Disclosing 5542 to Acol noobs

[helene_t]

Last night we met a pair of which one player was a novice who had presumably never heard about the existence of other bidding systems than Acol.

 

I announced my partner's 1♣ opening as "2+" in accordance with NZ regulations (we play 5542 and strong NT, with a non-forcing 1♣). The TD said that when playing against new players I would need to explain it better.

 

Now it is not entirely clear if she meant that I should provide a more elaborate announcement, or if she encouraged the novice to ask for elaboration. I don't think it matters so much in practice. But let's say for the purpose of the poll that the TD asked me to explain the 1♣ opening to opps (or, more correctly, that the noob opp asked the question).

 

I am aware that I in principle should provide full disclosure (including that all (32)44 and (14)44 hands open 1♦ but that 4♦5♣ and 5M6♣ hands open 1♣), but my feeling is that this would just confuse and that it is more practical to simplify it a bit.

 

What would be your preference?

[The_Badger]

Explain it better, Helene? Rofl. Isn't that the idea of having a convention card?

[gordontd]

Numbers 2, 3, 5 are inaccurate for many players of this style.

[Tramticket]

The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol. :)

[gordontd]

The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol. :)

Then we could have endless discussions about which suit to open with the most common hand-shape!

[nige1]

Helene_t correctly announced "2+" in accord with NZ regulations.

Had opponents asked her to explain, then I'm sure she would have amplified:

"5+ ♣ or 4414 or 12-14 BAL or 18-20 BAL. Might be as few as 2 ♣s"

-- Or whatever is her actual agreement :)

[paulg]

The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol. :)

It is worrying how many people say that they are playing Acol and then you discover they mean 5542 these days ... with Benjy two openers.

[The_Badger]

The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol. :)

 

Strong Two Acol, Weak Two Acol, Benjaminised Acol, Reverse Benjaminised Acol, Multi-Coloured Acol, Five Card major Acol (not really Acol, in my opinion, but many play it these days), Strong No Trump with a Prepared ♣ Acol, Variable No Trump Acol, Crowhurst Acol, Stone Age Acol, Basic Acol, Modernised Acol, etc. etc.

 

Happy place Acol is out there somewhere, Tramticket, but not as we know it :)

[barmar]

Now it is not entirely clear if she meant that I should provide a more elaborate announcement, or if she encouraged the novice to ask for elaboration.

Your announcement should be whatever is required by EBU regulations, which I think is just "2+ clubs".

I am aware that I in principle should provide full disclosure (including that all (32)44 and (14)44 hands open 1♦ but that 4♦5♣ and 5M6♣ hands open 1♣), but my feeling is that this would just confuse and that it is more practical to simplify it a bit.

I would explain something like "We open 1♣ whenever we have a hand outside our NT range, without a 5-card major or 4-card diamonds, and not strong enough for 2♣. Our NT ranges are ..."

[paulg]

When I play with my wife at the local club I face a similar situation. I just say "it is either natural or balanced outside of our no trump range, which is 14-16/15-17 in this position (delete as appropriate). If she has a balanced hand, then she may only have two clubs and it is not forcing".

 

I think this is sufficient for everyone who may not understand, which covers novices to intermediates who may not be system people. I doubt more information would be useful to most people, except perhaps by including advice on what to play 2♣ as. But as you never know whether they play Michaels or not (less than 50% chance in my club) we don't do this.

[barmar]

If you're going to suggest a defense, you should do that at the beginning of the round, not once an auction has started. The opponents can't start discussing whether or not they're going to use your suggested defense in the middle of the auction.

[paulg]

If you're going to suggest a defense, you should do that at the beginning of the round, not once an auction has started. The opponents can't start discussing whether or not they're going to use your suggested defense in the middle of the auction.

Of course. I was just highlighting the question that club players have difficulty with when they hear their opponents are playing a short club. Helene's concerns about what they open with 44/45 minors is a lot lower down people's list of worries.

[pescetom]

I face this problem almost daily, with players of natural systems other than ACOL.

I agree it's not easy.

 

I am aware that I in principle should provide full disclosure (including that all (32)44 and (14)44 hands open 1♦ but that 4♦5♣ and 5M6♣ hands open 1♣), but my feeling is that this would just confuse and that it is more practical to simplify it a bit.

I confess that I would be puzzled by your proposed full disclosure, even though I play the same agreements.

It's no surprise that 4♦5♣ and 5M6♣ hands open 1♣, but what happens with 5♦5♣?

I think it's clearer to state principles rather than spell out special cases, see @barmar does below.

 

 

 

Numbers 2, 3, 5 are inaccurate for many players of this style.

I would say 1 and 4 too.

 

 

I would explain something like "We open 1♣ whenever we have a hand outside our NT range, without a 5-card major or 4-card diamonds, and not strong enough for 2♣. Our NT ranges are ..."

That's pretty good, but not quite accurate, at least for us. There are hands within our NT ranges which we would still open 1♣, and there are hands with 4-card diamonds but 5+card clubs that we would still open 1♣. As most of this is obvious to those from a natural background, I prefer to concentrate on what isn't obvious. So something like "Our 1♣ opening is basically natural, but outside of NT range and shape we will open with 1 in a minor whenever we lack a 5-card major: in that case we will prefer diamonds if it is four cards but otherwise always clubs, even just 2 cards when we hold both 4-card majors".

[blackshoe]

Your announcement should be whatever is required by EBU regulations, which I think is just "2+ clubs".

That would be unwise, considering she's in New Zealand. :-)

[helene_t]

Yes, in EBU it would have been "can be short".

 

Another difference is that when we announce, NZ opps expect pretty much what we play. At least in Hamilton. In EBU, other variants such as unbalanced diamond, are also common.

[HardVector]

Just stick with could be short as 2. If they want details on what they "could" have, you should probably just say that if it has 2 clubs, it's balanced without a 5 card major, otherwise, it's a normal club bid.

[pescetom]

Just stick with could be short as 2. If they want details on what they "could" have, you should probably just say that if it has 2 clubs, it's balanced without a 5 card major, otherwise, it's a normal club bid.

 

They could rightly complain that this explanation is misleading. If it has 2 clubs, it's balanced with two 4 card majors and 3 card diamonds. If it has 3 clubs, it's balanced with one 4 card major and 3 cards diamonds. If it has 4 clubs, it can't have 4 diamonds. Otherwise it's a normal club bid :)

[fromageGB]

Yes, in EBU it would have been "can be short".

Well, I believe you have to give the number, such as "may be as few as two". "Short" to me implies singleton or void, and you say that is not your method.

[fromageGB]

They could rightly complain that this explanation is misleading. If it has 2 clubs, it's balanced with two 4 card majors and 3 card diamonds. If it has 3 clubs, it's balanced with one 4 card major and 3 cards diamonds. If it has 4 clubs, it can't have 4 diamonds. Otherwise it's a normal club bid :)

I think the best explanation is "just come round this side of the table and have a look at my hand!"

[helene_t]

Explain it better, Helene? Rofl. Isn't that the idea of having a convention card?

Yes but we are talking about noobs. We would have to make a special convention card for them. The standard convention card just says 2+ clubs. There's an inference that not all balanced hands open 1♣ since otherwise the 1♦ opening would have a different specification, but that is just something you need to know.

 

Noobs play a 2♣ overcall as natural anyway, even if the 1♣ opening promises 4, so I don't think it is a good idea to suggest a defense. However, the fact that we could have only two clubs probably means that they will be braver with 2♣ overcalls, and with a club lead.

[pescetom]

 

Noobs play a 2♣ overcall as natural anyway, even if the 1♣ opening promises 4, so I don't think it is a good idea to suggest a defense. However, the fact that we could have only two clubs probably means that they will be braver with 2♣ overcalls, and with a club lead.

At least around here, the good news is that beginners are now taught to open 1c this way, so explanations will be rapidly less necessary. The bad news is that they are also taught to overcall naturally 2c and to interfere 2d over 1c as Michaels. Considering how rarely the 1c opening is actually 2 or even 3 cards, this is arguably poor bridge.