middle from black singleton

3) Modern Alternative = 1♣ with 4=4=1=4, 1♦ otherwise

4) Variation on 2 = as 2 except 1♣ with 4=1=4=4

5) Variation on 3 = as 2 except 1♣ with 4=1=4=4

6) some play a mixture of the above methods depending on whether their hand lies in the NT range or not

7) many just work out a rebid strategy and do not worry too much about it

 

Of course you can always lump 4=4=4=1 and/or 4=4=1=4 hands into the 1NT opening, but somehow that does not seem very popular as yet.

 

My own choice (which is clearly standard :blink: :)) is for 3, which means that 1M followed by a suit rebid always shows 5+ (1♥ - 2♣ - 2♦ does not promise 5♥s in Standard) but forces 1♦ - 2♣ - 2♦ to be a slightly special forcing sequence. This sequence should be no trouble at all for anyone that has come from 5-card major land though!

 

As for your poll question, (almost) nobody plays NFBs at clubs round here, so normal is for 2NT not to show extras; then 3NT shows a minimum (15+) balanced hand and with a stronger hand you are close to looking for more anyway.

 

(-: Zel :-)

[helene_t]

Of course you can always lump 4=4=4=1 and/or 4=4=1=4 hands into the 1NT opening, but somehow that does not seem very popular as yet.

I have been told that this was illegal at lower levels until recently.

[skjaeran]

Of course you can always lump 4=4=4=1 and/or 4=4=1=4 hands into the 1NT opening, but somehow that does not seem very popular as yet.

I have been told that this was illegal at lower levels until recently.

Depend on where you play. It's perfectly legal to treat 4441/5431 as balanced at all levels in Norway.

[helene_t]

Yes of course, I meant in England. sr should have specified.

[han]

I just wanted to share that another poster told me yesterday how much he enjoyed this thread, it made him feel good. He doesn't play ACOL.

[Cascade]

Of course you can always lump 4=4=4=1 and/or 4=4=1=4 hands into the 1NT opening, but somehow that does not seem very popular as yet.

I have been told that this was illegal at lower levels until recently.

It has never been illegal.

 

The 1997 laws did not allow a sponsoring organization to regulate non-conventional bids.

[Cascade]

I just wanted to share that another poster told me yesterday how much he enjoyed this thread, it made him feel good. He doesn't play ACOL.

I can't imagine it will match my feelings of happiness that I do not play 2/1.

[han]

Hehe, fair enough Wayne.

[helene_t]

I just wanted to share that another poster told me yesterday how much he enjoyed this thread, it made him feel good. He doesn't play ACOL.

I can't imagine it will match my feelings of happiness that I do not play 2/1.

lol. I must say that so far it has been easier to adjust to Acol than I thought. But there are some some cultural things that are more important than whether 1SA is weak or strong and whether 1M promises 4 or 5. Here, people play with many different partners so the style homogenizes across the club. After less than 3 months in Acol-land I find it easier to interpret a new partner's and opps' bidding than I did in the Netherlands. But this also means that there is less scope for fine-tuning of the bidding system for the more ambitious club players.

 

This thread has evolved into a thread about various problems related to weak notrump. The other side of it is obviously that the weak notrump also solves a lot of problems.

[Echognome]

A little late to this thread, but if we are talking about what's standard, isn't it what the EBU has on their website as Standard English Acol? (although I know that Standard English is not what expert pairs play.)

 

The link off the EBU website seems broken, but a google search came up with this:

 

http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/pdf/EBU...dardEBU2005.pdf

 

Of which the following lines are relevant:

 

Choice of suit to open (if not suitable for 1NT)

• With two suits of unequal length, open the longer.

• With two suits of equal length, with exactly 4 hearts and 4 spades open 1♥, otherwise open the higher ranking suit.

• With 4-4-4-1 shape and a red singleton heart open the suit below the singleton (i.e. singleton heart open 1♦, singleton diamond open 1♣)

• With 4-4-4-1 shape and a black singleton open the middle of the three suits (i.e. singleton spade open 1♦, singleton club open 1♥)

[han]

But there are some some cultural things that are more important than whether 1SA is weak or strong and whether 1M promises 4 or 5.

 

This has little to do with ACOL imo. Far more fundamental to the system is the abundance of non-forcing and non-gameforcing bids.

[han]

This thread has evolved into a thread about various problems related to weak notrump. The other side of it is obviously that the weak notrump also solves a lot of problems.

OK, give me an example of a problem that the weak notrump solves.

[Cascade]

That is easy and hard to answer.

 

Easy: it solves the problem of what to open with a weak No Trump hand.

 

Hard: It is silly consider the advantages (or disadvantages) of a bid that is part of a system in isolation. There are trade-offs in whatever you decide.

 

A weak NT has many trade-offs over opening those hands with a suit. The specific advantages and disadvantages will vary depending on whether you can open a suit naturally or have to open a short (less than four-card) suit in a five-card major system.

[helene_t]

OK, give me an example of a problem that the weak notrump solves.

After an inverted minor raise, if 2N is NF you would like to do something else with 14, but 3N should show 18-19 (or not?). Having only one range for balanced hands that open one of a suit makes those things easier. I know you and Arend solve this problem by playing 14-16, but that means you have to rebid 2N with 17.

 

Also when considering a negative double you don't have to worry about opener having a weak notrump.

 

I wouldn't personally like to play Acol in a "serious" partnership but it serves the purpose as a common ground for all the players at the local club, and as such it works ok.

[Finch]

I just wanted to share that another poster told me yesterday how much he enjoyed this thread, it made him feel good. He doesn't play ACOL.

Yeah, very funny.

 

All I know about Standard American is pretty much what I've learnt from these forums. As far as I can tell it is TOTALLY unplayable. I'd far rather play Acol. Or Strong Diamond. Or Romex.

 

Yet a lot of people seem to play SA without too many disasters. Admittedly most of the top US pairs don't play SA, but still it must work somehow. More or less.

 

Once you 'grow up' with a particular system, you get to understand how it works and you can cope with its deficiencies and understand what makes it tick.

[Finch]

But there are some some cultural things that are more important than whether 1SA is weak or strong and whether 1M promises 4 or 5.

 

This has little to do with ACOL imo. Far more fundamental to the system is the abundance of non-forcing and non-gameforcing bids.

Yes, that is the fundamental idea of Acol, that it is a 'limit bidding' system - you bid what you fancy; if you want to make a forcing bid you have to bid more. I don't really play Acol at all, but even in my 2/1 partnership we seem to play lots more non-forcing bids than the US contingent here think is right.

 

In some cases that's a pain. When you have a strong hand you are forced to jump to show it and that makes slam bidding rather random. But against that it's nice to be able to tell partner what you have, rather than have to make some amorphous lurky bid.

 

Even Acol players are playing more and more bids as forcing, so it seems as if this approach is not really a long-term winning approach without a bit more discipline than was historically the style.

[MickyB]

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?

Just found this thread :P

 

The short answer is "no", at least not on balance - there are losses and gains, and I believe the losses from playing this as forcing to 2NT to be much greater than the gains.

 

The long answer -

 

Amongst most decent UK players who play weak NT+4cM, a 2/1 response shows willingness to be in game opposite 15-16 balanced, so about a nine-count. Otherwise you have to raise on a 16 (15?) count after 1M:1N, leading to some very thin 2NT contracts and a guess on what to do with the hand that traditionally bids 2NT here on 17 or a bad 18.

 

When you have a nine-count opposite a minimum opening bid, you don't want to push any higher than 2M in your 5-2 or 6-2 fit. I couldn't ever imagine wanting 1M:2m, 2M to be forcing in this opening structure unless playing very sound openings - just an approximation obviously, but by "very sound" I mean rule of 21 at minimum. Playing strong NT, or possibly playing weak+5, fine - but not playing weak+4s.

 

It's generally accepted in other auctions, say when partner opens 1NT, that you shouldn't often stop in 2NT - it's all risk for no gain. Here, a structure is being advocated where you are are being forced to 2NT or higher, potentially without a fit, with only half the deck.

 

My preferred structure (strong NT+5cM) does the opposite - 1M:2m, 2M is non-forcing, allowing responder to show some values but still stop in a safe part-score opposite a minimum; but a 2NT rebid by responder now is GF.

[MickyB]

This thread has evolved into a thread  about various problems related to weak notrump. The other side of it is obviously that the weak notrump also solves a lot of problems.

OK, give me an example of a problem that the weak notrump solves.

It "solves" hands where, playing strong NT, responder has to assume partner has his most likely hand-type (12-14 balanced) even though it could well be wrong opposite an unbalanced hand.

 

1♣-(4♥)-5♣ can be bid on marginal hands when strong NTers would have to pass

 

1♣-(1♠)-2♥ can be bid on a nine-count with a five-card suit without risking playing a silly 2NT contract

[mr1303]

I only ever played Acol seriously with 1 partner, I had the agreement that any 4441 (with any singleton) was opened or rebid in NT. We decided this as any alternative wasn't really playable. We did get good results doing things this way.

[han]

Easy: it solves the problem of what to open with a weak No Trump hand.

 

Hard: It is silly consider the advantages (or disadvantages) of a bid that is part of a system in isolation. There are trade-offs in whatever you decide.

 

A weak NT has many trade-offs over opening those hands with a suit. The specific advantages and disadvantages will vary depending on whether you can open a suit naturally or have to open a short (less than four-card) suit in a five-card major system.

I don't think I asked a silly question at all. Helene claims that the weak notrump solves many problems, so why is it silly to ask what problems she had in mind?

 

Your easy answer strikes as a hook on a pig (this one is for jdonn). Of course what to open with a weak notrump is not what most people consider a big problem in standard American methods. Your hard answer and what follows just avoid the question.

 

Helene's answer makes perfect sense, not having a weak notrump opening in your minor suit openings does make inverted minors easier.

[han]

Yeah, very funny.

I do try. :P

[MickyB]

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.

Traditionally (and I'm sure many club players still play it this way) 1♠:2♣, 2♦ was NF, as was 1♠:2♣, 2NT (15-16). Amongst the tournament players, it's fairly standard for this to be forcing, but a lot of other things to be non-forcing -

 

1♠:2♣, 2♦:2♠, and most of opener's rebids over this too I suspect

1♠:2♣, 2♦:2NT

1♠:2♣, 3♣

1♠:2♣, 2♠:3♣

 

If an unknown partner were to bid these with me, I'd have no idea if they were forcing -

1♠:2♣, 2♦:3♠

1♠:2♣, 3♣:3♠