[helene_t]

Hey Ron, I think HotShot referred to methods recommended in beginner's textbooks, not what strong, established partnerships play.

I have read only two textbooks that discuss this issue in an Acol context so I don't know if there is any consensus among textbook authors and teachers. Michelle Brunner who gave a workshop on constructive Acol bidding last year at the Coventry workshop recommended to always open 1NT with balanced hands in range (and always rebid notrump with other range unless you have 4-card support for responder's suit).

Anyway, it occurs to me that teachers and textbook authors tend to recommend some quite difficult treatments to beginners while they play easier methods themselves. Describing balanced hands as, well, balanced, is one example of an easy-to-manage treatment that for some reason is often not taught to beginners.

[hotShot]

The_Hog, on May 14 2008, 02:02 PM, said:

Wrong! Reese and Schapiro frequently opened 1NT with this shape. Just looked up some old hands - the Sharples twins did also, it seems.

Remember that thread "What people call Acol"?

[FrancesHinden]

There are two different points being discussing here.

1. What do you open with a 5M332 12-14 hand?
2. If you open 1M, what do you rebid?

1. Has been discussed here and elsewhere at great length. The arguments are really little different in a weak NT than a strong NT (OK, there are some very tiny differences). There are pros and cons. However it's worth observing that there are good players around (not just 'unenlightened' ones) who prefer not to have a 5-card major in their 1NT opening or at the very least prefer to look at their hand before deciding whether to open 1NT or not.

Don't buy into the BBO forum view, which seems to be that 1NT on any hand vaguely in range and even more vaguely balanced is always the right choice. That approach works best only when playing with a pick-up partner whose declarer play you don't trust.

2. The rebid question is a separate discussion. There is one easy and one harder answer:
i) If you open 1S and partner bids 1NT (Acol-style) you pass. If partner makes a 2/1 you rebid 2S, showing no more than five spades - don't forget the original opening only showed four spades.

ii) If you open 1H and partner bids 1NT or 2m the same applies. The only question is what you rebid after 1H - 1S - ? There are three common treatments:

t1: rebid 2H - this is the very old-fashioned Acol bid which you will still see all over the place in club bridge, but the best players don't do this
t2: invent a 3-card minor or raise 1S to 2S with 3-card support and a low doubleton
t3: rebid 1NT, making this wide range (12-16 or even 12-17)

I prefer t3, and I find this works OK. Most of the time responder has a marginal move over this he has either five spades or a doubleton heart and you can play the 5-2 major suit fit instead of 1NT {after all, playing (semi)forcing NT you are just as happy in 2M as you would have been in 1NT}.

However if you really hate all of these options, play that 1NT may have five hearts but won't have five spades. Opening 1NT with a 5-card heart suit is significantly more useful as a pre-emptive weapen, keeping them out of spades, than with a 5-card spade suit.

[the hog]

helene_t, on May 14 2008, 07:24 PM, said:

Hey Ron, I think HotShot referred to methods recommended in beginner's textbooks, not what strong, established partnerships play.

I have read only two textbooks that discuss this issue in an Acol context so I don't know if there is any consensus among textbook authors and teachers. Michelle Brunner who gave a workshop on constructive Acol bidding last year at the Coventry workshop recommended to always open 1NT with balanced hands in range (and always rebid notrump with other range unless you have 4-card support for responder's suit).

Anyway, it occurs to me that teachers and textbook authors tend to recommend some quite difficult treatments to beginners while they play easier methods themselves. Describing balanced hands as, well, balanced, is one example of an easy-to-manage treatment that for some reason is often not taught to beginners.

Yes probably Helene. But re Hotshot's next post - I suspect that Reese and the Sharples would have regarded their system as Acol :-). Reese wrote the damn book on the system.

[hotShot]

The_Hog, on May 14 2008, 02:34 PM, said:

But re Hotshot's next post - I suspect that Reese and the Sharples would have regarded their system as Acol :-). Reese wrote the damn book on the system.

Should we rename or redefine Cappelletti since Cappelletti is now playing something different?

I thought that Maurice Harrison-Gray, Jack Marx and S. J. Simon created it, but there is no enforceable standard for Acol.

E. Crowhurst published "Precision Bidding in ACOL" in 1974 and "ACOL in Competition" 1980.

[helene_t]

FrancesHinden, on May 14 2008, 01:28 PM, said:

However it's worth observing that there are good players around (not just 'unenlightened' ones) who prefer not to have a 5-card major in their 1NT opening or at the very least prefer to look at their hand before deciding whether to open 1NT or not. 

Don't buy into the BBO forum view, which seems to be that 1NT on any hand vaguely in range and even more vaguely balanced is always the right choice. That approach works best only when playing with a pick-up partner whose declarer play you don't trust.

Lol, you should play more online, Frances Btw an additional case for opening 1NT is that you don't trust partner to bid correctly after your suit opening. Or that you expect opps not to have agreed what defense against 1NT they play.

But of course you are right, in France nobody opens 1NT with a 5-card major, and the WJ2000 book discourages it as well. When the issue comes up in the bidding polls of the Dutch "Bridge" and "IMP" magazines, the experts are typically divided 50-50.

[NickRW]

Maybe it is worth me doodling some of my thoughts on this. Currently I play 1N only has 5M if weak and the values are scattered. We also play 2C as a puppet to 2D (Gladiator they used to call it years ago - nobody seems to use that term these days). 2D is Stayman guaranteeing enough for 2N and interest in a major.

I like the 2C response as, over a weak NT anyway, there seems to be stubborn, significant minority of boards where the partnership that can stop in 2D scores very well. Probably not much of a problem over a strong NT as there are far fewer times when running from 1N is necessary. However, using 2C this way precludes the possibility of a fully fledged 5 card stayman - or so it seems to me.

But, I am thinking 5 card hearts can be hidden in the 1N opening using this structure. A 2H response to 2D shows 4, could be 4 spades, could be a 5th heart. To which
2S/3S = did you have spades as well
3H/4H = you hit me
2N/3N = I was only interested if you had 5 hearts.

This seems to work OK except for the case where responder is 4/3 in the majors and not enough strength to investigate both possible fits.

Any thoughts? I've thought about Keri - but I play with my teenage children who are going to forget it - they like playing the game and will sit for a hour while I delineate my latest plan - but they won't read about the game - or remember complex response structures.

Nick