While I do not play Acol (I did play a rudimentary, old-style acol a long, long time ago), I have a lot of experience with 11-14 1N opening bids.
However, that is in the context of 5 card majors, so my comments on 5422 hands (longer minor) are perhaps suspect in a 4-card major context.
5422 hands can usefully be grouped into 4225/4252/2425/2452.
With the 4225, there is no rebid problem after opening 1
♣, so a 1N opening on this shape would be unusual: maybe a hand with virtually no hcp in the blacks and both reds stopped.
With the 4252, a lot depends on your agreements over 1
♦ 2
♣. That is not gf in acol (as I recall) and I do not know the standard acol treatment of this theoretically interesting sequence. (My suspicion is that far too few partnerships have adequate agreements on this one anyway, regardless of overall method).
If you have adequate treatments, then you should have no fear of a 2
♣ response to your 1
♦, and can therefore avoid 1N openings except, as above, on hands with weak long suits and strong short suits. You can, on the more common hands in which your long suits are the stronger, open 1
♦ and rebid 1
♠ over 1
♥.
The more challenging holdings are those with 4 card
♥ suits, since the frequent 1
♠ response poses a problem.
Once again, I feel that you ought not to be dogmatic: look at the hand. Some hands will be better described by 1N. Others will be better described by a 2
♣ rebid.
Most would, for me, be 1N.
However, methods count. For example, I like two way stayman over weak notrumps, with transfer methods reserved for strong nt openings. Playing 2
♦ as an artificial game force response to 1N allows for considerable detail to be conveyed by opener, including possession of 2=4=2=5 shape (or 2=4=5=2, etc).
Transfer methods allow responder to describe his hand while 2 way stayman allows opener to describe his. Game-going hands, opp weak notrumps, are roughly equivalent in playing value to the opener, so captaincy issues are not especially germane. However, opener has already begun the description with the limited 1N bid, so it makes sense, in terms of conservation of bidding space, to have responder as the captain. In slam sequences, responder will be significantly stronger, with more 'information' to give. Thus it makes good sense for responder to do the asking: opener hads less 'information' to give and hence can more readily convey all of that information at a reasonable level than can responder.
Conversely, with strong NT, responder will be weaker, often significantly weaker, than opener on game hands and thus it makes sense for rsponder to convey his information to opener. On slams, the hands are likely to be roughly equivalent. 2 way stayman (or better, relay, methods) are better for slam purposes, but they are less frequent than game hands, so transfers are, on balance, better than 2 way stayman. I know, this is all off topic, but I just got going...and could not stop
We have had a recent thread discussing the risks of opening and rebidding a 5 card
♣ suit, in the context of 4=5 minor suit holdings, and the concerns about a 5-1 (or 5-0) fit remain valid (altho I was and remain in the 1
♣ opening school).
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
Help
Open 5422s 1 NT where the 5 card suit was lower ranking, weakish, and a minor.
.
s
t
r-m
nd
ing) tr. v. - Any bid made by bridge player with which partner disagrees.