[han]

Hehe, fair enough Wayne.

[helene_t]

Cascade, on Feb 14 2008, 12:22 AM, said:

han, on Feb 14 2008, 11:34 AM, said:

I just wanted to share that another poster told me yesterday how much he enjoyed this thread, it made him feel good. He doesn't play ACOL.

I can't imagine it will match my feelings of happiness that I do not play 2/1.

lol. I must say that so far it has been easier to adjust to Acol than I thought. But there are some some cultural things that are more important than whether 1SA is weak or strong and whether 1M promises 4 or 5. Here, people play with many different partners so the style homogenizes across the club. After less than 3 months in Acol-land I find it easier to interpret a new partner's and opps' bidding than I did in the Netherlands. But this also means that there is less scope for fine-tuning of the bidding system for the more ambitious club players.

This thread has evolved into a thread about various problems related to weak notrump. The other side of it is obviously that the weak notrump also solves a lot of problems.

[Echognome]

A little late to this thread, but if we are talking about what's standard, isn't it what the EBU has on their website as Standard English Acol? (although I know that Standard English is not what expert pairs play.)

The link off the EBU website seems broken, but a google search came up with this:

http://homepage.mac.com/bridgeguys/pdf/EBU...dardEBU2005.pdf

Of which the following lines are relevant:

Quote

Choice of suit to open (if not suitable for 1NT)
• With two suits of unequal length, open the longer.
• With two suits of equal length, with exactly 4 hearts and 4 spades open 1♥, otherwise open the higher ranking suit.
• With 4-4-4-1 shape and a red singleton heart open the suit below the singleton (i.e. singleton heart open 1♦, singleton diamond open 1♣)
• With 4-4-4-1 shape and a black singleton open the middle of the three suits (i.e. singleton spade open 1♦, singleton club open 1♥)

[han]

Quote

But there are some some cultural things that are more important than whether 1SA is weak or strong and whether 1M promises 4 or 5.

This has little to do with ACOL imo. Far more fundamental to the system is the abundance of non-forcing and non-gameforcing bids.

[han]

helene_t, on Feb 13 2008, 07:51 PM, said:

This thread has evolved into a thread about various problems related to weak notrump. The other side of it is obviously that the weak notrump also solves a lot of problems.

OK, give me an example of a problem that the weak notrump solves.

[Cascade]

That is easy and hard to answer.

Easy: it solves the problem of what to open with a weak No Trump hand.

Hard: It is silly consider the advantages (or disadvantages) of a bid that is part of a system in isolation. There are trade-offs in whatever you decide.

A weak NT has many trade-offs over opening those hands with a suit. The specific advantages and disadvantages will vary depending on whether you can open a suit naturally or have to open a short (less than four-card) suit in a five-card major system.

[helene_t]

han, on Feb 14 2008, 03:14 AM, said:

OK, give me an example of a problem that the weak notrump solves.

After an inverted minor raise, if 2N is NF you would like to do something else with 14, but 3N should show 18-19 (or not?). Having only one range for balanced hands that open one of a suit makes those things easier. I know you and Arend solve this problem by playing 14-16, but that means you have to rebid 2N with 17.

Also when considering a negative double you don't have to worry about opener having a weak notrump.

I wouldn't personally like to play Acol in a "serious" partnership but it serves the purpose as a common ground for all the players at the local club, and as such it works ok.

[FrancesHinden]

han, on Feb 13 2008, 11:34 PM, said:

I just wanted to share that another poster told me yesterday how much he enjoyed this thread, it made him feel good. He doesn't play ACOL.

Yeah, very funny.

All I know about Standard American is pretty much what I've learnt from these forums. As far as I can tell it is TOTALLY unplayable. I'd far rather play Acol. Or Strong Diamond. Or Romex.

Yet a lot of people seem to play SA without too many disasters. Admittedly most of the top US pairs don't play SA, but still it must work somehow. More or less.

Once you 'grow up' with a particular system, you get to understand how it works and you can cope with its deficiencies and understand what makes it tick.

[FrancesHinden]

han, on Feb 14 2008, 03:13 AM, said:

Quote

But there are some some cultural things that are more important than whether 1SA is weak or strong and whether 1M promises 4 or 5.

This has little to do with ACOL imo. Far more fundamental to the system is the abundance of non-forcing and non-gameforcing bids.

Yes, that is the fundamental idea of Acol, that it is a 'limit bidding' system - you bid what you fancy; if you want to make a forcing bid you have to bid more. I don't really play Acol at all, but even in my 2/1 partnership we seem to play lots more non-forcing bids than the US contingent here think is right.

In some cases that's a pain. When you have a strong hand you are forced to jump to show it and that makes slam bidding rather random. But against that it's nice to be able to tell partner what you have, rather than have to make some amorphous lurky bid.

Even Acol players are playing more and more bids as forcing, so it seems as if this approach is not really a long-term winning approach without a bit more discipline than was historically the style.

[MickyB]

Ant590, on Feb 5 2008, 12:07 PM, said:

Thanks everyone for a really interesting thread.

For what it's worth I currently play acol with 2/1s promising a rebid unless opener rebids his opening suit. Often this is a simple (false) preference to opener's first suit, which is non-forcing. This has seemed to work out fine (all be it in the poor arenas it is tried in), but neither me nor my partner are good enough players to be sure that this is internally consistent.

So therefore a question to players better than us (i.e. everyone) – does making a 2/1 forcing to 2NT have significant benefits over what we currently play?

Just found this thread

The short answer is "no", at least not on balance - there are losses and gains, and I believe the losses from playing this as forcing to 2NT to be much greater than the gains.

The long answer -

Amongst most decent UK players who play weak NT+4cM, a 2/1 response shows willingness to be in game opposite 15-16 balanced, so about a nine-count. Otherwise you have to raise on a 16 (15?) count after 1M:1N, leading to some very thin 2NT contracts and a guess on what to do with the hand that traditionally bids 2NT here on 17 or a bad 18.

When you have a nine-count opposite a minimum opening bid, you don't want to push any higher than 2M in your 5-2 or 6-2 fit. I couldn't ever imagine wanting 1M:2m, 2M to be forcing in this opening structure unless playing very sound openings - just an approximation obviously, but by "very sound" I mean rule of 21 at minimum. Playing strong NT, or possibly playing weak+5, fine - but not playing weak+4s.

It's generally accepted in other auctions, say when partner opens 1NT, that you shouldn't often stop in 2NT - it's all risk for no gain. Here, a structure is being advocated where you are are being forced to 2NT or higher, potentially without a fit, with only half the deck.

My preferred structure (strong NT+5cM) does the opposite - 1M:2m, 2M is non-forcing, allowing responder to show some values but still stop in a safe part-score opposite a minimum; but a 2NT rebid by responder now is GF.

[MickyB]

han, on Feb 14 2008, 02:14 AM, said:

helene_t, on Feb 13 2008, 07:51 PM, said:

This thread has evolved into a thread  about various problems related to weak notrump. The other side of it is obviously that the weak notrump also solves a lot of problems.

OK, give me an example of a problem that the weak notrump solves.

It "solves" hands where, playing strong NT, responder has to assume partner has his most likely hand-type (12-14 balanced) even though it could well be wrong opposite an unbalanced hand.

1♣-(4♥)-5♣ can be bid on marginal hands when strong NTers would have to pass

1♣-(1♠)-2♥ can be bid on a nine-count with a five-card suit without risking playing a silly 2NT contract

[mr1303]

I only ever played Acol seriously with 1 partner, I had the agreement that any 4441 (with any singleton) was opened or rebid in NT. We decided this as any alternative wasn't really playable. We did get good results doing things this way.

[han]

Cascade, on Feb 13 2008, 11:18 PM, said:

Easy: it solves the problem of what to open with a weak No Trump hand.

Hard: It is silly consider the advantages (or disadvantages) of a bid that is part of a system in isolation. There are trade-offs in whatever you decide.

A weak NT has many trade-offs over opening those hands with a suit. The specific advantages and disadvantages will vary depending on whether you can open a suit naturally or have to open a short (less than four-card) suit in a five-card major system.

I don't think I asked a silly question at all. Helene claims that the weak notrump solves many problems, so why is it silly to ask what problems she had in mind?

Your easy answer strikes as a hook on a pig (this one is for jdonn). Of course what to open with a weak notrump is not what most people consider a big problem in standard American methods. Your hard answer and what follows just avoid the question.

Helene's answer makes perfect sense, not having a weak notrump opening in your minor suit openings does make inverted minors easier.

[han]

FrancesHinden, on Feb 14 2008, 09:34 AM, said:

Yeah, very funny.

I do try.

[MickyB]

The_Hog, on Feb 6 2008, 04:20 AM, said:

Anyway it seems there is a big difference in Acol styles on different sides of the pond.
I would still differ greatly with you Frances; I really don't see how a sequences like 1S 2C 2S pass is logical, let alone a sequence Wayne proposed in another post:
1S 2H 2S 3H as nf. This is totally illogical for me.

Traditionally (and I'm sure many club players still play it this way) 1♠:2♣, 2♦ was NF, as was 1♠:2♣, 2NT (15-16). Amongst the tournament players, it's fairly standard for this to be forcing, but a lot of other things to be non-forcing -

1♠:2♣, 2♦:2♠, and most of opener's rebids over this too I suspect
1♠:2♣, 2♦:2NT
1♠:2♣, 3♣
1♠:2♣, 2♠:3♣

If an unknown partner were to bid these with me, I'd have no idea if they were forcing -
1♠:2♣, 2♦:3♠
1♠:2♣, 3♣:3♠

[MickyB]

helene_t, on Feb 14 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

han, on Feb 14 2008, 03:14 AM, said:

OK, give me an example of a problem that the weak notrump solves.

After an inverted minor raise, if 2N is NF you would like to do something else with 14, but 3N should show 18-19 (or not?). Having only one range for balanced hands that open one of a suit makes those things easier. I know you and Arend solve this problem by playing 14-16, but that means you have to rebid 2N with 17.

Also when considering a negative double you don't have to worry about opener having a weak notrump.

Agree with these, too - inverted minors are oh-so-simple playing weak NT, and it prevents the holding of a minimum 33(43) after 1m (2suit) X.

At this rate, I might find myself switching to weak NT...oh, wait, all these problems are solved by Polish Club too

[MickyB]

helene_t, on Feb 6 2008, 03:32 PM, said:

As for the poll question: The majority believes that 2N shows no extras here. The rule that
2N shows 15+ (forcing) if the response was below 2 of the opening suit
2N shows some 11-13(14) (?) non-forcing if the response was above 2 of the opening suit

seems sensible. Is this standard in the UK?

I've only ever seen it discussed occasionally, I suspect the majority would assume 2NT still showed a strong NT.

[Cascade]

MickyB, on Feb 15 2008, 08:02 AM, said:

Traditionally (and I'm sure many club players still play it this way) 1♠:2♣, 2♦ was NF, as was 1♠:2♣, 2NT (15-16). Amongst the tournament players, it's fairly standard for this to be forcing, but a lot of other things to be non-forcing -

1♠:2♣, 2♦:2♠, and most of opener's rebids over this too I suspect

We play this as non-forcing. But any rebid by opener would be forcing - both players have shown extra values.

Quote

1♠:2♣, 2♦:2NT

Non-Forcing for us.

Quote

1♠:2♣, 3♣

Non-Forcing for us.

Quote

1♠:2♣, 2♠:3♣

Non-Forcing for us.

Quote

If an unknown partner were to bid these with me, I'd have no idea if they were forcing -
1♠:2♣, 2♦:3♠

Forcing for us. (I think non-forcing is standard Acol but it doesn't make any sense to me to have two non-forcing spade bids below game and no way to set trumps and start a slam exploration.)

Quote

1♠:2♣, 3♣:3♠

Non-Forcing for us. We play 4♦ (other minor) artificially to agree the major and show a hand too good for 4♠.

[Cascade]

han, on Feb 15 2008, 07:53 AM, said:

Cascade, on Feb 13 2008, 11:18 PM, said:

Easy: it solves the problem of what to open with a weak No Trump hand.

Hard: It is silly consider the advantages (or disadvantages) of a bid that is part of a system in isolation.  There are trade-offs in whatever you decide.

A weak NT has many trade-offs over opening those hands with a suit.  The specific advantages and disadvantages will vary depending on whether you can open a suit naturally or have to open a short (less than four-card) suit in a five-card major system.

I don't think I asked a silly question at all. Helene claims that the weak notrump solves many problems, so why is it silly to ask what problems she had in mind?

Your easy answer strikes as a hook on a pig (this one is for jdonn). Of course what to open with a weak notrump is not what most people consider a big problem in standard American methods. Your hard answer and what follows just avoid the question.

Helene's answer makes perfect sense, not having a weak notrump opening in your minor suit openings does make inverted minors easier.

Sure my easy answer was tongue in check.

My hard answer wasn't intended to avoid the question.

When I think of my system I don't think of the specific advantages of any particular bid but how they all fit together.

These are some of the advantages I think of in a weak 1NT opening (I'm not sure if these are all problems that are solved).

1. Pre-emptive - its hard to defend against. Harder initially than a 1-level suit opening. This also has a downside with it being harder for our side to get to its fit or best contract in part-score auctions. This is easier after a natural one-level suit opening. Some of this is given back if a strong no trumper plays five-card majors and therefore one or both minors are not made in a real suit. This problem for the opponents is bigger over a weak NT than a strong NT because a weak NT is more frequent and the opponents will have game more often against a weak NT.

2. (Related to Helene's). We are more likely to have a slam opposite a strong no trump hand. Therefore there is a significant advantage in bidding our suits early. This is true especially if we belong in a minor. Inverted minors can help that when we have an immediate fit. But even those come with a cost of not having a simple minor suit raise. We recently added inverted minors but our rational for doing that was primarily that it made our constructive auctions more easily fit the available bidding space.

3. When opener starts with a suit they will always have either extra distribution or extra strength. This makes some auctions easier especially in competition. 1♣ (2♠) ?

We are much more free to act knowing partner will have extras (high card or distributional) where as a strong no trumper needs to be cautious as he will fear that he is facing a weak no trump possibly with significant values wasted in spades. This is compounded when the opening may not even be a real suit. Also this in turn possibly puts more pressure on opener when the bidding is passed back to him.

4. Related to 3. above the weak 1NT opening limits opener's hand very quickly with the most common hand type.

5. The final contract will often be 1NT which on this unrevealing auction will be hard to defend against. The strong NTers will have bid at least one and frequently two suits before getting to 1NT which aid will often aid the defense.

There is bound to be others that i have not thought of at this moment.

I am not so naive that I think there are no costs associated with these advantages and the weak NT in general and I could certainly make a list of disadvantages but I was just listing some of the advantages here.

[jtfanclub]

helene_t, on Feb 3 2008, 12:17 PM, 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.

going way back....

If the worst part of ACOL is that you end up in 1NT on rare occassions with 16 across 9, I'm surprised it hasn't taken the world by storm. Must be a Yankee conspiracy.

(I think it's completely playable to have the 2 club response to 1 diamond be forcing to 2NT, while having all other 2/1 bids not promise a rebid)