Acol

[1eyedjack]

15-17pts int 1 club forcing weak 2s dhs

 

The above is on the profile card of a person playing in the Acol Club. Strong NT is not standard Acol . . . 1 Club forcing, what's that, what system is that?

More to the point, what has that got to do with the price of fish?

 

Players rarely change their profiles, and even more seldom do they do so to just to suit the particular club or pickup partnership of the moment.

 

And then, those methods that they post in their profiles generally only express a preference.

 

There is no certainty, at least not from the above, that (s)he only plays in the Acol club.

 

There is no certainty that what was shown in this profile was the system being played at the table.

 

As it was not a tourney, and the club in question is otherwise an open/public club, there is nothing to prevent them playing any non-acol system should they so choose, whatever is shown in profile.

[Vampyr]

Somewhere around 80% of the bridge systems in existence?

 

Some of the exceptions are Acol, SA, 2/1GF ...

[euclidz]

1♣ Forcing (what system is it?)

 

Somewhere around 80% of the bridge systems in existence?

 

I must have been playing with the others 20% for the last 10 years!

[euclidz]

More to the point, what has that got to do with the price of fish?

Players rarely change their profiles, and even more seldom do they do so to just to suit the particular club or pickup partnership of the moment.

And then, those methods that they post in their profiles generally only express a preference.

There is no certainty, at least not from the above, that (s)he only plays in the Acol club.

 

I am new to this site, I would like to enjoy my Bridge and learn in a stress free environment. Bridge players (generally) are not renowned for their patience and tolerance; in my short time in BBO I have witnessed many instances of 'teddies being thrown out of prams.' If it is the case, as you, that I can presume that players in the Acol Club with profiles stating (e.g.) StNT and 1Club forcing, are in fact playing bog standard basic Acol then that's fine. Can I mention your name when she/he bites my head off for opening with a WkNT?

[1eyedjack]

I agree with you that patience and manners are generally in short supply when playing any online game at any site, compared with behaviour in face to face. You will continue to encounter this for as long as you play with unknown partners and opponents. I would not let this put you off playing with unknown partners and opponents, as there are also among them some civilised individuals whom you would otherwise not encounter. You just have to develop a thick hide when dealing with the others and not get upset about it. In time you will develop a database of players to avoid and to attract respectively.

 

It should not be necessary to make assumptions, when in doubt. It is pretty simple to ask the opponents if they are playing Acol or their profile. Certainly if you open a weak 1N in the Acol club having made no agreements then your partner has no right to get heated just because his or her profile states strong 1N. What if your profile shows weak 1N? Why should your partner assume that their profile takes precedence? It was their choice to sit down in the Acol club to play.

 

I cannot see that there would be any benefit to your mentioning me in an argument. I have no authority in the Acol club (or anywhere else) . I have no objection, but I doubt that it would be profitable. The other players at the table should back you up, though.

 

I would add that if you want to play Acol, then doing so in the Acol club is probably a less stressful environment than in the main playing area (and probably also than the relaxed playing area). Just don't expect perfection.

[Zelandakh]

In the Acol Club it is indeed assumed that a 1NT opening without discussion is weak. There are a small number of plyers that will open a strong NT without agreeing it first - they tend to be unpopular! The best thing if you are sitting opposite someone with strong NT in their profile is simply to write "English Acol ok p?", "my profile p?" or something else along those lines. If it is a problem then simply move to another table. The majority of players there will play some form of English Acol even if their profile states SA, 2/1 or whatever. Occasionally someone wanders in accidentally though so it is wise to check if you want to avoid accidents.

[weejonnie]

The key with Acol is the concept of limit bids,

2C as the strongest opening bid (with 2D as negative)

Acol 2s showing 8 playing tricks in the suit mentioned - 2D, 2H, 2S (2NT as negative bid)

Acol 3NT (Gambling) based on AKQXXXX in a minor suit and not much else

Acol 4NT - asking for specific Aces

 

A 1NT response shows 6-9 balanced, 2NT response shows 10-12 balanced and 3NT shows 13 - 15 Balanced.

(1NT may also be 'garbage' - showing some points but not enough to bid at the 2 level)

 

Similarly 1X: 2X shows 6-9 (and 4 card support usually), 1X: 3X shows 10-12 (and 4 card support)

 

Obviously many people amend these e.g. Bergen raises, Three weak 2s, Benjamised, Multi, Lucas etc, etc

[blackshoe]

According to some people (Max Hardy was one) the "Acol 3NT" and the "Gambling 3NT" openings are two different things. I only lived in England for three years, and I did play Acol there, but I didn't hear about this "Acol 3NT" thing until long after I got back to the states. It's a long running minor like the Gambling 3NT, but with stoppers in, iirc, at least two side sides and about 16+ HCP. Way I learned it, the Gambling 3NT is part of Acol. B-)

[gordontd]

According to some people (Max Hardy was one) the "Acol 3NT" and the "Gambling 3NT" openings are two different things. I only lived in England for three years, and I did play Acol there, but I didn't hear about this "Acol 3NT" thing until long after I got back to the states. It's a long running minor like the Gambling 3NT, but with stoppers in, iirc, at least two side sides and about 16+ HCP. Way I learned it, the Gambling 3NT is part of Acol. B-)

There was originally in Acol a requirement to have stoppers outside the long suit for a 3NT opener, but this changed some time in the 50s or possibly 60s.

[blackshoe]

There was originally in Acol a requirement to have stoppers outside the long suit for a 3NT opener, but this changed some time in the 50s or possibly 60s.

There you go. Good to know. B-)

[The_Badger]

I think a few people on here already know my views on Acol, a system that, like Wei Precision, has "evolved" or to put it bluntly "bastardised" into something vaguely resembling the original system.

 

To me, and to many more, 5 card major Acol ISN'T true Acol. Yes, once upon a time, Acol used a strong NT and a prepared ♣ opening, but as time went on the weak NT was adopted.

 

But the abiding principle for 50 odd years was bidding 4 major card suits with idea of finding 4-4 fits instead of 5-3 fits. Not to say 5-3 fits weren't established in later rounds of bidding, but opening 1♥ or 1♠ could be done with a 4 card suit.

 

I know, I know, lots of people play an Acol-type system with 5 card majors these days, but wouldn't it be better to call it a SAYC-like system with a weak NT?

 

I'm sure the likes of Terence Reese and many of the original contributors to the Acol system would be turning in their graves to see what it has become.

[Vampyr]

I know, I know, lots of people play an Acol-type system with 5 card majors these days, but wouldn't it be better to call it a SAYC-like system with a weak NT?

 

Better, when this would be way more inaccurate? I say, "5-card majors, weak NT, three weak twos". This is shorter than saying "Acol with those things" so why give it a label? Anyway these days the main difference between Acol and SA or 2/1GF is the strength of 2/1 bids. So if pressed, I would say Acol because of the style of 2/1 I play.

 

In any case Acol has historically had several opening NT ranges including variable, several major-suit opening lengths, and... These days most people play two or more weak twos. Acol Twos are the only treatment that actually sports the Acol name, should we not call a system Acol unless it includes Acol Twos?

 

EDIT: LOL said much of this already. Completely forgot.

[mike777]

In USA

 

 

5 card majors and wk nt called eastern scientific for roughly 40+ years

not Acol, not 2/1 game force

 

Chip Martel won everything playing this style. One of the truly great players.

 

 

He notes one of the drawbacks to this style today is lack of new theory over past years.

Fewer players play and discuss it and challenge and improve it.

[gordontd]

In USA

 

 

5 card majors and wk nt called eastern scientific for roughly 40+ years

not Acol, not 2/1 game force

Really? That's not my understanding, so I googled it and the first three references I found all described ES as having a strong NT, which is what I would have expected. My experience is that US players of 5cM & wk NT are likely to describe it as KS (though I know that has rather more detailed and specific agreements).

[mike777]

Really? That's not my understanding, so I googled it and the first three references I found all described ES as having a strong NT, which is what I would have expected. My experience is that US players of 5cM & wk NT are likely to describe it as KS (though I know that has rather more detailed and specific agreements).

hmm you are correct that google says strong nt.

 

 

All I can say is not what chip martel taught me and not what we called it in Urbana, granted this was 71

 

and Chip did not called it KS

 

in any event trust me chip played 5 card majors and weak nt and won everything.

We did not call it KS or 2/1.

 

 

Again the main point in playing weak nt in2015 is lack of theory over the years. Fewer and fewer top class played wk nt so less theory compared to strong nt or strong club.

[rhm]

Chip Martel won everything playing this style. One of the truly great players.

So what does that prove?

 

That Chip Martel is a gifted player

That he played a style that - surprise, surprise - suited him.

 

What it does not prove:

 

That his style was close to the Acol attitude.

That his style was superior or had an inherent advantage over others.

 

It is interesting, that in Bridge top players, defined as "having won everything", exhibit a vast variety of different styles. (Names on request)

When others try to mimic the style of their idol, they rarely come close.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[mike777]

So what does that prove?

 

That Chip Martel is a gifted player

That he played a style that - surprise, surprise - suited him.

 

What it does not prove:

 

That his style was close to the Acol attitude.

That his style was superior or had an inherent advantage over others.

 

It is interesting, that in Bridge top players, defined as "having won everything", exhibit a vast variety of different styles. (Names on request)

When others try to mimic the style of their idol, they rarely come close.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

pls quote me in full. that may answer you

 

you miss main point when you don't, in fact you choose to not quote main point.

[rhm]

pls quote me in full. that may answer you

 

you miss main point when you don't, in fact you choose to not quote main point.

I commented on one aspect of what you wrote.

I neither quoted you out of context nor did I give a false impression of what you said.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[NickRW]

I commented on one aspect of what you wrote.

I neither quoted you out of context nor did I give a false impression of what you said.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Rainer, you chose to pick on the references to Chip. You did not pick up on Mike's point (arguably the more important point) about the weak NT and the (alleged) lack of theory development. That is what Mike is complaining about

[mike777]

Rainer, you chose to pick on the references to Chip. You did not pick up on Mike's point (arguably the more important point) about the weak NT and the (alleged) lack of theory development. That is what Mike is complaining about

 

I should make clear that is Chip Martel's main point that he discusses often.

 

I bring this up given the 5 card major, weak nt discussion under Acol.

 

I also mean to bring this up in any general discussion of weak nt bidding styles.

 

Nick phrased it better.

------------------

-------------------

 

 

under the general topic can you win with 5 card major and wk nt, clearly the answer is yes.

 

can you win a wc in 2016 with this style or will it hurt you is another question.

[rhm]

Rainer, you chose to pick on the references to Chip. You did not pick up on Mike's point (arguably the more important point) about the weak NT and the (alleged) lack of theory development. That is what Mike is complaining about

I do not doubt that I commented only on a single aspect of Mikes comment and arguably not the most important one.

But neither did I critic Mike, so I can not follow why there is reason for complaint.

I only made the point, that the fact that someone was very successful with a certain style does not make that style inherently superior to others.

 

Any style which is not mainstream, no matter what its advantages are, suffers from the problem, that only a small minority will develop new ideas from there.

40 years ago, I developed a strong club system, which was named "crazy club". I now only play it with my wife and I play rarely with her.

I still think the system is competitive and I see now many years later, that others develop similar ideas, for example the use of transfer responses to strong club etc.

Should I complain that nobody except me creates new ideas for the system?

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

Should I complain that nobody except me creates new ideas for the system?

I naturally have the same issue for my system. Trying to develop a personalized system to a high level is a lot of work and most of us cannot devote enough time to updating it constantly with all of our best ideas. Things go much more quickly and easily if more are involved and developing in parallel.

 

 

To me, and to many more, 5 card major Acol ISN'T true Acol. Yes, once upon a time, Acol used a strong NT and a prepared ♣ opening, but as time went on the weak NT was adopted.

...in England. In other countries, Holland for example, the weak NT was not adopted. Why do you get to decide which set of developments are "official" and which elate to a different system?

 

 

But the abiding principle for 50 odd years was bidding 4 major card suits with idea of finding 4-4 fits instead of 5-3 fits. Not to say 5-3 fits weren't established in later rounds of bidding, but opening 1♥ or 1♠ could be done with a 4 card suit.

Maybe that is your abiding principle - others see more important fundamentals and build on those

 

I know, I know, lots of people play an Acol-type system with 5 card majors these days, but wouldn't it be better to call it a SAYC-like system with a weak NT?

That would be like calling Acol a Culbertson-like system with a weak NT.

 

 

I'm sure the likes of Terence Reese and many of the original contributors to the Acol system would be turning in their graves to see what it has become.

I suspect they would be very proud that their system is still being played and of the role they played in developing bidding theory.

 

It is surely nice for you that you have strong opinions and feel able to speak for others...but that does not make what you write any more accurate.

[blackshoe]

..in England. In other countries, Holland for example, the weak NT was not adopted. Why do you get to decide which set of developments are "official" and which elate to a different system?

Because Acol (as opposed to Dutch Acol, which seems to be a different system) originated in England.

[mycroft]

more particularly, because the Acol club, which used to be on Acol Road, isn't in the Netherlands...

[Zelandakh]

Everyone is aware of the history. It is a little like saying that Meckwell is not a valid Precision development because it uses a 14-16 NT range or because iot was not created by Wei. Systems develop in different ways. SEF is being developed in Germany under the name Forum D - it remains part of the same family, just as Dutch Acol remains part of the Acol family. There is a difference between a system (original Acol; Baronised Acol; Modern English Acol; Dutch Acol; original Precision; Meckwell; SEF; Forum D; Forum D Plus) and a family. The thread is about the family of systems comprising Acol. That is not limited to the original system and comprises developments introduced from many places completely unrelated to the Acol Club itself.