ACOL Primer

[BunnyGo]

I played a club this week where everyone claimed to play ACOL, but I have my suspicions that they just say "ACOL" the way that people on BBO say "SAYC". Having never played it myself I have three quick questions:

 

1) Is there a quick primer on it somewhere online?

 

2) Is it 5 or 4 card majors?

 

3) How is it pronounced?

 

Thanks!

 

-Bunny

[gordontd]

I played a club this week where everyone claimed to play ACOL, but I have my suspicions that they just say "ACOL" the way that people on BBO say "SAYC". Having never played it myself I have three quick questions:

 

1) Is there a quick primer on it somewhere online?

 

I'm sure there must be, but I don't know where (I assume you've already done a search).

2) Is it 5 or 4 card majors?

It's 4-card majors (unless it's Dutch Acol), although nowadays many Acol players really play 4-card minors - ie they open minors in preference to majors.

3) How is it pronounced?

It's spelt Acol not ACOL, and it has a short "A" like "rack".

[Cyberyeti]

Don't know if this helps:

 

http://www.ebu.co.uk/publications/conventioncards-systemsinformation/ModernAcolSystemFile.pdf

 

off the EBU website.

 

This is a bit "all things to all people". Acol covers a multitude of sins, example:

 

4342 16 count, do you open 1♦ or 1♠, for me this varies with who my partner is.

 

What no trump do you want to play, most play 12-14 but you don't have to.

 

Most people play 4 card majors, some play 5, some play 5 in spades but 4 in hearts.

[BunnyGo]

Thanks for the quick answers.

 

As the whole club played 5 card majors (and many played a multi 2 diamond) it seems that they were simply calling it Acol, when really it's probably best described as (sub)standard-Israeli.

[helene_t]

Sometimes "Acol" refers to Culbertson-derived systems in general, as opposed to strong club or 3-way club systems. I.e. it just means that 1♣ is (semi)natural nonforcing and 2♣ is strong, artificial. The rest you have to guess.

 

To some British people it implies strong twos (strong twos are sometimes referred to as "Acol twos" here on the forum).

 

In the Netherlands it means specifically 15-17 NT. But in most other countries it means 12-14 or, less often, vulnerability-dependent.

 

One thing I would be reasonably confident about if my pick-up partner just said "Acol" is that two-level shifts are lighter than in most modern systems. In particular,

1♠-2m

2♠

is non-forcing to almost everyone who calls their system "Acol".

[Vampyr]

In the Netherlands it means specifically 15-17 NT. But in most other countries it means 12-14 or, less often, vulnerability-dependent.

 

Since the system was developed in Acol Street in London, the Dutch should choose a new name rather than using an old one to mean something completely different.

 

The document that was linked to earlier in the thread talked about "red-suit transfers". Lots of people in England use this phrase, and it is one of my pet peeves. Saying "red-suit transfers" instead of "major-suit transfers" is backwards.

 

Also in England they say "relay" when they mean "bye-stand". When they mean "bye-stand" they say "sharing". And then they claim that Americans do not know how to use the language!

[Antrax]

Come play in Tel Aviv, we all play sub-standard SAYC with alerting regulations that will surprise and delight you.

[wank]

Since the system was developed in Acol Street in London, the Dutch should choose a new name rather than using an old one to mean something completely different.

 

The document that was linked to earlier in the thread talked about "red-suit transfers". Lots of people in England use this phrase, and it is one of my pet peeves. Saying "red-suit transfers" instead of "major-suit transfers" is backwards.

 

Also in England they say "relay" when they mean "bye-stand". When they mean "bye-stand" they say "sharing". And then they claim that Americans do not know how to use the language!

 

oh well. it's sad that you don't like it here. be sure to write when you go back to america won't you?

[helene_t]

btw Fluffy says that in Spanish, "Acol" means "Gambling 3NT". And the first people who called their system "Acol" probably meant "Culbertson with a more aggressive opening style".

 

I once thought that what makes Acol Acol is the 4-cards-up-the-line principle, as opposed to Walsh. That was when I lived in the Netherlands. Then I bought a Scottish Acol book and to my amusement it was based on Walsh style. But here in England, most people open the major on 4M4m hands so it isn't an issue.

[gordontd]

Since the system was developed in Acol Street in London, the Dutch should choose a new name rather than using an old one to mean something completely different.

One might wonder why, since Acol Rd (not Street) was called after a place that pronounces its name "Aycol" we don't pronounce it the same way, but we don't.

 

The document that was linked to earlier in the thread talked about "red-suit transfers". Lots of people in England use this phrase, and it is one of my pet peeves. Saying "red-suit transfers" instead of "major-suit transfers" is backwards.

I don't see why it's backwards to call it by the suit that's bid.

 

Also in England they say "relay" when they mean "bye-stand". When they mean "bye-stand" they say "sharing". And then they claim that Americans do not know how to use the language!

Well, the sentences above are contradictory. I'd have more concern about your grasp of logic than your use of English! :D

[gordontd]

But here in England, most people open the major on 4M4m hands so it isn't an issue.

Ah, you live in the North, don't you?

[Cyberyeti]

Ah, you live in the North, don't you?

I'd have said the division was by age more than location, certainly in my neck of the woods, it's seen as older style to open the major.

 

Most of the younger players open the minor and play Crowhurst and a wide range 1N rebid.

[gordontd]

Most of the younger players open the minor and play Crowhurst and a wide range 1N rebid.

I thought that went out in the mid-eighties!

[Cascade]

One might wonder why, since Acol Rd (not Street) was called after a place that pronounces its name "Aycol" we don't pronounce it the same way, but we don't.

 

Sorry I can't tell the pronunication from "Aycol". Can someone please tell me more clearly how the street name was pronouced?

[Cascade]

I thought that went out in the mid-eighties!

 

Certainly in my memory when I subscribed to The Bridge Magazine the standard system used to be up the line with two four card suits.

[gordontd]

Sorry I can't tell the pronunication from "Aycol". Can someone please tell me more clearly how the street name was pronouced?

Ay as in May

[gordontd]

Sorry I can't tell the pronunication from "Aycol". Can someone please tell me more clearly how the street name was pronouced?

Actually I think the road name is usually pronounced Acol, but the town of the same name, from where it originated, is pronounced Aycol.

[gordontd]

Certainly in my memory when I subscribed to The Bridge Magazine the standard system used to be up the line with two four card suits.

My comment was about playing Crowhurst and a wide-range NT rebid, which were widely played after Crowhurst's book was published in 1974, but in my experience are not much played now. Clearly Cyberyeti's experience differs.

[Cyberyeti]

I thought that went out in the mid-eighties!

Norfolk has one player of any sort of standard under 40 so probably :) That's why I said younger not young.

[campboy]

Well, the sentences above are contradictory. I'd have more concern about your grasp of logic than your use of English! :D

Presumably she meant to say 'Also in England they say "relay" when they mean "bye-stand". When they mean "relay" they say "sharing".'

[gordontd]

Presumably she meant to say 'Also in England they say "relay" when they mean "bye-stand". When they mean "relay" they say "sharing".'

Presumably. Though it's hard to see what there is to object to about calling it "sharing" when two tables share a set of boards.

[helene_t]

Ah, you live in the North, don't you?

Yes but Northerners who don't like that style refer to it as "Southern" :)

[Zelandakh]

Acol is really just a set of rules for natural bidding, arguably the most important being approach forcing and that fewer bids are forcing than you might think having learned a different rule-set. The first book I read on Acol suggested 5 card majors and a 16-18 nt range - "5 card major Acol" - so I tend to disagree with posters who suggest that 4 card majors is required. In addition there are Dutch and Swiss Acol variants, neither of which is a 4 card major system. Similarly for NT range, only here it is even clearer since the original Acol used a variable NT, 12-14 nv and 15-17 vul.

 

I think Cyberyeti's answer contains pretty much all the pertinent information. The link given is English Acol which is only one variant. Many English players think that English Acol is Acol but that would not be correct for the wider usage.

[Cyberyeti]

Acol is really just a set of rules for natural bidding, arguably the most important being approach forcing and that fewer bids are forcing than you might think having learned a different rule-set. The first book I read on Acol suggested 5 card majors and a 16-18 nt range - "5 card major Acol" - so I tend to disagree with posters who suggest that 4 card majors is required. In addition there are Dutch and Swiss Acol variants, neither of which is a 4 card major system. Similarly for NT range, only here it is even clearer since the original Acol used a variable NT, 12-14 nv and 15-17 vul.

 

I think Cyberyeti's answer contains pretty much all the pertinent information. The link given is English Acol which is only one variant. Many English players think that English Acol is Acol but that would not be correct for the wider usage.

I think actually most English players think that "Acol" with no qualifier is English Acol. They readily acknowledge that Dutch Acol etc exist, but use the full name if talking about the other variants.

 

Also there's a prevalence of putting "Acol style" on convention cards when playing pretty much any non 2/1 GF approach forcing system, some of which bear only a passing resemblance to Acol.

 

Traditional Acol also is very different to modern Acol. Look at what players make a 2/1 on for example, a subject that's been debated on several threads in the past. Also look at what constitutes 1♣-1N when holding a diamond suit.

 

The variant I was taught nearly 40 years ago by my grandfather was 16-18 1N and "phoney club", which lasted till I got some more modern stuff when playing at school, and then completely overhauled it at university to playing something pretty close to what Sally Horton (as she was then) and Sandra Landy played. I now play (and have done for 15+ years) a probably fairly unique version that culls ideas from all over the place to make something coherent but odd.

[manudude03]

When I started playing bridge, I was brought up playing "Standard Acol". It was a pretty standard 4 card major system with a 12-14 NT, stayman, gerber, blackwood and gambling 3NT, the rest were natural. We were taught to always open the minor with a 4M4m hand (except when 4441). Needless to say when I moved to England for university, it was a bit of a culture shock to find everyone opening the major with a 4324 16 count. After a while with Helene's help, I then discovered that most pairs didn't even know which suit their partner would open with that 4324 16 count :P.

 

But yeah, if you don't play a weak NT and 4 card majors, please don't call it plain acol :)