A rose by some name or other

[Vampyr]

There was recently a thread interested in what systems are played in various places where forum members play. I have been thinking about this, and...

 

Around here, they play traditional Acol (albeit with weak 2s, usually), Benji, various forms of Precision, Polish Club, forcing pass once in a while, and (rarely) some other unusual and/or homegrown systems.

 

But I do not know what to call the rest, who in tournaments and some clubs are the majority. People replied in that other thread that people played SA, 2/1, Acol and a few others. I play Acol with 5-card majors. Is that still Acol? Perhaps it is, since Acol is arguably more a philosophy than a deliberately designed bidding system, and has evolved a lot from its original conception.

 

What if I played 5-card majors and a strong NT? Is that still Acol?

 

Also, some people play 2/1 GF, but not the "2/1 System" played in the US. For example, they will not play NMF, will probably play some form of Multi, etc.

 

When asked by opponents about basic system, my experience is that people who aren't playing basic or Benjaminised Acol or a Strong/Polish Club will give a brief description of their methods, rather than assign a name to them.

[Endymion77]

In Bulgaria, most people play some sort of Precision with strong NT. A minority play what is called "natural" which is 5 card majors/strong NT and close to SAYC but 2♣ is usually an artificial game force. I'm not sure what's so natural about it. :) You can of course find the occasional pair that plays a forcing pass system, Blue Club or something with weak NT/4 card majors but the above two systems cover at least 95% of the bridge population.

[blackshoe]

If you look at the evolution of "Standard American" over the years, it seems pretty clear that the current "Standard" at least among serious tournament players includes a game forcing 2/1 response. So much so that Max Hardy titled a book on such a system published nearly twenty years ago Standard Bidding for the Twenty First Century. Yet if you play such a system and try to call it anything other than "2/1" people will accuse you of at best unintentionally mis-describing your system, and at worst of deliberately trying to mislead them.

 

I note that the WBF System Card has no place for a system name. They do have a section headed "System Summary: General Approach and Style" but they expect you to describe that by mentioning relevant agreements (5 card majors, strong NT, etc.) not by naming a system. I suppose "2/1" (or whatever) is a useful shorthand for discussion, but as the disclosure required by law and regulation, it falls short and IMO should not be used at all.

 

 

Added after seeing Endymion's post: The most "natural" system of which I'm aware is EHAA*. B-)

 

* four card majors, mini-NT, five card weak twos in four suits. No artificial forcing opening.

[Vampyr]

Added after seeing Endymion's post

 

Perhaps a moderator could move that post to the thread I mentioned in the OP. I was not looking for a repeat of that thread, but rather a discussion along the lines of your comment above.

 

The EBU CC has a heading: General Description of Bidding Methods. Here one writes something along the lines of "5-card majors, Weak NT, 3 weak twos".

[Zelandakh]

What if I played 5-card majors and a strong NT? Is that still Acol?

The very first bidding systems I learned were Culbertson and 5 card major Acol (with a 16-18 NT). I have no problems with calling such methods Acol - the original Acol used a strong NT when vulnerable. What this is not is English Acol. It is typically English to think of Acol as purely a local method but the term is used in many other countries all around the globe.

[Vampyr]

The very first bidding systems I learned were Culbertson and 5 card major Acol (with a 16-18 NT). I have no problems with calling such methods Acol - the original Acol used a strong NT when vulnerable. What this is not is English Acol. It is typically English to think of Acol as purely a local method but the term is used in many other countries all around the globe.

 

Well, Acol was after all conceived and first played in London, so I think that the English are not unreasonable to claim "ownership" even if other countries have borrowed it. I am not sure what is "typical" about this, except perhaps that they have stubbornly refused to change the name of their language, even though they are vastly outnumbered by those who have borrowed it.

 

Anyway I am wondering when a system cannot accurately be called Acol (I am not addressing the question of what you should tell your opponents you are playing, in which case Acol would not be correct anyway).

 

Can you tack on anything, Multi (usually paired with Lucas Twos), 2♣ response is an artificial game-force, Benji with a 2NT opener showing a weak hand with the minors? Transfer responses to a club?

[Zelandakh]

The fundmental heart of Acol is the approach-forcing method. Also implied are light openings, light 2/1s and a larger number of non-forcing bids than most other systems. Deviations from whatever the local form of Acol is are pretty easy to tack on.

 

In truth, I usually just say I am playing a weak NT and 4 card majors rather than using the A word at all, since so many people have pre-conceptions about what Acol means. As an example from the opposite side, if a pair in these parts says they are playing "Standard American", I have learned that what they mean is they are playing Forum D with a short club (5542). That was incredibly confusing before someone told me.

[paulg]

When a pair says that are playing Acol what I hear is 4-card majors, limit bids and that a 2/1 response does not promise another bid. I probably presume weak notrump most of the time too, but as that is pre-alerted in Scotland what people actually say is "Acol, weak".

 

I don't make any assumptions about what they open holding a 4-card major and a 4-card minor and their opening two bids could be anything, including Multi, Tarten, Lucas, etc.

[Cyberyeti]

When a pair says that are playing Acol what I hear is 4-card majors, limit bids and that a 2/1 response does not promise another bid. I probably presume weak notrump most of the time too, but as that is pre-alerted in Scotland what people actually say is "Acol, weak".

 

I don't make any assumptions about what they open holding a 4-card major and a 4-card minor and their opening two bids could be anything, including Multi, Tarten, Lucas, etc.

 

Some people have tacked on 2/1 F2N but not GF, is that still Acol ?

[Vampyr]

Some people have tacked on 2/1 F2N but not GF, is that still Acol ?

 

I would say no, because lighter 2/1s are, possibly, the one thing that does define Acol.

 

In contrast, I think that the "2/1 System" is defined by a lot of things, such as 5-card majors, strong NT, 3 weak 2's, transfers over NT openings, NMF (or else 2-way checkback) and a number of other conventions and treatments.

[GreenMan]

I'm usually wary of people referring to their system by name if it's not a common one in the area. I once played a pair in a KO whose card said "K-S," but it was just SA with a weak NT and little of the actual K-S system. (Another pair in my town played real K-S, so I knew a bit about it.)

 

A friend of mine said he once tried out a 4cM system at a tournament, and referred to it as "Ay-col" in front of an opponent from Britain. She said, "Actually it's 'Acol,' and you're NOT playing it." :P

[Vampyr]

I'm usually wary of people referring to their system by name if it's not a common one in the area.

 

It depends. Obviously a system name is not appropriate to give to your opponents, but this discussion doesn't really touch on that.

[GreenMan]

I would say no, because lighter 2/1s are, possibly, the one thing that does define Acol.

 

In contrast, I think that the "2/1 System" is defined by a lot of things, such as 5-card majors, strong NT, 3 weak 2's, transfers over NT openings, NMF (or else 2-way checkback) and a number of other conventions and treatments.

 

I'd say at least some of those are optional; I wouldn't say pairs who play Multi and Flannery, for instance, are not playing 2/1 if their 1M structure is the same. In fact just about everything outside the 1M structure itself is not part of 2/1's identity IMO, since it's mostly just a holdover from the SA days. Sure, everyone (or "everyone") plays NT transfers, NMF/checkback/XYZ and so on, but they were doing it before 2/1 came on the scene. I guess that's an argument for treating "standard" and "2/1" as overlapping terms rather than mutually exclusive.

[chasetb]

In contrast, I think that the "2/1 System" is defined by a lot of things, such as 5-card majors, strong NT, 3 weak 2's, transfers over NT openings, NMF (or else 2-way checkback) and a number of other conventions and treatments.

Having played plenty of both Standard American and 2/1, I agree with you on almost all except the 2♦ bid, which I have seen as 18-19 balanced, Flannery, both minors 10-15, mini-Roman, and if I ever got my way at teams, a 3-way: 18-19 bal, GF bal, or a Strong 2♦* . Even amongst the 2/1 crowd, some people play 1♦-2♣ as GF, and others (my preference) is to play it as only forcing to 4 of either minor (rarely, 3 of either minor).

 

While in the bigger bridge areas some play SA with the treatments you described, around my area SA doesn't use CS, NMF, or XYZ, or almost any other treatments. While Jacoby 2NT isn't specifically 2/1, I would not call anything who didn't have some sort of Limit Raise or better in the auction 1M-2NT as 2/1; the one exception is if they used Fred's ideas and had 1♥-2♠ and 1♠-3♣ as the LR+ raises.

 

* I have never been able to play Mid-chart, if I could I would use a weak-only Multi 2♦, 2♥ similar to Flannery but also including 5-5 with no spade honors and 4-6 shape, and 2♠, just for kicks and giggles, as 5+ ♦, 16+ HCP, if 16-18 HCP usually 3-3-6-1 or 3-3-7-0 shape.

[Vampyr]

Even amongst the 2/1 crowd, some people play 1♦-2♣ as GF, and others (my preference) is to play it as only forcing to 4 of either minor (rarely, 3 of either minor).

 

Some of those also play 1♠-2♥ as not GF.

 

GreenMan, is XYZ really as popular as you suggest? I am surprised.

[GreenMan]

GreenMan, is XYZ really as popular as you suggest? I am surprised.

 

It's gaining a lot of ground lately; two years ago I had never heard of it, but nowadays my impression is that about half the field is playing either XYZ or 2-way NMF, which was also rare until the past year or two. I may be falling victim to exception bias here (where I remember the odd cases as more prominent than they actually are), but it is certainly becoming less and less odd. Now, I haven't played outside Central Texas in years, so it may be a local thing.

[chasetb]

Some of those also play 1♠-2♥ as not GF.

 

GreenMan, is XYZ really as popular as you suggest? I am surprised.

I would say that they aren't play 2/1 GF, as both Max Hardy and Mike Lawrence agreed that 1♠ - 2 new suit and 1♥ - 2 minor are always GF. Hardy advocated that 1♦ - 2♣ always be GF while Lawrence disagreed. They might be playing 2/1 GF except suit rebid, but that's different.

 

I know the XYZ comment wasn't aimed at me, but only the few Precision players and the top players around me (Pittsburgh being the closest major city) play XYZ. Most play NMF, one or two play CS, and the others live in the stone age of bidding.

[Vampyr]

I know the XYZ comment wasn't aimed at me,

 

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that answers from all were not welcome, because they are, and are especially relevant if it is a regional thing.

[Cyberyeti]

A cautionary tale from real experience. I look down at my opps card which is tucked under his bidding box and see "Benji Acol" on the top (so 2m are different strong hands and 2M are weak).

 

RHO opens 2♣ and I make our xfer panama 2♥ bid over it, partner who's opened the convention card up fully sees that 2♣ is a strong 2 in any suit or a weak 2 in diamonds, so my 2♥ bid is natural and decent with ♥ when in fact it was a 4 count 3 suited with short spades and only 3 hearts. This became apparent at my second turn to bid and partner then blatantly used UI to pass what should have been a forcing bid to extricate us and opps were too embarrassed to ask for a ruling having caused the whole thing.

 

System descriptions are important, adding the weak 2 in diamonds to the 2♣ bid means you're no longer playing benji.

[Vampyr]

System descriptions are important, adding the weak 2 in diamonds to the 2♣ bid means you're no longer playing benji.

 

Could 2♦ have been a weak 2 in hearts as well?

[GreenMan]

I would say that they aren't play 2/1 GF, as both Max Hardy and Mike Lawrence agreed that 1♠ - 2 new suit and 1♥ - 2 minor are always GF.

 

I think this is not right, at least in the early days; Lawrence advocated 2/1 GF Except When Suit Is Rebid. IIRC his was the name most prominently associated with that school of thought, vs. Hardy's with 2/1 Always GF. I had Lawrence's 2/1 book, and my partnerships relied on it extensively.

 

I know the XYZ comment wasn't aimed at me, but only the few Precision players and the top players around me (Pittsburgh being the closest major city) play XYZ. Most play NMF, one or two play CS, and the others live in the stone age of bidding.

 

Most everyone I know plays at least simple NMF, but the 2-way version is gaining ground; I think of 2-way NMF, XYZ and CS as much more like one another than like old-style NMF.

[Vampyr]

Most everyone I know plays at least simple NMF, but the 2-way version is gaining ground; I think of 2-way NMF, XYZ and CS as much more like one another than like old-style NMF.

 

I would definitely separate out XYZ rather than NMF, since it is used over suit rebids. Although over a NT rebid it is similar to 2-way checkback.

[GreenMan]

I would definitely separate out XYZ rather than NMF, since it is used over suit rebids. Although over a NT rebid it is similar to 2-way checkback.

 

I just consider that the 2C/2D structure makes them more alike than different. YMMV.

 

(It reminds me of Kaplan's observation from a Vugraph session: "Nobody in this tournament can bid diamonds to show diamonds anymore. We lost the club suit in the 1950s. Now the diamonds are gone, and hearts are sinking fast.")

[Cyberyeti]

Could 2♦ have been a weak 2 in hearts as well?

 

No. 2♥ was a weak 2 in hearts

[chasetb]

I thought XYZ and 2-way Checkback were the exact same. I know they are both different from New Minor Forcing, and all are different from Checkback Stayman. For simplicity, CS is better than NMF, because you do save space and I can remember only once or twice being able to stop in 2♣ using NMF, and neither time did it gain me a top. I prefer XYZ because you can describe pretty much any hand you have.

 

In his Workbook on the Two Over One System I think you are right in that Lawrence did say 2/1 GF except suit rebid. I am pretty sure that he changed that in later years for the 1M - 2 lower suit bids, but kept it for 1♦-2♣. He might still advocate what you say over a semi-forcing NT (he pushes 1NT Forcing as of now, hence GF), but I have been wrong before.

 

If it's worth anything, I far prefer 1x - 2♣ as GF except suit rebid, and the other 2/1 auctions as GF.