A new way to open weak NT in Acol

[nekthen]

A thought flashed through my head when I saw an opp get away with using Stayman on a completely inappropriate hand (weak 4414).

Suppose when we open 1N we guarantee a 4/5 card major and 12-14 hcp, those hands that no longer qualify get opened 1♣ or 1♦

We can use 2♣ as 5 card stayman with a 2♦ response denying a 5 card major and the rest of the 1N responses can be as normal

1m 1M 1N would have to be 12-17 with 2♣ as checkback

 

Obviously we lose some preemptive value, but I think that some of the additional inferences that can be drawn from the bidding might be interesting. I do not know if there would be any value in doing something similar in strong NT systems

 

Thoughts?

[helene_t]

Yes I think this is mad :)

 

How are the minor suit openings supposed to work if they have to cover 12-19 balanced as well as unbalanced hands?

[nekthen]

Yes I think this is mad :)

 

How are the minor suit openings supposed to work if they have to cover 12-19 balanced as well as unbalanced hands?

 

They have 4 cards in the suit opened and the rebid of 1N will cover the balanced hands 12-17. It is no worse than a 1 minor opening in sayc imo

[nullve]

I saw an opp get away with using Stayman on a completely inappropriate hand (weak 4414).

Not inappropriate if they play Crawling Stayman.

[pescetom]

Not inappropriate if they play Crawling Stayman.

 

I would have thought it was still inappropriate: assuming traditional 1NT opening criteria, there is slightly less than 50% chance of opener holding a 4-card major, so more than 50% chance of playing 2M in a 4-3 fit when most of the field is in 1NT.

Looks to me as if responder's majors have to be at least 5-4 in a weak hand for this gadget to be worthwhile.

[dokoko]

In non-competitive auctions this structure should work ok. You have to find out whether you can handle the problems that arise in competitive auctions where you can no more rule out a certain balanced range in opener's hand.

 

And it might be easier to defend contracts played by your 1NT opener when he is known to hold 4 cards in one of the majors.

[helene_t]

They have 4 cards in the suit opened and the rebid of 1N will cover the balanced hands 12-17. It is no worse than a 1 minor opening in sayc imo

In sayc the rebids are

1n 12-14

2n 18-19

You could maybe put all the balanced hands w/o 4M in 1c and then play some artificial responses

[PhilG007]

I've played the Acol weak No Trump for donkey's years and I see no reason to change the format now As the saying goes,"If it ain't broke,don't fix it." ;)

[PhilG007]

Not inappropriate if they play Crawling Stayman.

 

With a hand like ♠xxxx♥xxxx♦xxxx♣x opposite a 1NT opener, Stayman is an entirely appropriate bid.Indeed its the only sensible one in the present circumstances(!) Imagine having to play 1NT facing that collection of junk as dummy(?!) :(

[DozyDom]

With a hand like ♠xxxx♥xxxx♦xxxx♣x opposite a 1NT opener, Stayman is an entirely appropriate bid.Indeed its the only sensible one in the present circumstances(!) Imagine having to play 1NT facing that collection of junk as dummy(?!) :(

Somehow I feel you're replying to a sentiment which hasn't been expressed at any point here, Phil.

 

The shape of the hand was specified in the op, with a singleton diamond. In that case Stayman on a weak hand is inappropriate, unless (as nullve said) they play crawling stayman.

 

No one here was suggesting you need invitational values for stayman; I hope that's cleared things up.

[msjennifer]

Sire,it would be interesting to find out how many below the age of 50 play ACOL even in our UK,today. Even the book authors of "ACOL in the Nineties" do not mention any thing about this suggested treatment although they certainly must have given it a thought. "CERTAIN" good players did play an ACOL version wherein an1Club opening guaranteed a 4 card major and the Weak 1NT denied a 4 card major .It had its benefits and drawbacks.I doubt if it is played anywhere anymore.It may be given at least a cursory glance .

[steve2005]

They have 4 cards in the suit opened and the rebid of 1N will cover the balanced hands 12-17. It is no worse than a 1 minor opening in sayc imo

SAYC the 1N rebid is 12-14. To suggest a 6 pt range of 12-17 won't create problems is simply uncredable.

[steve2005]

I would have thought it was still inappropriate: assuming traditional 1NT opening criteria, there is slightly less than 50% chance of opener holding a 4-card major, so more than 50% chance of playing 2M in a 4-3 fit when most of the field is in 1NT.

Looks to me as if responder's majors have to be at least 5-4 in a weak hand for this gadget to be worthwhile.

That is my thinking but some weak NTers suggest they can get away with less.

If opener is 2245 or 2254 or maybe some others, they just take a bad board.

[msjennifer]

SAYC the 1N rebid is 12-14. To suggest a 6 pt range of 12-17 won't create problems is simply uncredable.

 

Sir,i fully agree with all who said that rebid of 1NT.shows 12/14 HCP.It is just unthinkable to play it as 12/17. a 2NT rebid also shows exactly 18/19.AND in all probability the rebid of 3NT would show exactly 20 as with 21/22 or even GOOD 20 the hand if balanced would be opened 2NT.Even any strong club with 15/17 NT system shows only 12/14 HCP when the rebid is 1NT.Lastlly even in Precision system an opening bid of 1D followed by a rebid of 1NT shows exactly 12 HCP as with 13 /15 HCP the hand is opened 1NT. Therein also a rebid of 1NT cannot be stretched to 12/15 HCP.

[nullve]

I would have thought it was still inappropriate: assuming traditional 1NT opening criteria, there is slightly less than 50% chance of opener holding a 4-card major, so more than 50% chance of playing 2M in a 4-3 fit when most of the field is in 1NT.

You seem to assume that playing 2M on a 4-3 fit when the field is playing 1N is almost as bad as playing 1N when the field is playing 2M on a 4-4 fit. I don't think it is.

[johnu]

A thought flashed through my head when I saw an opp get away with using Stayman on a completely inappropriate hand (weak 4414).

 

Maybe we could just pass a law prohibiting players from using Stayman on inappropriate hands? :)

[661_Pete]

This may work, but I don't think it fits in with the Acol system - perhaps with a 5CM system?

 

Personally, if I open 1NT (12-14) I'm in general denying a 5CM. Otherwise I would open that major (there may be exceptions - say if my major is Jxxxx). So I expect a Stayman response to be asking for a 4CM. And (although partners have disagreed with me on this), for me Stayman can be weak, and I can pass the opener's 2♥ or 2♠. Am I wrong about this?

 

I was certainly told off once when I opened 1NT and it went 1NT - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2NT - pass. My partner told me his 2♣ was GF. I could only apologise :unsure: . But - in retrospect - if he had the values for game (knowing I hold 12-14) why doesn't he just go 3NT?

 

The other point is that I would open a 4CM on 15+ points. The idea being to bid 1NT or 2NT on the next round. Seems commonplace bidding to me.

[Cyberyeti]

SAYC the 1N rebid is 12-14. To suggest a 6 pt range of 12-17 won't create problems is simply uncredable.

 

We play 15-bad 19 1N rebid in a weak NT context and it's fine, you can deal with big ranges (I've also played a 6 point range on an opening NT but that needs special methods to make it work well).

 

I've seen the reverse in a weird artificial club system where 1♣-1♦-1♥ is a weak NT with 4 hearts and the 1N rebid and opener are bigger.

[nige1]

A thought flashed through my head when I saw an opp get away with using Stayman on a completely inappropriate hand (weak 4414).

Not inappropriate if they play Crawling Stayman.

As Nullve states, when responder to 1N has 4+4+ in the majors, a 2♣ reply is fairly safe, with appropriate garbage-Stayman agreements, e.g. after

1N - 2♣ -

2♦ - 2♥ -

??

 

If you pass with 3♥ but correct to 2♠ with 3-2 in the majors, then you play in a 7+ fit,

[Cyberyeti]

As Nullve states, when responder to 1N has 4+4+ in the majors, a 2♣ reply is fairly safe, with appropriate garbage-Stayman agreements, e.g. after

1N - 2♣ -

2♦ - 2♥ -

??

 

If you pass with 3♥ but correct to 2♠ with 3-2 in the majors, you play in a 7+ fit,

 

Till partner perpetrates one on 2-2 majors. We do this, but no guarantee, one of the best bits of play of my life was convincing both defenders that I had a third trump so they couldn't simply draw trumps and claim, converting -1700 to -800, still cost IMPS.

[pescetom]

Till partner perpetrates one on 2-2 majors. We do this, but no guarantee, one of the best bits of play of my life was convincing both defenders that I had a third trump so they couldn't simply draw trumps and claim, converting -1700 to -800, still cost IMPS.

 

We had the crawling gadget for years and ended up only employing it with both majors 5-4 or 5-5, which doesn't crop up that often. When we switched to allowing two doubletons or even a singleton within our NT openings we decided the gadget could go. But even opening only truly balanced hands as 1NT and bidding crawling with a 5-4 you can still end up in a 7-card trump fit despite having 8-card in the other major.

[pescetom]

You seem to assume that playing 2M on a 4-3 fit when the field is playing 1N is almost as bad as playing 1N when the field is playing 2M on a 4-4 fit. I don't think it is.

I would assert that this is a Strawman argument :)

Nowhere did I suggest I think that it would be less than heinous to be playing 1N when the field is playing 2M on a 4-4 fit.

Nor is there a scenario here where most of the field would be playing 2M on a 4-4 fit, as the only ones doing that would be both playing crawling (which is not universal) and employing it with 4414 (which is not clearly advantageous).

The first scenario is the field playing 1N and the crawling-riskers playing 2M on a 4-4 fit (48% likely).

The second scenario is the field playing 1N and the crawling-riskers playing 2M on a 4-3 fit (52% likely).

Overall I'd rather be with the field, unless I need a lucky strike at the end of the day.