Acol advice

[gnasher]

If 1MA-3MA is limit, you would raise 1♠ to 3 with ...

 

♠ Axxx

♥ Kxx

♦ Qxx

♣ Qxx

I'm not sure that I would, actually.

[gnasher]

I think this is worth game opposite 15-17 balanced, so I agree with Paul that 2♥ is inadequate.

 

Possible solutions are:

- Allow this hand to double and convert 2♠ to 3♥, as suggested by others. That works OK if opener rebids 2♥ or 2♠, but less well if he has a good hand with spades, or if there is further competition.

- Bid 3♣, forcing to game. If 1♥ promised an unbalanced hand (with 5332s always opening 1NT), that might be OK.

- Agree that 3♦ doesn't promise four-card support, but also includes a 3-card limit raise that is willing to play 3NT opposite 15-17 balanced.

- Play 2NT as a 4-card limit raise and 3♦ as a 3-card limit raise.

- Play transfers from 2NT upwards, thereby creating an extra cue bid, and use one of these cue bids to show a 3-card limit raise.

- Play a different s ... Sorry.

[Walddk]

- Play a different s ... Sorry.

The crux of the matter. Why do they still teach beginners Acol in the UK? You have to start somewhere, so let them start from scratch and let them learn a system of this century, not one of the 1930's, 40's and 50's.

 

Acol is over and out, period. Surely some people in England, Wales and Scotland have realised that by now.

 

Roland

[paulg]

But they would also have bid 2♥ holding

 

♠Qxx

♥Kxxx

♦xxx

♣Jxx

True, Paul, but that goes for all raises. Different hand types. If 1MA-3MA is limit, you would raise 1♠ to 3 with ...

 

♠ Axxx

♥ Kxx

♦ Qxx

♣ Qxx

 

as well as ...

 

♠ KJxx

♥ x

♦ Axxxx

♣ xxx

 

You can't distinguish between the two hands (balanced/shapely), as is the case with a single raise in this thread.

 

Roland

True, Roland, but these hands have the same 8 losers so there is some semblance of similarity (although I agree that the ability to make game opposite will vary enormously).

 

My problem is where we are making the same bid with 8-10 losers.

 

Paul

[shintaro]

:o

 

mm how strange why not just PASS (if you cannot bring yourself to Double) ;

 

If partner has a GOOD hand he/she will re-open it with a DOUBLE (unless you do not play Bridge)

 

WALD Acol is NOT dead when will those who cannot play Bridge realise that FACT

 

:)

[Walddk]

:o

 

mm how strange why not just PASS (if you cannot bring yourself to Double) ;

 

If partner has a GOOD hand he/she will re-open it with a DOUBLE (unless you do not play Bridge)

 

WALD Acol is NOT dead when will those who cannot play Bridge realise that FACT

 

:)

Pass first then bid will show this hand you mean? Then you are right when you write

 

"WALD Acol is NOT dead when will those who cannot play Bridge realise that FACT"

 

Do you offer lessons?

 

Roland

[shintaro]

:)

 

 

but seriously roland would you not like to know what partner has opened with?

 

and would not a pass let partner tell you with a re-opening double he/she was strong or merely 2!h to show weak and 5 (or 6)

 

:o

[Walddk]

:)

 

 

but seriously roland would you not like to know what partner has opened with?

 

and would not a pass let partner tell you with a re-opening double he/she was strong or merely 2!h to show weak and 5 (or 6)

 

:o

No and no. Pass is completely out of the question. If you do, you deserve to lose your legitimate partscore when partner is unable to reopen. Even a game could be on when partner won't bid again.

 

To stay with your own terminology. No bridge player would pass.

 

Roland

[helene_t]

mm how strange why not just PASS (if you cannot bring yourself to Double) ;

When playing a weak notrump, the good news is that you have a higher safety level after RHO interferes over partner's opening because you don't have to cater for partner having a 12-14 balanced. So you can make lighter sputnik doubles.

 

The bad news is that you must make lighter sputnik doubles (and lighter raises) to cater for partner's 15-16 balanced that will not be able to reopen.

 

I am not implying that pass would have been an option if we were playing strong NT. But playing a weak NT it is even more out of the question.

[fred]

I am never played Acol before, but the concept of opening the bidding with a 4-card major when you are dealt a strong notrump seems REALLY bad to me.

 

If Acol forces really forces you to do this, then I agree with those whose "Acol advice" was to play another system.

 

If Acol does not force you to do this (ie it is acceptable to open 1C or 1D on such hands) then there is not much point in playing 4-card majors. Again, I think the best advice would be to play another system.

 

I have nothing against either:

 

1) 4-card majors

 

or

 

2) Weak notrumps

 

But I strongly believe that the combination of 1+2 will put you at a serious disadvantage to those who play only one (or neither) of 1 and 2.

 

To those Acol loyalists who (wrongly) read this post as an attack on Mother England, please ask yourselves this: How many of England's leading pairs actually play Acol as it is traditionally taught? If the answer is higher than "zero" then ask yourselves this: When is the last time any of these pairs have had a notable result in a major tournament outside the UK?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Walddk]

To those Acol loyalists who (wrongly) read this post as an attack on Mother England, please ask yourselves this: How many of England's leading pairs actually play Acol as it is traditionally taught? If the answer is higher than "zero" then ask yourselves this: When is the last time any of these pairs have had a notable result in a major tournament outside the UK?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

To be fair, Townsend-Gold and the Hackett twins do to some extent, but they play a 15-17 and 14-16 1NT respectively. Regarding international achievements, T-G won the bronze medal in the pairs in Tenerife 2005 (European Open Championships). Fred was there, so I think he remembers.

 

Roland

 

P.S. I am NOT an Acol loyalist as I am sure you can tell from leading my posts in this thread. To the contrary!

[fred]

To those Acol loyalists who (wrongly) read this post as an attack on Mother England, please ask yourselves this: How many of England's leading pairs actually play Acol as it is traditionally taught? If the answer is higher than "zero" then ask yourselves this: When is the last time any of these pairs have had a notable result in a major tournament outside the UK?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

To be fair, Townsend-Gold and the Hackett twins do to some extent, but they play a 15-17 and 14-16 1NT respectively. Regarding international achievements, T-G won the bronze medal in the pairs in Tenerife 2005 (European Open Championships). Fred was there, so I think he remembers.

 

Roland

 

P.S. I am NOT an Acol loyalist as I am sure you can tell from leading my posts in this thread. To the contrary!

They are both excellent pairs and I would think twice about playing against either of these pairs for money.

 

But as you point out, they don't play 1+2 (ie they don't play Acol as it is traditionally taught).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Walddk]

To those Acol loyalists who (wrongly) read this post as an attack on Mother England, please ask yourselves this: How many of England's leading pairs actually play Acol as it is traditionally taught? If the answer is higher than "zero" then ask yourselves this: When is the last time any of these pairs have had a notable result in a major tournament outside the UK?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

To be fair, Townsend-Gold and the Hackett twins do to some extent, but they play a 15-17 and 14-16 1NT respectively. Regarding international achievements, T-G won the bronze medal in the pairs in Tenerife 2005 (European Open Championships). Fred was there, so I think he remembers.

 

Roland

 

P.S. I am NOT an Acol loyalist as I am sure you can tell from leading my posts in this thread. To the contrary!

They are both excellent pairs and I would think twice about playing against either of these pairs for money.

 

But as you point out, they don't play 1+2 (ie they don't play Acol as it is traditionally taught).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Curiously, the original Acol concept (30's) was a variable NT. 12-14 NV and 15-17 vulnerable. I don't know how many subscribe to this today, but I doubt that you find many top pairs. One, however, is Peter Lund-Steen Møller, members of the Danish seniors team, both strong players.

 

Roland

[paulg]

Frances may be able to tell us how many English pairs are playing 4-card majors and a weak 1NT in the English Premier League, but my expectation is that it is a very small number.

 

In the recent Scottish trials there were hardly any pairs playing these methods.

 

Although I'm sure that Fred is right, and playing weak NT with 4-card majors is a handicap, playing alternative methods does not appear to guarantee success. Should I ask for my money back? :D

 

But in UK clubs I guess 90% of the players are playing weak 1NT with 4-card majors. And this is what is still taught - with major before minor in England and minor before major in Scotland.

 

Paul

(who thinks that Acol is a 4-letter word)

[MickyB]

To those Acol loyalists who (wrongly) read this post as an attack on Mother England, please ask yourselves this: How many of England's leading pairs actually play Acol as it is traditionally taught? If the answer is higher than "zero" then ask yourselves this: When is the last time any of these pairs have had a notable result in a major tournament outside the UK?

Holland/Armstrong butlered very well in the Europeans just before JA's untimely death a few months back - but there haven't been many others.

 

In the Premier League, basically the England open trials, there are sixteen teams of 4-6 players. There are four pairs that I know to be playing Acol weak no-trump, and another couple who might be - so not a great proportion. One of these is Holland/Brunner who are carrying all before them so far!

[Walddk]

I had a look at the convention cards for England's pairs (open, women, seniors, U28 and U21) in Beijing. The systems are ...

 

Open:

Two pairs play 4-card majors (15-17 and 14-16 NT)

One pair plays two-way 1♣.

 

Women:

All three pairs play 5-card majors.

 

Seniors:

Two pairs play 4-card majors. One with a 13-15 NT (14-16 in 3rd vul), the other one 14-17 in all seats.

One pair plays 5-card majors.

 

U28:

All three play 5-card majors.

 

U21:

All three play 5-card majors.

 

Judged by these facts I think one can conclude that the younger top players have realised the advantage of a 5-card major system. Some of the "old" guys and gals never will.

 

Roland

[Finch]

Judged by these facts I think one can conclude that the younger top players have realised the advantage of a 5-card major system. Some of the "old" guys and gals never will.

 

Roland

Except that the two pairs playing 4-card majors in the England open team possibly have a lower combined age for all four of them than many of the other pairs present in Beijing.... the third English open pair are only English by adoption, they were brought up in a Polish-club-type culture.

 

Hey, I don't like 4CM and weak NT either. But I certainly think 4CM and strong NT, or 4CM in a strong club (or strong diamond) base can work very well. I think 4CM is both easier to learn and harder to play well than a 5CM system, which is why I started with one and changed to the other.

[Wackojack]

Hey, I don't like 4CM and weak NT either.  But I certainly think 4CM and strong NT, or 4CM in a strong club (or strong diamond) base can work very well.  I think 4CM is both easier to learn and harder to play well than a 5CM system, which is why I started with one and changed to the other.

Yes indeed. So most players brought up with Acol, play against other Acol players and do not want to be bothered with learning something else. Thats a rational decision. Irrational or ostrich like are those that believe Acol weak no-trump is the best system.

[NickRW]

The crux of the matter. Why do they still teach beginners Acol in the UK? You have to start somewhere, so let them start from scratch and let them learn a system of this century, not one of the 1930's, 40's and 50's.

 

Acol is over and out, period. Surely some people in England, Wales and Scotland have realised that by now.

 

Roland

Whoa! Controversial. Especially coming from you Roland!

 

Why do they teach Acol here - I guess because it is just about the simplest, easiest, most natural system there is and so easy for beginners.

 

Some of the criticism levelled in this thread at the system I kind of agree with in the context of the the IMP game - which is what a lot of you all play apparently. Stick something a bit more aggressive on it for the 2 level, drop the silly notion of opening a minor instead of a major when 4-4 and you have quite a difficult MP system to combat - IMO. So given that we play mostly MP (a harder animal crack than the IMP game) I refute your (possibly) ill considered comment.

 

Nick

[NickRW]

I am never played Acol before, but the concept of opening the bidding with a 4-card major when you are dealt a strong notrump seems REALLY bad to me.

 

If Acol forces really forces you to do this, then I agree with those whose "Acol advice" was to play another system.

 

If Acol does not force you to do this (ie it is acceptable to open 1C or 1D on such hands) then there is not much point in playing 4-card majors. Again, I think the best advice would be to play another system.

 

I have nothing against either:

 

1) 4-card majors

 

or

 

2) Weak notrumps

 

But I strongly believe that the combination of 1+2 will put you at a serious disadvantage to those who play only one (or neither) of 1 and 2.

 

To those Acol loyalists who (wrongly) read this post as an attack on Mother England, please ask yourselves this: How many of England's leading pairs actually play Acol as it is traditionally taught? If the answer is higher than "zero" then ask yourselves this: When is the last time any of these pairs have had a notable result in a major tournament outside the UK?

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

What - you want to play 4cm with strong NT at MP?! Shoot me now. I had some respect for you Fred. About the worst combination I can think of.

 

Nick

[fred]

What - you want to play 4cm with strong NT at MP?!  Shoot me now.  I had some respect for you Fred.  About the worst combination I can think of.

 

Nick

I never made any statement about what I wanted to play and I never said anything about matchpoints.

 

If you care, I want to play 5-card majors and strong notrumps. I especially want to play 5-card majors and strong notrumps in matchpoint events in North America where I happen to live (because that is what the field plays, because I believe I have a skill advantage against most of the field, and because I therefore want to reduce volatility - lucky for me that I can do this with the basic style that I am most comfortable with).

 

I am not sure if your post was serious or not. If it was serious I don't really care if you respect my opinion or not, but you might do well to respect the opinions of the late Barry Crane (arguably the best matchpoint player in history) or Bob Hamman (arguably the best bridge player in history).

 

Both prefer the combination of 4-card majors and strong notrumps.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[NickRW]

What - you want to play 4cm with strong NT at MP?!  Shoot me now.  I had some respect for you Fred.  About the worst combination I can think of.

 

Nick

I never made any statement about what I wanted to play and I never said anything about matchpoints.

 

If you care, I want to play 5-card majors and strong notrumps. I especially want to play 5-card majors and strong notrumps in matchpoint events in North America where I happen to live (because that is what the field plays, because I believe I have a skill advantage against most of the field, and because I therefore want to reduce volatility - lucky for me that I can do this with the basic style that I am most comfortable with).

 

I am not sure if your post was serious or not. If it was serious I don't really care if you respect my opinion or not, but you might do well to respect the opinions of the late Barry Crane (arguably the best matchpoint player in history) or Bob Hamman (arguably the best bridge player in history).

 

Both prefer the combination of 4-card majors and strong notrumps.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Yeah, it was a serious post.

 

I can well understand your preference for 5cM and strong NT at MP where you play - you hope to out play the field - so would I if I were you - but most of us are not in your position.

 

4cM + strong NT + something other that what Acol or SAYC does for the 2/1 responses - well to my mind that is playable - but more geared to IMP than MP IMO.

 

Nick

[MickyB]

What - you want to play 4cm with strong NT at MP?! Shoot me now. I had some respect for you Fred. About the worst combination I can think of.

 

I consider strong NT and four-card majors to be much better at MP than IMPs - very important to be able to find your 4-4 and 4-3 major suit part-scores at MPs, where +110 can be much better than +90. For game and slam bidding, on the other hand, you are better off playing five-card majors, which is more important at IMPs.

 

Weak NT and four-card majors, on the other hand, has little to commend it at either form of scoring.

[NickRW]

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. Count me out. Frankly I found Roland's original post ill considered and even offensive - so I definitely don't agree.

 

Nick

[Impact]

As always part of the problem may be a matter of definition.

 

Yes Stone-Age Acol was 1930's.

 

However you can create quite a decent theoretical system with weak NT and opening lengths with minimum requirements of

S - 5

H - 4

D- 4

C- 3

 

within the general context of opening suits DOWN the line subject to the above criteria.

 

This is both aggressive - and susceptible to science. However it is also more involved as you have to consider at least a semi-forcing if not completely forcing response 1NT to 1S etc. Then you have to consider what that does to your 2/1 structure as between the different major openings etc. It requires some work, but I quite like the potential results for a basically natural system.

 

Sure - it is not "Acol" as she was writ, and neither does it conform to 4 card MajorS (plural), but it is closer.

 

As a non-teacher, I think the concept of teaching Acol is good to the extent that it encourages light 2-over-1 and focus on suits and rebids leading to early onset of judgment calls as opposed to "rules", but then I love bidding theory per se....and happen to believe that the way to encourage competent bidding is to teach people to think both logically in creation of a bidding system/sequence and from an objective point of view (as in what will this sound like it means to partner, as opposed to "this is what I wnat the sequence to mean because I hold this hand right now!!") rather than follow rules blindly (be they pointcount etc).

 

Many are blinded by having a particular set of choices thrust upon them and only narrow options provided - so they never query the initial premise.

 

Oddly enough there can be valid sets of internal logic attributable to different premises which can be teased out.

Whether they lead to a better widget is arguable but the process of finding the logic is useful....as is the process of then testing the logic of adopting the initial premises!!!

 

At least this latter point is all but ignored by most bridgeplayers (ignoring "mere cardpullers"), with lipservice being paid to argument for big club....

 

Aside from anything else, it happens to be fun (something of which too many people have lost sight and contributes enormously to the charm of the game).

 

Now if you want to really challenge me about awful systems, let me tell you what I think of Schenken.....:-)

 

regards