[Ant590]

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?

[helene_t]

One advantage of opener's rebid of his suit being forcing is that he doesn't have to jump rebid to create a force with say 15 points and a moth-eaten 6-card. Another advantage of "2/1 promising a rebid" as in SAYC is that with support for responder's suit, you can distinguish between
1♠-2♦
3♦*
and
1♠-2♦
2♠-2NT
3♦*
the latter being weaker. Not sure if you would really want to play that style in an Acol context, though.

You may also win when opener has 5-5 rounded suits and it goes
1♥-2♦
2♥-2NT
3♣-pass
and you may have found a better partscore than the field which plays 2♥. But you might want to play a sounder preempt style because with a 6-card and 10 points, the "rebid of opener's suit over a 2/1 forcing" style would make you play in 3M where you could stop in 2M with the style you currently play.

It is not what is described in books and on the EBU site etc. Personally I would rather switch to a strong notrump or to 5-card majors (or to a completely different type of system) if I were to play more forcing 2/1 auctions. Cascade's idea of playing 2NT as second bid by responder after a 2/1 as forcing sounds better to me. It seems to offer a significant advantage without requiring further modifications of the system (except that you would have to open 1NT with all 5M332 hands in range, but maybe you do that already).

[FrancesHinden]

David_c sounds as if he could do with some support.
I don't pretend to be able to speak for anywhere outside England, but

It is true that many of the top pairs do not play Acol. However, of those that do:

- I am not aware that any play that a 2/1 promises a rebid, nor that it is forcing to 2NT.
- This is quite playable, although have some specific agreements/gadgets is helpful (in particular 4441s are a problem in all systems, not just Acol)
- Every pair that I know of who claim to play Acol or an Acol-based system can stop in 2 of opener's major or 3 of responder's minor i.e. 1S - 2C - 2S, 1S - 2C - 2D - 2S, 1S - 2C - 3C are all played as non-forcing.


(In my Acol-style-2/1 partnership we play two gadgets to cope with the 4441s: with a singleton club we open 1D and after 1D - 2C rebid 2H to show 12-14/18-19 either balanced or 4441, rebid 3NT to show exactly 4441 15-17; with a 4414 we open 1C but after 1C - 1D - 1H responder bids 2S to show an invite with exactly three clubs. But this is a 5CM partnership and isn't really Acol)

Speaking personally, I can see little benefit in playing 2/1 forcing to 2NT or, even worse, to play it as promising a rebid (not at all the same thing). If you are going to do that then just play 2/1, which I do in one partnership.

"Of those that did, even if the 2/1 bidder could pass opener's simple rebid in theory, in practice it was never passed"

Of course it is, and frequently. Michael Courtney played a great deal of high stakes rubber, but not a huge amount of duplicate. Perhaps that is different.

[Cascade]

helene_t, on Feb 6 2008, 02:37 AM, said:

One advantage of opener's rebid of his suit being forcing is that he doesn't have to jump rebid to create a force with say 15 points and a moth-eaten 6-card.

This is a two-edged sword and I am not sure you can say that it is always an advantage.

Sure there are gains when you jump rebid say

1♠ 2♣
3♠

your hand is better defined but consequently when you rebid only 2♠ your hand is less well defined which can become a disadvantage in later bidding. There is another thread at the moment where IMO this disadvantage is highlighted albeit in a 2/1 context.

[Cascade]

helene_t, on Feb 6 2008, 02:37 AM, said:

Cascade's idea of playing 2NT as second bid by responder after a 2/1 as forcing sounds better to me. It seems to offer a significant advantage without requiring further modifications of the system (except that you would have to open 1NT with all 5M332 hands in range, but maybe you do that already).

We only play 2NT as forcing after opener rebids the suit opened e.g.

1♠ 2♦
2♠ 2NT * forcing

We do not play 2NT as forcing after opener rebids a second suit e.g.

1♠ 2♦
2♥ 2NT natural invitational

On the second auction we have fourth suit forcing to force.

The 2NT forcing idea does come at a cost. We cannot directly invite game in No Trumps.

We do open 1NT with all hands with 5Major-3-3-2. This means that sometimes our simple rebid in the suit opened shows six cards.

1♠ 2♣
2♠ - guarantees six since we did not bid a second suit

but

1♠ 2♦
2♠ - might be based on a five-card suit with four clubs and not sufficient strength to rebid 3♣ which would be forcing to game opposite the ten points shown by partner.

So after opener rebids the suit opened we only have two invitational bids.

1. Raising partner

1♠ 2♦
2♠ 3♠

We will sometimes do this on a doubleton even though opener has not guaranteed six cards. Opener can of course choose to offer 3NT when accepting.

2. Rebidding our own suit

1♠ 2♦
2♠ 3♦

This is invitational with a six-card suit and usually without significant support (not Hx etc) for opener's suit.

Forcing hands with six diamonds would go through the forcing 2NT or if very distributional and not interested in other contracts jump immediately to 4♦.

The way we play this forcing 2NT is my own but it was inspired by a Polish pair playing in the NOT in Canberra about six or seven years ago who bid to slam against us thus:

1♦ 1♥
2♦ 2NT* forcing
3♦ 4♦
4♥ 4NT
5♠** 6♦

** As an aside this was also interesting as they flowed on to show kings and so stopping at 5♠ denied a side king. This knowledge had a consequence when I was on lead with ♣Axxx I knew the king was in dummy so underled. Sadly on this occasion declarer had the queen so the story does not have a happy ending. Except that 6♦ was cold on any lead.

[helene_t]

Tx for elaborating on this, Wayne. I'll see if I can convince my p to play this, it makes a lot of sense.

Btw I have been checking some web resources on the [1444]. It seems that opening 1♦ rather than 1♥ is now EBO standard and that it is also what Bird/Bourke recommend.

[Cascade]

helene_t, on Feb 6 2008, 12:28 PM, said:

Btw I have been checking some web resources on the [1444]. It seems that opening 1♦ rather than 1♥ is now EBO standard and that it is also what Bird/Bourke recommend.

What I teach my face to face learners is:

1. With a red singleton open 1♣

2. With a black singleton open the middle suit

1♦ with 1=4=4=4 and 1♥ with 4=4=4=1

I would always allow some variation depending on suit quality and intended rebid (possibly based on the overall strength of the hand).

So while I usually tell them the rule above I say it is relatively unimportant - there are much more important things to learn. What is better is to look ahead and imagine partner responds in your short suit and plan the rebid.

[helene_t]

Cascade, on Feb 6 2008, 01:46 AM, said:

What is better is to look ahead and imagine partner responds in your short suit and plan the rebid.

Absolutely. That is also much more fun than learning some (seemingly) arbitrary rule. Also, being prepared for a rebid is important in so many other situations. And if they switch to a different system with different rules-of-thumb they will still need the routine of thinking of possible rebid problems.

[Cascade]

helene_t, on Feb 6 2008, 12:28 PM, said:

Tx for elaborating on this, Wayne. I'll see if I can convince my p to play this, it makes a lot of sense.

Here is some further elaboration.

After 1x 1/2y; 2x 2NT forcing this is what we play:

3x confirms a six-card suit. Sometimes opener's rebid has already shown a six-card suit then this guarantees a good quality suit or seven.

3y shows three-card support. We very freely raise with three-card support (especially a major) so for us this has an added inference that partner has a good six-card suit. This inference has been a springboard for many successful slams

3z we play this as a side feature with doubleton support for partner's suit. The 2NT bid is most often made with support for opener's suit (2 or 3-card and needing to confirm the six-card suit or to initiate a slam try or with a single-suit game/slam hand of our own)

3NT almost all other hands - so a five-card suit and a singleton or worse in partner's suit or a bad six-card suit.

A jump to 4x is possible with extra distribution (unsuitable for 3NT) and a very good suit

Note: 2NT almost always denies a second suit. We prefer to rebid a natural forcing new suit to using the artificial 2NT. An exception would be a slammish 4-4-3-2 hand with three-card support for partner where we would use 2NT.

We have some changes on this specific auction:

1♠ 2♥
2♠ 2NT ...

We would already have raised with three trumps so now:

3♥ shows two hearts
3♠ shows six spades

3minor is natural showing a five-card suit in a hand that was too weak to bid 3minor over 2♥.

In my mind I am flirting with bidding more natural five-card suits after 2NT when the suit could not have been shown at a lower level. As at the moment we sometimes need to bid 3NT with relatively unsuitable hands e.g.

♠ AJxxx
♥ xx
♦ x
♣ AQJxx

After 1♠ 2♦; 2♠ 2NT; ?

Our current methods require 3NT since 3♣ would promise a doubleton diamond.

Any way this is enough for now - maybe too much since we are posting in the Beginner-Intermediate forums.

[the hog]

FrancesHinden, on Feb 5 2008, 08:43 PM, said:

David_c sounds as if he could do with some support.
I don't pretend to be able to speak for anywhere outside England, but

It is true that many of the top pairs do not play Acol. However, of those that do:

- I am not aware that any play that a 2/1 promises a rebid, nor that it is forcing to 2NT.
- This is quite playable, although have some specific agreements/gadgets is helpful (in particular 4441s are a problem in all systems, not just Acol)
- Every pair that I know of who claim to play Acol or an Acol-based system can stop in 2 of opener's major or 3 of responder's minor i.e. 1S - 2C - 2S, 1S - 2C - 2D - 2S, 1S - 2C - 3C are all played as non-forcing.


(In my Acol-style-2/1 partnership we play two gadgets to cope with the 4441s: with a singleton club we open 1D and after 1D - 2C rebid 2H to show 12-14/18-19 either balanced or 4441, rebid 3NT to show exactly 4441 15-17; with a 4414 we open 1C but after 1C - 1D - 1H responder bids 2S to show an invite with exactly three clubs. But this is a 5CM partnership and isn't really Acol)

Speaking personally, I can see little benefit in playing 2/1 forcing to 2NT or, even worse, to play it as promising a rebid (not at all the same thing). If you are going to do that then just play 2/1, which I do in one partnership.

"Of those that did, even if the 2/1 bidder could pass opener's simple rebid in theory, in practice it was never passed"

Of course it is, and frequently. Michael Courtney played a great deal of high stakes rubber, but not a huge amount of duplicate. Perhaps that is different.

Courtney also played a lot in serious events with Charles Wigodor.

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.

[Cascade]

The_Hog, on Feb 6 2008, 05:20 PM, 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.

Crowhurst (twice Precision Bidding in Acol 1974 and Acol Index 2000) and Truscott (Bidding Dictionary 1996) both describe 1S 2H 2S 3H as non-forcing. Truscott of course is not writing in an Acol context but some sort of Standard American.

Admittedly Crowhurst does not specifically discuss 1♠ 2♥; 2♠ 3♥. In Precision Bidding in Acol the sequence is categorized under 1♦ 2♣; 2♦ 3♣ where the index refers to the most economical auction with a similar pattern. In the Acol Index he writes " A simple rebid of responder's suit is mildly constructive. It shows a good six-card or longer suit ...". Again he does not specifically discuss the auction where both majors are bid but neither does he go out of his way to make an exception.

More interestingly Truscott specifically discusses this sequence and describes it as "Suggest an End to the Auction - Partner is not barred, but usually passes". Further he has the note "A good suit, not solid, with invitational values. Two top honors is typical, but one top honor and the jack may be acceptable. Weaker suits should bid 1N and then the suit. If opener continues game should be reached. The bidding can die in the suit at the 3-level, but not if opener shows extra values."

It seems that the tradition on both sides of the pond as they say at some time was to play this auction as strictly not forcing. We find it playable. How else do you bid an invitational hand with long hearts? We have invented some gadgets to help with the auction. Not least of which is the forcing 2NT through which any hand with serious slam ambition and single suited in hearts would go after the 2♠ rebid.

1♠ 2♣; 2♠ Pass seems a standard Acol sequence to me. Especially when you open reasonably light and stretch to show some values in response. To me it doesn't seem logical when you have a minimum for your first bid (the 2♣ response) and partner shows a minimum with 2♠ that you should be forced to keep the auction open.

[Wackojack]

Helene, permit me to to try to get to the root of your questions. You have recently settled in Acol land. You have found some Acol playing partners at your local bridge club. You have encountered some problem hands and not being entirely familiar with Acol, you wish to understand more about the system and how best to accomodate you new partners in an intelligent way. This thread comes up with lots of interesting points, but many of them are probably irrelavent to the problems you face.

First of all, I have to assume that your new partners play 12-14 no trump and 2 over 1 responses need something like 9 points or an equivalent 8 with a decent 5 card suit. If this is so, then a few things follow:
1. If a 4 card major suit is opened it has be on a hand with 15-19 points. There is a possible exception to this: a 4441 distribution.
2. No trump rebids show 15-19 points.
3. 1x-2y-2x is obviously non forcing.

This method of bidding has advantages and disadvantages compared with a strong no trump 5-card major system. The pre-emptive style of the 12-14 no trump and 4 card major opening bids often give you an advantage over the minor suit openings of a 5-card major system. Nevertheless, as always, there are some problem hands as have already been pointed out in this thread.

4441 distributions

This distribution presents problems in all systems, but 12-14 with a singleton club is perhaps uniquely problematical in Acol. My advice is to try to narrow the range. So consider passing with 12 points. Perhaps borrow an extra point with a 14 pointer. Otherwise with a mid range hand use judgement as whether to open 1 no trump or to open 1 heart and rebid 2 diamonds. Let the quality of the heart suit dictate.

5332 distribution with 12-14 points

Most importantly here is to get yourself a reputation for being a wizard declarer player. Thus your partner will have no qualms about raising 1M to 2M when holding 3 trumps and 5-9 points. Let your partner assume that you relish the challenge of playing in a possible 4-3 fit.

As opener you have some opportunities to be creative. Weigh up the options of:
1. Opening 1NT
2. Opening 1M and rebidding 2M.
3. Opening 1M and rebidding a 3 card suit.
If you consistently make the right choice, then maybe your partners will follow your example. If they do this already, then you will understand. With 3532, opening 1no trump gets you to play the hand if partner is balanced or has 5 spades.

Find out from your partners what they consider to be forcing and accomodate to their style. One example 1x-2y- 2nt many but not all Acol players play as forcing. I would doubt that many (if any) play 1x-2y-2x-2nt as forcing, although it does seem like a good idea.

Good luck

[helene_t]

Hi Jack,

I like your idea of making a reputation as a declarer wizard Otherwise my p's will soon refuse to play transfers since I open 1NT with any excuse.

I have asked all my partners (I have had ten in the two months I have been here, it's a very promiscuous club) which 2/1 follow-ups they consider forcing, which suit they open with a 4432-pattern and how much they require for a 2/1, and also how penalty-oriented various fuzzy doubles are. They are remarkably consistent. Some like Lebensohl and Ogust and some don't, and some like variable-strength jump overcalls and some don't, but those are about the only differences.

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?

[Zelandakh]

There are so many variations of 4441 opening strategies in Acol-land it's hard to keep track of them all; and worse almost every player is convinced their method is 'standard'. Ideas I have seen in recent times are:-

1) Stone Age Acol = open suit below the singleton
2) Modern Standard = open suit below red singleton, middle from black singleton
3) Modern Alternative = 1♣ with 4=4=1=4, 1♦ otherwise
4) Variation on 2 = as 2 except 1♣ with 4=1=4=4
5) Variation on 3 = as 2 except 1♣ with 4=1=4=4
6) some play a mixture of the above methods depending on whether their hand lies in the NT range or not
7) many just work out a rebid strategy and do not worry too much about it

Of course you can always lump 4=4=4=1 and/or 4=4=1=4 hands into the 1NT opening, but somehow that does not seem very popular as yet.

My own choice (which is clearly standard ) is for 3, which means that 1M followed by a suit rebid always shows 5+ (1♥ - 2♣ - 2♦ does not promise 5♥s in Standard) but forces 1♦ - 2♣ - 2♦ to be a slightly special forcing sequence. This sequence should be no trouble at all for anyone that has come from 5-card major land though!

As for your poll question, (almost) nobody plays NFBs at clubs round here, so normal is for 2NT not to show extras; then 3NT shows a minimum (15+) balanced hand and with a stronger hand you are close to looking for more anyway.

(-: Zel :-)

[helene_t]

Zelandakh, on Feb 13 2008, 06:52 AM, said:

Of course you can always lump 4=4=4=1 and/or 4=4=1=4 hands into the 1NT opening, but somehow that does not seem very popular as yet.

I have been told that this was illegal at lower levels until recently.

[skjaeran]

helene_t, on Feb 13 2008, 10:49 AM, said:

Zelandakh, on Feb 13 2008, 06:52 AM, said:

Of course you can always lump 4=4=4=1 and/or 4=4=1=4 hands into the 1NT opening, but somehow that does not seem very popular as yet.

I have been told that this was illegal at lower levels until recently.

Depend on where you play. It's perfectly legal to treat 4441/5431 as balanced at all levels in Norway.

[helene_t]

Yes of course, I meant in England. sr should have specified.

[han]

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.

[Cascade]

helene_t, on Feb 13 2008, 10:49 PM, said:

Zelandakh, on Feb 13 2008, 06:52 AM, said:

Of course you can always lump 4=4=4=1 and/or 4=4=1=4 hands into the 1NT opening, but somehow that does not seem very popular as yet.

I have been told that this was illegal at lower levels until recently.

It has never been illegal.

The 1997 laws did not allow a sponsoring organization to regulate non-conventional bids.

[Cascade]

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.