[Cascade]

The_Hog, on Feb 4 2008, 03:13 PM, said:

helene_t, on Feb 4 2008, 12:17 AM, said:

2♣ promising one more bid creates problems. Not saying that it's bad since it obviously solves some problems also. But if responder has a 3325 9-count he cannot respond 1NT since opener would pass 1NT with a balanced 16-count. Yet responder needs at least 11 points to bid again over 2♦, considering the 3451 11-count opener might have.

Helene virtually all Acol players these days play that a 2/1 is forcing to 2NT. If you are so worried about 4441 shapes, play 2D as mini Roman.

We play a 2/1 is forcing for one round.

We frequently pass on auctions like 1x 2y; 2x especially on misfit hands.

Partly this is because we play 1x 2y; 2x 2NT as forcing and not invitational.

[the hog]

Cascade, on Feb 4 2008, 09:44 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Feb 4 2008, 03:13 PM, said:

helene_t, on Feb 4 2008, 12:17 AM, said:

2♣ promising one more bid creates problems. Not saying that it's bad since it obviously solves some problems also. But if responder has a 3325 9-count he cannot respond 1NT since opener would pass 1NT with a balanced 16-count. Yet responder needs at least 11 points to bid again over 2♦, considering the 3451 11-count opener might have.

Helene virtually all Acol players these days play that a 2/1 is forcing to 2NT. If you are so worried about 4441 shapes, play 2D as mini Roman.

We play a 2/1 is forcing for one round.

We frequently pass on auctions like 1x 2y; 2x especially on misfit hands.

Partly this is because we play 1x 2y; 2x 2NT as forcing and not invitational.

This is not standard these days amongst Acol players, Wayne. Certainly 2NT by responder as a GF has NEVER been standard. In fact in Baronised Acol, many years ago, Don Evans recommended playing 2/1 as forcing to 2NT or 3m.

[Cascade]

The_Hog, on Feb 4 2008, 04:12 PM, said:

Cascade, on Feb 4 2008, 09:44 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Feb 4 2008, 03:13 PM, said:

helene_t, on Feb 4 2008, 12:17 AM, said:

2♣ promising one more bid creates problems. Not saying that it's bad since it obviously solves some problems also. But if responder has a 3325 9-count he cannot respond 1NT since opener would pass 1NT with a balanced 16-count. Yet responder needs at least 11 points to bid again over 2♦, considering the 3451 11-count opener might have.

Helene virtually all Acol players these days play that a 2/1 is forcing to 2NT. If you are so worried about 4441 shapes, play 2D as mini Roman.

We play a 2/1 is forcing for one round.

We frequently pass on auctions like 1x 2y; 2x especially on misfit hands.

Partly this is because we play 1x 2y; 2x 2NT as forcing and not invitational.

This is not standard these days amongst Acol players, Wayne. Certainly 2NT by responder as a GF has NEVER been standard. In fact in Baronised Acol, many years ago, Don Evans recommended playing 2/1 as forcing to 2NT or 3m.

Certainly 2NT forcing is not standard.

However I have also never heard anyone promote that a 2/1 response promises a rebid (below 2NT) in New Zealand and I have frequently seen players pass on the second round below 2NT.

The first I ever came upon the concept of responder promising any sort of rebid after a 2/1 was when reading the SAYC notes when I started playing online.

Crowhurst's Acol Index published in 2000 does not note that a 2/1 is forcing to 2NT. He is not usually my authority but perhaps at least an indication that forcing to 2NT is not standard.

[the hog]

Did you look at Don Evan's notes? Suggest you speak to McCance about this; he's the Acol authority in Australia. (Or Norma if you like).

[Cascade]

The_Hog, on Feb 4 2008, 07:56 PM, said:

Did you look at Don Evan's notes? Suggest you speak to McCance about this; he's the Acol authority in Australia. (Or Norma if you like).

No where do I find Don Evans notes.

The Standard English Acol 2005 also does not suggest that a 2/1 is forcing for more than one round.

I am sure that 2/1 forcing to 2NT is playable but I am far from convinced that it is anything close to standard.

[helene_t]

The_Hog, on Feb 4 2008, 04:13 AM, said:

Helene virtually all Acol players these days play that a 2/1 is forcing to 2NT. If you are so worried about 4441 shapes, play 2D as mini Roman.

I'm not worried about this particular problem in relation to [4441]. I chose to open 1♥ , or occasionally 1NT, or pass with a marginal hand.

FWIW this is the first time I hear someone advocating 2/1 being forcing to 2NT, or 2/1 promising a rebid. If you tell me it's standard in Australia I believe you but I'm pretty sure it is not standard in the UK (except maybe when vulnerable for those who play a variable 1NT).

I like Wayne's idea that responder's subsequent 2NT is forcing.

[Gerben42]

What I know from Acol is that if opener rebids his suit, that is NOT forcing, for example 1♦ - 2♣ - 2♦.

I guess the best solution is that 1♦ - 2♣ - 2NT does NOT shows extras but shows the 4441 hand, because this is more usual than having exactly 3352 (balanced without 3 ♣.

[helene_t]

Gerben42, on Feb 4 2008, 11:39 AM, said:

What I know from Acol is that if opener rebids his suit, that is NOT forcing, for example 1♦ - 2♣ - 2♦.

I guess the best solution is that 1♦ - 2♣ - 2NT does NOT shows extras but shows the 4441 hand, because this is more usual than having exactly 3352 (balanced without 3 ♣.

But if opener is 3343, 2353 or 3253 with 15-16 points, he cannot rebid 3♣ since that would show a minimum. The modern trend is that a 2NT rebid is forcing.

I don't think many would open 1♦ with 4441 and 12-14 points.

[Gerben42]

Unless you want to play a gadget, which I guess you don't, the singleton ♣ hand is a bad one for the system. After 1♥ - 2♣ you are equally stuck.

[helene_t]

Gerben42, on Feb 4 2008, 11:51 AM, said:

Unless you want to play a gadget, which I guess you don't, the singleton ♣ hand is a bad one for the system. After 1♥ - 2♣ you are equally stuck.

I have to rebid 2♦, then. Yes I know it shows 5 hearts. What can you do.

[david_c]

I dunno what they do in Australia, but let's get this straight - if you're playing Acol here in England, then:

1. After a 2/1, opener's rebid of his suit is non-forcing.

2. With 4441 (singleton club) you open 1♥ and rebid 2♦. (It's actually very playable to agree that you can open 1♦ and rebid 2♦ on four, but it's not Acol.) Orginally people used to open 1♠ on this hand, but it has long been realised that this just doesn't work.

For 1444 hands, there is indeed a split between 1♦ and 1♥.

[the hog]

david_c, on Feb 4 2008, 07:29 PM, said:

I dunno what they do in Australia, but let's get this straight - if you're playing Acol here in England, then:

1. After a 2/1, opener's rebid of his suit is non-forcing.

2. With 4441 (singleton club) you open 1♥ and rebid 2♦. (It's actually very playable to agree that you can open 1♦ and rebid 2♦ on four, but it's not Acol.) Orginally people used to open 1♠ on this hand, but it has long been realised that this just doesn't work.

For 1444 hands, there is indeed a split between 1♦ and 1♥.

Can you point us to any authority to back this up? I am not talking about your average club player. Which top class English players who still play Acol play that a 2/1 does not promise another bid? Can you post a link to their convention cards? Could you send this question to Tim Bourke and David Bird for reference for example? I am curious to hear the replies.

[david_c]

The_Hog, on Feb 4 2008, 02:38 PM, said:

Can you point us to any authority to back this up?

If you're not satisfied by Wayne's references I doubt I can do any better. What I say is based on the fact that I'm a regular club and tournament player, and I talk with and play against people playing standard Acol all the time - and this is what these people play. It's not the sort of thing that gets written down very often. If you're not prepared to believe me then there's nothing I can do.

[zasanya]

gwnn, on Feb 3 2008, 03:39 PM, said:

Zasanya, the purpose of this thread is not to invent a new system. Acol, as it's played by most, does not use the treatment "2/1 promises a rebid" and does not have the 1NT response to a 1 bid showing "6-10". It's a hand that has no interest in game opp. a 15-16 NT.

There seem to be some who disagree re the 2/1 response and I do believe that 1NT response is 6-10 hcp in almost all natural systems..There can be no harm in suggesting reasonable alternatives keeping the basic elements same.As for the purpose of the thread Helen asked a question as to how 4-4-4-1 patterns are handled by others who profess to play acol and I made suggestions.You may accept them or you may reject them.

[Cascade]

Gerben42, on Feb 4 2008, 10:39 PM, said:

What I know from Acol is that if opener rebids his suit, that is NOT forcing, for example 1♦ - 2♣ - 2♦.

I guess the best solution is that 1♦ - 2♣ - 2NT does NOT shows extras but shows the 4441 hand, because this is more usual than having exactly 3352 (balanced without 3 ♣.

It is not just 2=3=5=3, 3=2=5=3 and 3=3=5=2 hands that would want to rebid 2NT but you are missing 3=3=4=3, 4=3=4=2, 4=2=4=3, 3=4=4=2, 2=4=4=3 and even 4=4=4=1 hands with 15+ hcp that might want to rebid 2NT.

I guess leaves later hands could reverse into a major but that introduces other distortions.

[Cascade]

Further I just did a simulation and just including 5332 hands with five diamonds 15-17 hcp and 4=4=4=1 12-14 hcp. The balanced hands outnumbered the three-suiters nearly 3:1.

[Cascade]

helene_t, on Feb 4 2008, 10:54 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Feb 4 2008, 11:51 AM, said:

Unless you want to play a gadget, which I guess you don't, the singleton ♣ hand is a bad one for the system. After 1♥ - 2♣ you are equally stuck.

I have to rebid 2♦, then. Yes I know it shows 5 hearts. What can you do.

This exact auction is why you want to consider doing something else with these 4=4=4=1 hands. With this hand a heart contract on the 4-3 fit can be horrid if partner's clubs will not sustain the force.

You may also need some specialized agreements to confirm opener has five hearts on some continuations.

[Cascade]

zasanya, on Feb 5 2008, 06:08 AM, said:

gwnn, on Feb 3 2008, 03:39 PM, said:

Zasanya, the purpose of this thread is not to invent a new system. Acol, as it's played by most, does not use the treatment "2/1 promises a rebid" and does not have the 1NT response to a 1 bid showing "6-10". It's a hand that has no interest in game opp. a 15-16 NT.

There seem to be some who disagree re the 2/1 response and I do believe that 1NT response is 6-10 hcp in almost all natural systems..There can be no harm in suggesting reasonable alternatives keeping the basic elements same.As for the purpose of the thread Helen asked a question as to how 4-4-4-1 patterns are handled by others who profess to play acol and I made suggestions.You may accept them or you may reject them.

I rarely bid or see others bid 1NT over a one-level opening with 10 hcp when playing a weak NT.

I actually play a variable 1NT and when our 1-level openings could include a weak NT we will respond 1NT to a suit with up to 10 or even a bad 11.

There is a subtle difference in approach when your 1-level openings include weak balanced hands compared with when they include strong balanced hands.

[the hog]

david_c, on Feb 4 2008, 09:54 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Feb 4 2008, 02:38 PM, said:

Can you point us to any authority to back this up?

If you're not satisfied by Wayne's references I doubt I can do any better. What I say is based on the fact that I'm a regular club and tournament player, and I talk with and play against people playing standard Acol all the time - and this is what these people play. It's not the sort of thing that gets written down very often. If you're not prepared to believe me then there's nothing I can do.

David, sorry my post may have come across a bit stong. I really was trying to differentiate between strong players and what the rank and file play. You might be interested in an email I received this morning:

5/2/08

Ron,
You asked about responder's two over one bids in Acol, particularly whether responder could pass a simple rebid of opener's suit. The answer is somewhat more complicated than you might imagine. When I first started playing Acol responder 2/1 bids could be rather light, (AKJxx and out for example), and certainly did not promise another bid. This was also in the days when openings were sounder than they are today. As opening bids became lighter strong players realised that this style was no longer tenable. You might remember the Borin's played that 2/1 was forcing to 2NT. Di and Felicity* have played this way for many years and it really became the norm, and still is for those who still play Acol. At the time Jim and Norma had the reputation of being one of the best natural bidding pairs around.
I can't thoroughly comment on overseas trends, but I did discuss this with Munir from Pakistan at one of the Bermuda Bowls. You might remember that he played a system called "Stone Age Acol". He certainly played the bid as forcing to 2NT. I think you exaggerate slightly when you say that playing the bid as non forcing is virtually unplayable. It is very difficult to play and requires excellent judgement and certainly a modicum of luck. You are attempting to stop on a very narrow band and may well miss some marginal 3NT contracts. Perhaps there is an argument for playing this way at MPs?
I have not played in England for some time, but I did ask Courtney about this. As you know he played in England a good deal at very high levels. He said that many strong pairs no longer played Acol. Of those that did, even if the 2/1 bidder could pass opener's simple rebid in theory, in practice it was never passed.
Hope this helps,
Bill.

*My note: Di and Felicity are many times members of the Aust. womens' team.

[helene_t]

Interesting. Tx for posting this, Ron.

I wonder how literal this forcing-to-2NT is. Would even
1♠-2♣
2♥-2♠*
be forcing?

I suppose one could require a 10 points for a 2/1 (this is what Cascade plays so it's probably playable ), then opener would have to rebid 2N over 1N with 16. Requiring just slightly more than that, say "a good 10-count" seems unplayable to me.

Even so, after a 2/1 we can have 10+10 points and a misfit. OK, a two-level contract in a 5-1 fit may be worse than 2N (except that 2N might get doubled). I see it happen very often, it is amazing so many 2x-1 after an uncontested auction that come up here in Lancaster. This is partly due to people refusing to open 1NT with a 5-card major.