dutch acol

[babalu1997]

does anyone know a site with a collection of dutch acol continution bids in english?

 

the bridgeguys have some opening bids but what i wanted to see was some reponder rebids and also what 1nt means in reponse to 1 minor and 1 major.

 

 

 

thnaks

[Trinidad]

Dutch Acol is very much like Standard American, the main difference is that an opening in a major can be 4.

 

For opener and responder:

All suits are bid longest first

With equal length of five cards or more start with the highest

With four card suits only, you bid up the line.

 

For responder:

You don't raise a minor when you have a four card major.

If responder doesn't have the values to bid a new suit at the 2 level (10+HCPs) and without a suit to bid at the one level, he will bid 1NT as a "garbage bid", or give a preference to opener's first suit (e.g. 1♣-1♥; 1♠-2♣). The 1NT bid by responder is therefore always 6-9. There is no difference in strength between 1♣-1NT, 1♦-1NT and 1M-1NT.

 

Jump raises are invitational.

 

A bid in the fourth suit is always fourth suit forcing (i.e. also 1♣-1♦; 1♥-1♠).

 

Rik

[helene_t]

The way it is taught to beginners is very similar to English Acol, the main difference being:

- 1NT opening is 15-17, lowest NT rebid is 12-14, jump NT rebid is 18-19

- Strictly 4-cards up the line. Even with 4-4 minors, you open 1♣.

 

I.e. almost nothing is forcing. Even

1♠-2♣

2♥

is taught as non-forcing although I think very few club players play that: the better players will play it as forcing and the weaker players will not know whether it is forcing or not.

 

The official system of the Dutch BF is called "Biedermeijer". It comes in 3 versions:

Green: The beginner version

Blue: 5-card majors (short club) but like the Green version: no Walsh, 1NT-response is 6-9(10). 2/1 does not promise a rebid but a few follow ups that would be NF in the green version are now forcing: 1♠-2♣-3♣ and 1♠-2♣-2♦.

Red: Like the blue version but with more conventions.

 

An alternative specification of Dutch Acol which may be more popular (especially in Belgium) is the Berry Westra system, which differs from the Biedermeijer Green in that a 2/1 in competition where responder's suit is higher ranking:

1♣-(1♠)-2red

is forcing like in most non-Dutch countries. In Biedermeijer this specific situation is nonforcing (and therefore the negative dbl can be a strong hand with hearts, or with hearts and longer diamonds), although other freebids are forcing.

 

It is possible that Berry Westra makes the transition to more 2/1 follow ups forcing in his advanced books. I am not sure of that.

[Finch]

Dutch Acol is very much like Standard American, the main difference is that an opening in a major can be 4.

The way it is taught to beginners is very similar to English Acol, the main difference being

 

I can't answer the original question, but I'm pretty confident that (at least!) one of these answers is wrong...

[gwnn]

here's a very quick intro to Dutch acol in English:

 

Don't learn it. It sucks.

[helene_t]

Agree that it sucks.

 

It is relatively easy to explain in terms of stupid mechanistic rules (4-card up the line, notrump bidding at lowest level does not show extra values), though.

 

So I can see some merits of teaching it to beginners. Especially since the quite good Berry Westra books are in Dutch. I think if your students depend on Dutch teaching materials there is no serious alternative.

 

And proponents of the system may say that it doesn't matter that it sucks, it is good enough for beginners. I don't 100% agree with that but obviously the key priority for a beginner system is that it must be easy to learn.

 

My main objection is that nobody outside of beginner classes play it. You won't see it on vugraph, you won't even encounter it among better players at the local club. I have attended these bridge teacher get2gethers a few times. We will have a 16-board drive and the discuss pedagogical points that can be made of the boards we play. What you see is that all the teachers will play 5-card majors. And next day they are back in class teaching 4-card majors, a system that they don't play themselves.

 

These bridge teachers generally have quite limited understanding of bidding theory, so teaching bidding theory must be difficult. That they have to teach a system that they don't play themselves doesn't make it easier.

 

I can't answer the original question, but I'm pretty confident that (at least!) one of these answers is wrong...

The thing is, the Dutch word "Acol" is a generic term that refers to any bidding system that is not precision or vienna.

 

So Rik could be right in the sense that Dutch players on BBO who put "Acol" in their profile don't differ so much from non-Dutch players who put "SAYC" on their profile.

Maybe the probability that a 2/1 promises a rebid is something like 50% for "SAYC"-players, 40% for Dutch "Acol" players and 1% for non-Dutch "Acol" players. Or something like that.

 

But in terms of how it is described in textbooks, it is more similar to Acol.

[jkljkl]

does anyone know a site with a collection of dutch acol continution bids in english?

 

not a plain explanation, but Standard Dutch Bidding System AKA Biedermeijer Red could answer some of your questions.

 

ciao stefan

[babalu1997]

well i did not realise that dutch acol, is 15-17 no trump system.

 

gwnn, i strongly suspect that you are right.

 

the reason i asked is because i have been playing this 4 card system, not 4 majors system, but 4 card system with weak nt. And the road is rough.

 

i am about to give up playing the system, the reason being is that i now realize the responses in this system were never adjusted from i suppose, the old goren(or perhaps dutch acol) it was taken from.

 

i see no distinct advantage in promising 4 cards for a 1 club opening, when i have to open 1 sapde holding 4 and 15-17 hcp-- i do not want to hear 1nt and have to rebid 2nt-- that results in many losses, 6-9 hcp 1nt is too wide.

 

what bothers me also is that the 1nt response to major DOES not deny 3 cards in the major, and i see no scientific reason for that, even if i open 1 sapde and partner has 5-9 hcp and 3 sapdes i see no harm in a 2 sapdes response, it limits the hand, i can play a 7 trump fit easily at the 2 level and it is a difficult sequence for opps to balance.

 

i had hoped perhaps to find a reference from which i could improve the system.

[helene_t]

What you describe is English Acol (or Scottish or New Zealandish or w/e).

 

Yeah you are right if you play weak NT and wide-ranging 4-card major openings then you are not going to be in game with 16+9 points. Or maybe responder makes a 2/1 with 9 points or opener raises the 1NT response with 16, obviously both are flawed, too.

 

But at least when it goes

1♠-3♠

4♠

opener could have anything, including a balanced 16 with four spades. That makes it more difficult for the defenders than if you had bid the same hands playing SA.