[Walddk]

What is modern Acol, Mike? Do you teach your students to bid 4-card suits up the line now or not? I hope so, but even if this is the case, you and I also know that lots, like in thousands, still play it the old-fashioned way.

Roland

[Blofeld]

Walddk, on Mar 8 2006, 01:43 PM, said:

What is modern Acol, Mike? Do you teach your students to bid 4-card suits up the line now or not? I hope so, but even if this is the case, you and I also know that lots, like in thousands, still play it the old-fashioned way.

Bidding 4-card suits up the line is a system without a great deal of merit: one would almost certainly be better playing 5 card majors.

The main advantage of 4cM openings is that on the hands with a 4 card major, you can mention it immediately ...

So, modern Acol style is to open a 4 card major in preference to a minor (though with both majors or both minors tend to open the lower of the two).

This method certainly has disadvantages, but it's a hassle to defend against. I'm always very happy to find that my opponents bid 4 card suits up the line ...

[Walddk]

Blofeld, on Mar 8 2006, 08:42 PM, said:

Walddk, on Mar 8 2006, 01:43 PM, said:

What is modern Acol, Mike? Do you teach your students to bid 4-card suits up the line now or not? I hope so, but even if this is the case, you and I also know that lots, like in thousands, still play it the old-fashioned way.

Bidding 4-card suits up the line is a system without a great deal of merit: one would almost certainly be better playing 5 card majors.

The main advantage of 4cM openings is that on the hands with a 4 card major, you can mention it immediately ...

So, modern Acol style is to open a 4 card major in preference to a minor (though with both majors or both minors tend to open the lower of the two).

This method certainly has disadvantages, but it's a hassle to defend against. I'm always very happy to find that my opponents bid 4 card suits up the line ...

Interesting. So Reese and Dormer were wrong when they wrote The Acol System Today (1961).

4432
Open the higher of touching suits, but with clubs and spades open one club. With non-touching suits, spades and diamonds, or hearts and clubs, it is generally right to open the lower-ranking suit.

There are, however, hands where the position of the doubleton makes it desirable to open the higher-ranking suit.

♠62 ♥AK85 ♦1073 ♣AK42

You may want to bid both suits and the most likely means to that end is to open one heart. If you open one club and partner responds one spade you have not the stuff for a reverse bid of two hearts: you have to go 1NT on a hand better fitted for suit play. In addition, you conceal the most valuable feature, the heart suit.

So to you Acol-experts: how do you teach your students today. The Reese/Dormer way, or the alternative way?

Roland

[Limey_p]

Poll preferences:

1. Invitational with 5 spades and 4 hearts

2. Invitational with 4 spades and less than 4 hearts

[MickyB]

I've moved this post on 4 card majors to this new thread.

This post has been edited by MickyB: 2006-March-08, 16:28

[inquiry]

I doubt public polls will solve questions like this, that is why I didn't run public polls before. The FD czars and the team working in FD files simply have to do the best they can to put something standard(ish) in for the routine auctions that fit with the rest of the system.

I think all weak hands with both majors (regardless of the relative legth) need to go via 2H after 1N-2C-2D... while invite hand with spades needs to go via 2S. Invite hands with 5H and 4S use jacoby then bid 2S. These seems logical, consistent and gives you some way to invite given that jumps to 3M are forcing and smolen.

Ben

[Gerben42]

Quote

I doubt public polls will solve questions like this, that is why I didn't run public polls before. The FD czars and the team working in FD files simply have to do the best they can to put something standard(ish) in for the routine auctions that fit with the rest of the system.

Yes, agree with this.

Quote

I think all weak hands with both majors (regardless of the relative legth) need to go via 2H after 1N-2C-2D... while invite hand with spades needs to go via 2S. Invite hands with 5H and 4S use jacoby then bid 2S. These seems logical, consistent and gives you some way to invite given that jumps to 3M are forcing and smolen.

I agree heartily with this also.

[helene_t]

Free, on Mar 8 2006, 04:10 PM, said:

Walddk, on Mar 8 2006, 01:01 PM, said:

Free, on Mar 8 2006, 12:27 PM, said:

1NT - 2♣ - 2♥ - 2♠ is used to show invite with 4♠.

I would reverse it and let 2NT be invitational with 4 spades, and 2♠ invitational without 4 spades. This way, opener will always be declarer.

Roland

Yes, both approaches work, but it's not even close to a standard meaning I'm afraid. [...]

FWIW, it's standard in the Netherlands, at least according to the Dutch BF.

[cherdano]

inquiry, on Mar 8 2006, 10:37 PM, said:

I doubt public polls will solve questions like this, that is why I didn't run public polls before. The FD czars and the team working in FD files simply have to do the best they can to put something standard(ish) in for the routine auctions that fit with the rest of the system.

Well, one certainly can't make a poll and then just pick the version with the most votes. On the other hand it can help finding out what are the standard-ish options.

I also still have that dream that by getting more people involved (instead of making all decisions in private), the FD files might finally receive a little more help from more volunteers...

Arend

[cherdano]

hrothgar, on Mar 8 2006, 07:34 PM, said:

cherdano, on Mar 8 2006, 08:18 PM, said:

Richard, no, I can't pick a NT system for BBO advanced. The purpose of BBO advanced is not to create a perfect bidding system. Instead, it is mostly about documenting what people assume to be standard, and possibly making choices where there are a few standard versions.

Actually, you can...

That's the beauty of this whole thing. There's no "install base" of BBO advanced players deeply commited to the purity of their methods. Imposing a new NT system isn't going to cause people to run screaming into the night. And even if people beleive that what they play is standard, they're wrong. Even if there are players completely and utterly devoted to BBO Advanced, you can easily side step them. Don't call the new FD file "BBO Advanced". Call it "BBO 2/1"...

I strongly suspect that people will prefer to see a standard (any standard) put into place.

Well, I strongly disagree, but I won't say many words because I have explained this before. The "install base" are pickup to semi-regular partnerships on BBO playing "2/1". They won't learn a new NT system because there is a BBO adv file using Keri/Scanian whatever; they would either ignore that part of the file, or just not use the file at all.

Here is my speculation on why SAYC failed: because instead of documenting what was standard (1m-2NT = invitational), it tried to make the "right" choices. But of course, when people agreed to play "SAYC", they were continuing to play what they thought to be standard, and it wouldn't have occurred to them that 1m-2NT is in fact GF in the system they agreed on.

(Pure speculation as SAYC is older than my bridge life.)

Ared

[Gerben42]

So can we then agree on:

1nt 2♣ 2♦ 2♥ = weak both majors
1nt 2♣ 2♦ 2♠ = invite 5♠ 4♥
1nt 2♦ 2♥ 2♠ = invite 5♥ 4♠

and

1nt 2♣ 2♥ 2♠ = invite 4♠ (sequence A)
1nt 2♣ 2♥ 2NT = invite no 4M
(even though there may be better ways as people have suggested, this way is NATURAL and therefore intuitive)

FYI I play that sequence A shows either invite with no 4M or slam interest with ♥ fit. But I'm not suggesting that for BBO Advanced...

[cherdano]

I came to the same conclusion Gerben.

[luis]

+1 for Gerben's scheme is simple and natural.

Luis