[Gerben42]

Just a question from an ignorant continental person: How many ♥ does this auction show in English Acol?

1♥ - 1♠
2♥

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I wanted to say a 6 carder ..., it is a long time
since I last played Acol, but it could be a 5
carder.

5332 with 12-14HCP is possible, you cant rebid
1NT, and you cant bid 2m, you can of course,
but 2m shows a 4 carder.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: I just wanted to answer, since I find it amusing
that you put the Acol question in the non natural
section of the forum.

[FrancesHinden]

Gerben42, on Jun 11 2007, 02:55 PM, said:

Just a question from an ignorant continental person: How many ♥ does this auction show in English Acol?

1♥ - 1♠
2♥

In old-fashioned English Acol: 5.
You are playing 4-card majors, so the 1H opening bid shows only 4 of them. Bidding them again now shows 5 of them.


NB: Many 'modern' or 'advanced' Acol players prefer to play this auction as showing 6 hearts. They get round the what-do-I-rebid problem by either
i) Opening 1NT with a 5-card major
ii) Playing a wide range (12-16 or 12-17) 1NT rebid after 1H - 1S.

[Walddk]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 11 2007, 04:36 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Jun 11 2007, 02:55 PM, said:

Just a question from an ignorant continental person: How many ♥ does this auction show in English Acol?

1♥ - 1♠
2♥

In old-fashioned English Acol: 5.
You are playing 4-card majors, so the 1H opening bid shows only 4 of them. Bidding them again now shows 5 of them.


NB: Many 'modern' or 'advanced' Acol players prefer to play this auction as showing 6 hearts. They get round the what-do-I-rebid problem by either
i) Opening 1NT with a 5-card major
ii) Playing a wide range (12-16 or 12-17) 1NT rebid after 1H - 1S.

And now don't ask me why I dislike Acol. One of the examples is displayed right here. Glad to hear Tom Townsend (England) on vugraph last night.

"I can't understand why they keep teaching such rubbish in England".

Roland

[EricK]

If I bid 2♥ on this auction then I am showing 6 of them (or at least if I only have 5 it is because I don't mind you acting as if I have 6).

If an average club player bids 2♥ then they could very well have 5.

[FrancesHinden]

Walddk, on Jun 11 2007, 03:45 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jun 11 2007, 04:36 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Jun 11 2007, 02:55 PM, said:

Just a question from an ignorant continental person: How many ♥ does this auction show in English Acol?

1♥ - 1♠
2♥

In old-fashioned English Acol: 5.
You are playing 4-card majors, so the 1H opening bid shows only 4 of them. Bidding them again now shows 5 of them.


NB: Many 'modern' or 'advanced' Acol players prefer to play this auction as showing 6 hearts. They get round the what-do-I-rebid problem by either
i) Opening 1NT with a 5-card major
ii) Playing a wide range (12-16 or 12-17) 1NT rebid after 1H - 1S.

And now don't ask me why I dislike Acol. One of the examples is displayed right here. Glad to hear Tom Townsend (England) on vugraph last night.

"I can't understand why they keep teaching such rubbish in England".

Roland

I'm not sure which bit of my post you are moaning about, but Tom & David play 4-card majors and go for my option (i), opening 1H on 12-14 with 4 hearts and rebidding 1NT; opening 1NT on 15-17 with 4 or 5 hearts.

[Walddk]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 11 2007, 10:44 PM, said:

Walddk, on Jun 11 2007, 03:45 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jun 11 2007, 04:36 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Jun 11 2007, 02:55 PM, said:

Just a question from an ignorant continental person: How many ♥ does this auction show in English Acol?

1♥ - 1♠
2♥

In old-fashioned English Acol: 5.
You are playing 4-card majors, so the 1H opening bid shows only 4 of them. Bidding them again now shows 5 of them.


NB: Many 'modern' or 'advanced' Acol players prefer to play this auction as showing 6 hearts. They get round the what-do-I-rebid problem by either
i) Opening 1NT with a 5-card major
ii) Playing a wide range (12-16 or 12-17) 1NT rebid after 1H - 1S.

And now don't ask me why I dislike Acol. One of the examples is displayed right here. Glad to hear Tom Townsend (England) on vugraph last night.

"I can't understand why they keep teaching such rubbish in England".

Roland

I'm not sure which bit of my post you are moaning about, but Tom & David play 4-card majors and go for my option (i), opening 1H on 12-14 with 4 hearts and rebidding 1NT; opening 1NT on 15-17 with 4 or 5 hearts.

(i) is fine, (ii) is unplayable. I should have been more specific. Generally speaking, Acol is out of date, but you don't change things in Britain overnight, and you certainly won't change much if you keep teaching new players stuff that was ok 30-40 years ago.

Fortunately, most of your talented junior players have seen the light.

Let me emphasize that I have nothing against 4 card majors. It's Acol as a system I dislike.

Roland

[Gerben42]

Quote

PS: I just wanted to answer, since I find it amusing
that you put the Acol question in the non natural
section of the forum.

Playing 1♣ as ♣ is not natural to me at all! In Poland you have to alert Acol 1♣.

This question came up because after moving to a new place 6 months ago I've been meeting a pair of opponents who are playing old-fashioned Acol. This auction came up and partner came up with a 2nd trump I would have never expected (I had 4, dummy 2, expected 6 for declarer). They also managed to bid 1♠ - 2♣ on:

K
Kxxx
xxx
QJxxx

Anyway they always seem to have 1 trump less than I expect, regardless what they bid.

[helene_t]

I suppose you could rebid a 5-card with a 5332-shape. Most would either bid a 3-card minor or support partner with 3, or open 1NT.

FWIW, I don't think Acol is worse than other standard systems. There are some embarrassing aspects of it (such as having to jump rebid or fake a new suit because
1x-2y
2x
would not be forcing). Then again, there are embarrassing aspects of other bidding systems as well.

The "problem" presented in this thread is related to the weak NT, not to 4-card majors, and most of the times it can be solved by opening 1N more often, i.e. with any 5332 as well as 5422s where the 5-card is a minor.

[P_Marlowe]

Gerben42, on Jun 12 2007, 03:21 AM, said:

Quote

PS: I just wanted to answer, since I find it amusing
that you put the Acol question in the non natural
section of the forum.

Playing 1♣ as ♣ is not natural to me at all! In Poland you have to alert Acol 1♣.

We probably agree, that we disagree .

Quote

This question came up because after moving to a new place 6 months ago I've been meeting a pair of opponents who are playing old-fashioned Acol. This auction came up and partner came up with a 2nd trump I would have never expected (I had 4, dummy 2, expected 6 for declarer). They also managed to bid 1♠ - 2♣ on:

K
Kxxx
xxx
QJxxx

Anyway they always seem to have 1 trump less than I expect, regardless what they bid.

As I learned Bridge in Ireland, I was taught Acol, and I remeber a strong
discussion with my teacher, he claimed that a 1NT bid in Acol shows 6-8,
I on the other hand claimed that it was 6-9, or it may have been the other
way round, and I saw no need to invite with my bal. 15 count, and 3NT was
duly missed (please arrange it so, that I did not see any reason to invite).

Because the NT rebid shows 15/16, a 2/1 bid can be made on 9HCP.

The system works, it has flaws, but the major flaw in my mind is also
it greatest strength, you have problems creating a forcing auctions below
3NT.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[1eyedjack]

In answer to the OP - I reckon it shows a 6 card suit.
Personally I prefer to open 1NT with a 5 card major, but even if for some reason I decided not to do so I would prefer to rebid a 3 card minor in preference to 5 card Heart suit with (presumably) 2-5-3-3 shape. And I would raise 1S to 2S with 3 card support rather than rebid 2H on a number of other hand types. Possibly even with 3-5-1-4 shape.

Acol has evolved over the years. There are now as many variations in common play as there are Cantonese in Gerard Street. Many of them play 5 card major openings these days and still call it Acol, and there isn't a whole heap of difference between these systems and those played in other parts of the world who regard Acol as some quaint anachronism in the world of bridge that just refuses to die.

Place all these variations in a line end-to-end and the difference between one variant and its neighbour may be almost indistinguishable, and yet the extreme ends of the spectrum would bear little resemblance to each other. At what point in the spectrum the system fails to count as "Acol" is a matter of rhetoric.

[foo]

1eyedjack, on Jun 12 2007, 09:34 AM, said:

In answer to the OP - I reckon it shows a 6 card suit.
Personally I prefer to open 1NT with a 5 card major, but even if for some reason I decided not to do so I would prefer to rebid a 3 card minor in preference to 5 card Heart suit with (presumably) 2-5-3-3 shape. And I would raise 1S to 2S with 3 card support rather than rebid 2H on a number of other hand types. Possibly even with 3-5-1-4 shape.

Acol has evolved over the years. There are now as many variations in common play as there are Cantonese in Gerard Street. Many of them play 5 card major openings these days and still call it Acol, and there isn't a whole heap of difference between these systems and those played in other parts of the world who regard Acol as some quaint anachronism in the world of bridge that just refuses to die.

Place all these variations in a line end-to-end and the difference between one variant and its neighbour may be almost indistinguishable, and yet the extreme ends of the spectrum would bear little resemblance to each other. At what point in the spectrum the system fails to count as "Acol" is a matter of rhetoric.

Huh. I always considered "Acol" to be
a= 4cM's (or at least 4 card H's and 5 card S's)
b= a weak or variable 1N opening
c= an "interesting" 2/1 and Reversing style.

5cM + Strong NT + a 2/1 promises a rebid but is not GF looks like SA to me.

5cM + Strong NT + 2/1 GF looks like, well, 2/1 GF to me.

[1eyedjack]

foo, on Jun 12 2007, 04:49 PM, said:

1eyedjack, on Jun 12 2007, 09:34 AM, said:

In answer to the OP - I reckon it shows a 6 card suit.
Personally I prefer to open 1NT with a 5 card major, but even if for some reason I decided not to do so I would prefer to rebid a 3 card minor in preference to 5 card Heart suit with (presumably) 2-5-3-3 shape.  And I would raise 1S to 2S with 3 card support rather than rebid 2H on a number of other hand types.  Possibly even with 3-5-1-4 shape.

Acol has evolved over the years.  There are now as many variations in common play as there are Cantonese in Gerard Street.  Many of them play 5 card major openings these days and still call it Acol, and there isn't a whole heap of difference between these systems and those played in other parts of the world who regard Acol as some quaint anachronism in the world of bridge that just refuses to die.

Place all these variations in a line end-to-end and the difference between one variant and its neighbour may be almost indistinguishable, and yet the extreme ends of the spectrum would bear little resemblance to each other.  At what point in the spectrum the system fails to count as "Acol" is a matter of rhetoric.

Huh. I always considered "Acol" to be
a= 4cM's (or at least 4 card H's and 5 card S's)
b= a weak or variable 1N opening
c= an "interesting" 2/1 and Reversing style.

5cM + Strong NT + a 2/1 promises a rebid but is not GF looks like SA to me.

5cM + Strong NT + 2/1 GF looks like, well, 2/1 GF to me.

Sure, that is one method. But say you play a weak 1N, and 5 card Spade suit but not a 5 card Heart suit. Is that SAYC, or is it Acol? Possibly something in between, but probably more akin to Acol than SAYC. So where do you draw the dividing line? (That's a rhetorical question by the way - there is no right answer - wherever you draw the line it is subjective and arbitrary).

[foo]

1eyedjack, on Jun 12 2007, 11:45 AM, said:

... say you play a weak 1N, and 5 card Spade suit but not a 5 card Heart suit.  Is that SAYC, or is it Acol?  Possibly something in between, but probably more akin to Acol than SAYC.  So where do you draw the dividing line?  (That's a rhetorical question by the way - there is no right answer - wherever you draw the line it is subjective and arbitrary).

100% agree the boundary is fuzzy.

Personally, in the above case my POV would be based on the 2/1 style
if 9 counts and the like are allowed => definitely Acol
if 2/1 promises rebid but is not GF => SAYC variant
if 2/1 is GF or is GF unless suit is rebid => 2/1 GF or KS variant
(questions about how the minors are handled would further clarify.)

[badderzboy]

The only benefit of teaching Acol is it teaches a solid natural bidding system more so than any other system and (should) give a good foundation in bidding.

Once u get a grip of it it ain't that hard to learn others per se.

It also teaches u the virtue of the weak NT!

Funny opening 1NT with 5♥332 cost me a bottom last night when ptr had 8 pts and 4♥s and they ran off loadsa ♦s hehehe

Also an addendum

4♠5♥what ever minors and a weak hand u gonna bid 2♥s with 5 here too surely, I wonder how SAYC or 2 & 1 handles it too lol

Steve

[Gerben42]

Quote

Sure, that is one method. But say you play a weak 1N, and 5 card Spade suit but not a 5 card Heart suit. Is that SAYC, or is it Acol?

No it's Swiss Acol. If you play it with a strong NT it's Dutch Acol.

Quote

The only benefit of teaching Acol is it teaches a solid natural bidding system more so than any other system and (should) give a good foundation in bidding.

I disagree. Acol is a system that is quite unsuitable for beginners as you land in many contracts that are unsuitable for beginners. This is not motivating for them.
And although it no doubt gives a good foundation in Acol bidding, it is quite incompatible to what the rest of the world plays more than any other "basic" system. That said, there is some merit teaching people the same as what the rest of their environment plays.

[helene_t]

There's a tendency to call systems in which 1♣ promises more than one club "Acol", and systems in which 1♣ could be a stiff or void "Precision". Or something like that. I'm sure there are a lot of systems that are called "Acol" by some users and "Precision" by others, but I don't think there is any system that is never referred to as either Acol or Precision.

I'm a language purist, I think only spades should be called "spades". I see nothing wrong with just saying "5-card spades, weak NT" or "4-card majors, strong NT" if you're playing some hybrid system that cannot be described by reference to some standard system. But that's just me.

In particular, if you put "Acol" in the field "General approach" on your CC, I think it should be safe for opps to assume that those parts of you base system that are not explicitly listed, follow Acol style. I.e. light 2/1s and many non-forcing rebids by opener.

[mike777]

Geez I would take Reese and Shapiro playing Acol than 99.999% of the 25 million bridge players out there...Ok maybe even over the rest.

Ok give me another UK two and I still take them.

I would expect Acol players to be able to place in the top 100 of any worldwide event, maybe higher.

If you can place in the top 100 playing Acol, I consider that a good start.

[Gerben42]

What my post was about was that Acol will put you in many contracts that maybe Reese can play but a beginner should not be in. An example is 1♠ - 2♠ on 4 + 3 cards.

[rant]
BTW why did it turn into a Acol-bashing thread again, I just asked a simple question... Some people like the system. Some (like me) really don't like it.
And no posting here will change my opinion. I realize that the other way around it might be the same. So let's quit it.
[/rant]

[foo]

mike777, on Jun 13 2007, 02:36 AM, said:

Geez I would take Reese and Shapiro playing Acol than 99.999% of the 25 million bridge players out there...Ok maybe even over the rest.

Ok give me another UK two and I still take them.

I would expect Acol players to be able to place in the top 100 of any worldwide event, maybe higher.

If you can place in the top 100 playing Acol, I consider that a good start.

Reese and Shapiro won because they were Reese and Shapiro. Some of the best Bridge players to have ever played the game.

Even in his 90's, Boris Shapiro was a awe inspiring good player.

...and didn't they play Reese's Little Major system instead of Acol most of the time?