Acol combination of NT and 4 / 5 cd majors

[el mister]

Acol plays a weak NT and 4 card majors. SAYC uses a strong NT and 5 cM - (Also see some Dutch pairs playing this as Dutch Acol ).

 

Are the other two permutations playable - 4cM and a strong NT, 5 cM and a weak NT?

 

The first of these in particular I have never encountered, although I've not been playing that long so that probably doesn't mean much. Is it deeply flawed in some way?

[hanp]

4cM and strong notrump is old fashioned Dutch Acol, and still taught to beginners in the Netherlands.

 

Weak notrumps with 5-card majors is one of the cornerstone of Kaplan-Sheinwold. I think Martel-Stansby still play this combination.

[hrothgar]

Blue Club was based on 4 card majors and a strongish NT.

 

1NT shows either 16-17 OR

13-15 with 3=3=2=5 / 3=3=3=4 shape

 

4 card majors and strong NT isn't particularly popular. I seem to recall at least one reasonable source claiming that this combination is flawed. (Might have been Robson and Segal)

[helene_t]

The Scanian system is 14-16 1NT combined with 4-card majors for the 11-13 range and 5-card majors for the 17-19 range.

 

Swiss Acol is weak notrump with 4-card hearts and 5-card Spades.

 

Norwegian Standard is similar but with strong notrump.

 

4 card majors and strong NT isn't particularly popular. I seem to recall at least one reasonable source claiming that this combination is flawed. (Might have been Robson and Segal)

Yeah their argument is that partner is in a difficult position when opps interfere over a 1M opening that might be a weak hand with a four-card in the opening suit.

 

FWIW I don't really find that very convincing. Yeah it's true but other systems have other drawbacks. I think weak NT with 4-card majors is impractical since you don't have a rebid after 1M-1NT: you want to pass with 13 and bid 2NT with 18 but with 15-16 you don't want to do either. Also, one of the advantages of 4-card majors is that 1M openings are preemptive but you want to preempt with 12 points, not with 16 (or 19 for that matter).

[NickRW]

Strong NT and 4cM was the way Acol was taught in the 16-18NT days and for a while when 15-17 or variable NT caught on. If you're opening majors first when 4M4m and especially if you're doing 2/1 as weak as Acol typically does, then I really don't want to be your partner if I can avoid it - it seems to be an awkward mix to me. If you're opening your 4/4 shapes up the line, then it starts to get more comfortable in my view - but I never see the point of not at least going to 5 card spades then - and if you're shoving 4=3=3=3 into 1♣, then you might as well shove 3=4=3=3 in there as well - which makes your 1♥ opener guarantee 5 or 4/4 majors - which firms that opening up a little. Going all the way to 5 card both majors is - well - simple - though I am less convinced of the cost/benefit. So strong NT and 4cM is sorta "yeah, but".

 

Weak NT and 5cM or 5c♠ works fine in my view if thats your poison.

 

Nick

[helene_t]

If you're opening majors first when 4M4m and especially if you're doing 2/1 as weak as Acol typically does, then I really don't want to be your partner

Yeah obviously if you play that a 1M opening includes balanced 12-14 hands then a 1NT response is 6-10. If opener passes 1NT he has a balanced 12-14, so if you want to play 1NT opposite a 12-14 hand then you bid .... guess what .... 1NT!

 

I don't know why they teach 6-9 rather than 6-10 to beginners in the Netherlands. Maybe it's a left-over from the 16-18 days.

[junyi_zhu]

Blue Club was based on 4 card majors and a strongish NT.

 

1NT shows either 16-17 OR

13-15 with 3=3=2=5 / 3=3=3=4 shape

 

4 card majors and strong NT isn't particularly popular. I seem to recall at least one reasonable source claiming that this combination is flawed. (Might have been Robson and Segal)

I think it's a good combination. Often, the time you can make a lot of money from opening 4 card Major is when you are rather weak. For example:

1S p 2S p p 3C x. When you open 4 card 1M mostly with 15-17 HCP, you just miss the best part of the system. Of course, you can't play an acol kind of super light 2/1 over 1M, which is actually very very bad even if you play weak NT 4 card major IMO. The biggest problem for the super light 2/1 style is that it has too many ways to sign off but few ways to set up trumps and force to game.

In some sense, a 2/1 gameforcing with 4 card major and 14-16 1NT is certainly a very good system by nature. Of course, some response structure need to be revised, like 1M 2C as a two way bid to show either true clubs gf or 3 card limit raise.

 

Also, if one decides to always bid the 4-4 suits up the line, he just misses the best part of 4 card major IMO.

[el mister]

Also, if one decides to always bid the 4-4 suits up the line, he just misses the best part of 4 card major IMO.

So what is the score with opening 4-4 hands? Textbook Acol says to open the lower suit, whereas my partner argues we should always open a major over a minor when holding 4 of each (and ♥ before ♠) I do see the point of getting the major in early doors - is there consensus here?

[helene_t]

There is no consensus.

 

IMHO when chosing your system you make a choice: do you want to open a balanced hand with a 4-card major 1M, or not?

 

Obviously there are advantages to open the major (you get a more relevant feature of the hand across immediately, you avoid the issue of whether you play Walsh or not, you preempt opps, you conceal minor suits that may be helpful to opps when defending but probably not so relevant for determining the best contract).

 

If the answer is yes, then open 1M whenever you have a balanced hand with a four-card major.

 

If the answer is no, then play 5-card majors.

 

I can imagine that you would "sometimes" open a balanced hand with a 4-card major 1M. It may depend on the quality of the suit or the strength of the hand. Or maybe 1♥ promises 4+ while 1♠ promises 5+ (although I certainly wouldn't recommend this to beginners and intermediates: having different definitions of the 1♥ and 1♠ opening makes life unnecessarily complicated).

 

But letting it depend on whether or not you have a 4-card minor seems strange to me. Compare

Axx

KJxx

AJx

xxx

to

Axx

KJxx

AJ

xxxx

 

Those two hands both are balanced 13-counts with three spades and four hearts (and a diamond feature also if partner asks at that level of detail). Assuming 13 points is not in our point range, you make a choice: open these hands 1♥ or not open 1♥.

 

Of course this argument would also suggest that standard 5-card majors is flawed, too, since it doesn't matter much whether you open those hand 1♣ or 1♦. That's another discussion.

[OleBerg]

In Denmark (especially in Copenhagen), 5CM and 12-14NT is widespread at the highest levels. It is played in a "not 2/1 context" however. At a glance it would seem to me, that it could work as well in a 2/1 system.

[MickyB]

Agree with Helene's last post - when I play four-card majors, I open the major not just on 4M4m but on some 4M5m 11-13s as well. This is in the context of 14-16 NT and 2/1 GF in 1st+2nd postion, and 15-17 NT in 3rd+4th. It's not an easy style to play, though. As Junyi said, it is usually played with 1M:2C as either GF natural or a three-card limit raise. The reason for this is that you otherwise have no suitable bid to make on, say, a 3145 10/11-count - if you simply bid 2M on these hands it lands up having a very wide range.

 

Weak NT and four-card majors is the worst, theoretically, it has few advantages over weak NT and five-card majors. This is why you get people opening the minor playing Acol, IMO - they've worked out that opening the major is bad, but they can't bring themselves to make the switch to fives, or want their minors to guarantee four cards! Great.

 

Playing weak NT and five-card majors, you have to decide whether 1M:2X is going to be 9+, meaning that after 1M:1NT, 15-16 balanced can pass; Or whether a 2/1 is GF, in which case you have to rebid 2m on those hands. The latter has its benefits, but it make 2/1s worst auction even more problematic - 1H:1N, 2D:2H where 2H shows 5-10 points and opener doesn't know whether to take another bid on a 16-count.

[gwnn]

well you will rebid 2♣ on all 5332 assumedly if you want to use that system

[OleBerg]

At another glance:

 

At IMP's I would never play 4-card major.

 

At MP's I would have no problem at all with it. (And I would open Major before minor, or maybe ♥-♣-♠-♦ if someone provided good arguments.)

 

EDIT: And NT-range (MP's) is simply "Against the field". If I am better than the field, it wont matter, and if I am weaker, it will give me the chance to get lucky. In a short tourney, where I considered me and my partners declarer-skills to be superior, I might switch to "With the field".

[bill1157]

Unless you are playing a canape system the frequency with which a 1S opening would be 4 cards is so low that you would be better off playing 1S opening shows a 5 card suit.

There may be some advantage to opening 1H with a 4 card suit.

 

Bill

[TMorris]

Weak NT and four-card majors is the worst, theoretically, it has few advantages over weak NT and five-card majors.

Can you explain why. I see people saying this all the time but no-one either explains or (just as good/better) points to a source that I can read which clarifies this comment. Something explaining why it worse than using a strong NT etc... would also be great if you can comment or have a link.

 

I understand with a weak NT & 4-card majors that the auction 1M-1NT (I play 2/1 is 10+here) causes problems but presume that there are other issues.

 

Thanks

[helene_t]

Yes, the responses to the major suit openings is the main problem.

 

You can't respond 1NT with a decent 9-count since opener will pass with 15 and most 16 counts.

 

This means that many bids over a 2/1 have to be nonforcing and both partner's have to jump or introduce fake suits to create a force just with modest extras. For example,

1♥-2♦

3♥*

just shows six hearts and 14+ points or such, that is very inaccurate. And if opener has diamond support and extras, he can't show the support without bypassing 3NT (unless he can make a 3♠ splinter bid).

If responder bids the suit under opener's suit, (1♥-2♦ or 1♠-2♥), then the only rebids opener can make that don't promise extras is to bid his suit again or to raise responder's suit. This means that he has to rebid 2M on even a bad 5-card suit, risking responder passes it with a singleton.

 

If opener has a strong balanced hand, we get auctions like

1♠-1NT

2NT-3♥

Does this show a 5-card heart suit and some 8 points, choice of game? Or is is a 6-card heart suit with 5-7 points, nonforcing? You really want to play 2NT here as 18-19 so that you don't need the latter.

 

Finally, if opener has 19 points, it goes

1♠-1NT

3NT-?

and since opener here may have 2 or 3 hearts, and 4 or 5 spades, responder will often just have to hope that 3NT is the right contract.

 

Another issue is that it is much more attractive to open a 4-card major when you have a weak hand than when you have a strong hand. Getting the major suit in early is good for competitive auctions which is more important when you have a weak hand. When you have a strong hand, emphasis should be on constructive bidding.

 

If you play weak NT and 5-card majors you can play a forcing 1NT response (opener rebids a 3-card minor with a 15-17 5332 shape). So 2/1 responses can be GF (or almost GF if you prefer).

[MickyB]

well you will rebid 2♣ on all 5332 assumedly if you want to use that system

Yes, you are right Csaba - then, obviously, you have enough space to solve the problem.

[Pict]

I've played Acol weak NT, absolutely standard 44 up the line, like it.

 

I've tried same with 4-card major first, doesn't work for me, hated it.

 

The spades are 5 seems pointless to me.

 

Played 5CM strong NT - pleasant enough.

 

Played 5CM and 5D (except 4441) strong NT - pleasant enough.

 

My experience is it depends on your partner, your ambition, the culture you are playing in. Place your bets.

[nigel_k]

Five card majors works equally well with a 12-14 or 15-17 NT as far as I know - just choose the range you prefer.

 

With four card majors it's much more complicated and depends on how you open and rebid. But I don't think four card majors and strong NT is unplayable (though I haven't played it and probably wouldn't).

[NickRW]

Weak NT and four-card majors is the worst, theoretically, it has few advantages over weak NT and five-card majors.

Can you explain why. I see people saying this all the time but no-one either explains or (just as good/better) points to a source that I can read which clarifies this comment. Something explaining why it worse than using a strong NT etc... would also be great if you can comment or have a link.

 

I understand with a weak NT & 4-card majors that the auction 1M-1NT (I play 2/1 is 10+here) causes problems but presume that there are other issues.

 

Thanks

Some, quite a lot actually, is purely opinion and what you're used to. So when people say "x is good" a lot of what they present as fact is coloured by their experience which may not be as complete or as unbiased as they think. I am not trying to say people are giving bad advice or anything like that - just that getting to the core solid facts is actually not as easy as one might suppose.

 

You should probably think of weak NT and 4cM, majors first at one end of a spectrum and 5cM, strong NT as the other end (actually, playing 5 card diamonds as well as the majors is probably the extreme end - but thats complicating it).

 

The nearest I can give as solid facts are that weak NT and 4cM is quite preemptive and gets right to the point (focusing on the majors) - it seems to play very well at match points where doubles and overcalls that might be considered suicidal at IMPs are common place. But when you're playing IMPs and opps will not be so keen to interrupt your auction on a whiff of an extra 10 points risking 200 against, the preemptive effect mainly works against you instead of for you. Strong NT and beefing up your major openings means that you open 1m a lot more - which means quite a lot of extra bidding room you can put to good use - if you're cute enough - but it takes some non Acol like thinking to actually put that space to real use - which is not that difficult if you're not born in Acol land as you won't be in that mindset in the first place - if you are born here it takes quite a bit of study and cultivating partners with a similar wish to learn etc. Similarly it is hard for the rest of the world to see the brighter side of 4cM and weak NT - which it does have.

 

Some will argue in favour of 5cM even at match points stating things like raising partner's major is easier when you know they've got 5 - which is a valid point - though I have yet to see any way of quantifying all the pros and cons.

 

Nick

[NickRW]

Also, if one decides to always bid the 4-4 suits up the line, he just misses the best part of 4 card major IMO.

So what is the score with opening 4-4 hands? Textbook Acol says to open the lower suit, whereas my partner argues we should always open a major over a minor when holding 4 of each (and ♥ before ♠) I do see the point of getting the major in early doors - is there consensus here?

It depends on what text books you read and who you talk to and what area of the country you live in.

 

So called "modern" Acol as recommended on the EBU site, amongst others, suggests opening 4/4 shapes in ♥, ♠, ♦, ♣ order (iirc) (and 4/4/4 shapes generally the suit below the singleton). This isn't, however, the Acol that Reese wrote about which had more complex rules - but would open minors more readily (however it wasn't completely opening up the line either). Then there are those who swear by opening almost utterly in up the line fashion.

 

Personally I don't see the point of opening 4cM if you're not going to prioritise the majors - but thats me - others would argue.

 

Nick

[awm]

It may be worth mentioning that there seem to be a couple styles of four-card major. In one style, you tend to open the cheaper of two four-card suits. This means 1♠ is almost always a five card suit (except 4333) and 1♥ is usually a five-card suit also (except 44(23) and 3433). If playing strong notrump, it seems like this style is not very effective. You very occasionally have this horrible shape (like 4333) with minimum values where partner's raises in competition get you in trouble. It seems clear that 5cM/strong notrump is better than 4cM strong notrump in this style.

 

There is an alternative style of four-card majors where you try to open a four-card major as much as possible (like always open a major with 4M-4m hands, and sometimes with 4M-5m hands if rebids seem awkward otherwise or suit quality dictates, etc). This style has a big advantage in preempting your opponents (takes up space, keeps them guessing in competition). However, it occasionally also gets your side guessing in competitive situations, means you play a fair number of moysians (which can be good or bad) and can make it hard to unravel hands in non-competitive situations because there are so many possible distributions in the 1M opening. Playing weak notrumps, it seems wrong to open in this style because you're effectively "preempting" with your good hands (the 4M openings are often on a strong notrump).

 

So I think one can make a point that if you play 4cM/weak notrump you should bid up-the-line (giving yourself more space when you have the strong notrump hand) whereas if you play 4cM/strong notrump you should open 1M as much as possible on minimum openers to maximize the preemptive effect (possibly sacrificing your own slam bidding, but so be it).

[EricK]

Bidding is a matter of trade-offs.And this question touches on the major one - how much emphasis do you place on uncontested bidding; how much do you place on contested bidding; and how much do you place on trying to prevent the opponents from contesting in the first place.

 

If you knew for a fact that the opponents were going to stay silent on a deal, then you would arrange your bidding system such that each potential opening bid was more likely than the next higher bid, and that higher bids are more descriptive than lower bids. Of the systems under discussion, 5 card majors especially with a strong NT best fits this pattern.

 

If, on the other hand, you knew for certain that LHO was going to make some overcall, you would like to be playing a system where your first bid gives as much description as possible. If, for example you knew LHO was going to overcall 2♣, you would like to be playing a system where all the 1 level opening bids were equally likely to occur and equally (maximally) descriptive of hand type. Playing 4 card majors really helps in this regard.. Even more so with a weak NT.

 

But note the paradox - The system which hopes opponents won't intervene contains a lot of 1m openings, so is the one they are most easily able to intervene over. Whereas the system which assumes the opponents will come in actually makes it harder for them to come in!

 

But perhaps 4cd M plus weak NT is overkill. It is the weaker hands where it pays most to keep the opponenets out, and weak balanced hands can often open 1M anyway. Similarly, 5card majors and strong NT, despite it's popularity, is perhaps going too far the other way, in ignoring the opponents. Of the remaing systems, 5cd M plus Weak NT is more geared towards scientific, constructive bidding than 4cd majors plus strong NT. The latter is more geared towards bashing to likely looking contracts and leaving the defense in the dark as much as possible.

 

Probably what is most important though, is knowing the strengths and weaknesses of your chosen system. If for instance you play strong NT and 5cd majors, it is vital to ensure you make the most of whatever uncontested auctions you do have otherwise you are throwing away your main advantage.

[nigel_k]

Playing four card majors, if you open four card suits 'up the line', you can switch to five card majors and just trade increased ambiguity when opening a minor for reduced ambiguity when opening a major which to me is a clear gain. You can also play forcing NT and GF 2/1 which is very awkward with four card majors.

 

If you open a four card major before a four card minor, I'd say you are not doing it primarily for the preemptive effect as Adam suggested. You're doing it for the negative inferences when a major is not opened and because 15+ balanced hands usually play in either NT or a 4-4 major fit anyway so you can avoid telling opponents what minor suit you have. So this has benefits regardless of the NT range used. But I'm not suggesting they outweigh the losses.

[helene_t]

If, on the other hand, you knew for certain that LHO was going to make some overcall, you would like to be playing a system where your first bid gives as much description as possible. If, for example you knew LHO was going to overcall 2♣, you would like to be playing a system where all the 1 level opening bids were equally likely to occur and equally (maximally) descriptive of hand type. Playing 4 card majors really helps in this regard.. Even more so with a weak NT.

You certainly have a point. My feeling (just feeling, not based on research) is that when opener's LHO overcalls I am generally more comfortable playing English Acol than playing other styles. But OTHO:

 

- It is not obvious that taking the 12-14 bal out of the suit openings is more helpful in competition than is taking the 15-17 bal out. Yes, responder can double or raise more aggressively, but on the other hand he also has to to act more aggressively in order to protect opener's 15-16 balanced hand which will usually not be able to reopen if responder passes. Fred argues that weak notrump systems are more difficult in contested auctions than are strong strong notrump systems and that he wouldn't recommend weak notrump to anyone who isn't prepared to put a lot of work into system discussions.

 

- While it's true that a five-card majors system puts more hands into the minor suit openings than into the major suit openings, it is not necessarily true that the minor suit openings contain more different types of hand that are relevant to distinguish. When partner opens a minor suit, I often don't care about his length in the opening suit at all, and even when I do care about it I often don't need to know the exact length. Suppose it goes

1♣-(1♠)

Playing English Acol, I know that opener doesn't have a balanced hand with four hearts. But is that really helpful? He could still have an unbalanced hand with four hearts, so we still define dbl as showing 4+hearts. Also if it goes

1♥-(3♠)

is is really helpful to know that opener has at least five hearts. OTOH, if it goes

1♣-(3♠)

it is somewhat helpful to know that opener has at least four (probably five) clubs, and not four hearts unless his hand is unbalanced. But does it make a big difference?

 

- When there is an overcall in the sandwich position, I would rather play strong notrump than weak notrump. Some people think that you can't play support dbls because dbl is necessary to show the 15-16 balanced hand. I don't agree with that, I think responder is awkwardly placed over a double that includes 15-16 balanced hands. I think opener must pass smoothly unless his balanced hand happens to meet whatever criteria you have for a t/o or support double. But then maybe opps can steal from you if it goes

1♣-(p)-1♠-(2♦)

p-(3♦)-a.p.