[helene_t]

NickRW, on Oct 10 2008, 03:31 PM, said:

the 5 card spades only option has its attractions .... and a weak [NT] at MP and you have what seems to me to b a viable alternative to both 4 and 5 card majors.

How does such a system work? If 1♠ promises 5 I would like to play 2/1 GF. I don't see how I could do that after a 1♥ opening. Are you suggesting Acol followups to 1♥ but 2/1 (or at least something with more forcing bids, e.g. SAYC) followups to 1♠? Too much memory load for me.

[Codo]

Helene, here in Germany it is called "Swiss Acol" and it works quite easy. Well as easy as any good system, so with around 30 pages of system notes.

F.E Gromöller/Kirmse (Representing Germany in Peking right now and in the recent EM f.e.) play it, so it is playable, successful and works well.

They surely have no 2/1 approach over the 1 Spade opening and you surely don't need it, why should you?

[paulg]

NickRW, on Oct 10 2008, 02:15 PM, said:

Acol has got more legs, certainly at grass roots level, than you're giving it credit.

I don't believe this is true. Acol has inertia, not momentum.

At club level, partnerships change frequently and it is common for partner swapping to happen on a weekly basis. This leads to the development of club-specific systems which, in the UK, are almost always Acol-based. For most of these people the idea of maintaining multiple systems is abhorrent for what is, essentially, just a friendly night out. So Acol is perpetuated at this level.

More serious partnerships will look at, and try out, different methods. Acol still dominates the clubs and is the majority choice at tournaments, but at the higher levels in the UK (which, admittedly, is not that high) 4-card majors with a weak 1NT are a minority system.

Will this change? Not soon.

But I believe online bridge will be a major factor when it happens. To play online you really need to be able to cope with 5-card majors and a strong 1NT - there will come a time when two people agreeing a system will find it easier to agree on SAYC (more precisely, the anglicised form of the system) than to agree on Acol. The fear, and lack of knowledge, surrounding 5-card majors and/or strong 1NT will go.

Paul

[helene_t]

Codo, on Oct 10 2008, 04:28 PM, said:

They surely have no 2/1 approach over the 1 Spade opening and you surely don't need it, why should you?

Well the reason for not playing 2/1 is that 1♠ can be a 4-card, I suppose. See no reason not to. Other than consistency with the 1♥ opening if that doesn't promise 5.

In a strong notrump system it's different, one can then play sound 2/1 responses even if 1M can be a 4-card.

[EricK]

The main benefit of old-fashioned Acol is that it makes it much harder for the opponents to intervene.

In an uncostested auction, it probably does very slightly worse than a more modern system, and in a contested auction it possibly does worse too. But by opening 1M or 1NT so often, it makes it much harder for 2nd hand to intervene than over the very common 1m openings in 5CM/Strong NT systems, and by playing relatively light 2/1s it makes it very much harder for 4th hand to safely intervene as well.

So you end up with more uncotested auctions; or, if the oponenets do intervene, more opportunities for penalties because their intervention is forced to be a level or two higher. And that is where it gains - the Acol pair having an uncotested auction while the other table has to contend with a competitive auction.

[nige1]

IMO, Weak notrump (10-12 or 12-4) and 4 card majors (but open majors freely) seems to have worked well at pairs, for Acol experts in the past: Flint-Pender, Shearer-Allan, and so on.

Originally, Acol recommended a strong notrump when vulnerable and there is a case for that.

There can sometimes be an advantage in bidding 1N first. Especially when not-vul, you can often collect a reasonable score even when opponents can make a notrump partscore.

[NickRW]

cardsharp, on Oct 10 2008, 03:39 PM, said:

NickRW, on Oct 10 2008, 02:15 PM, said:

Acol has got more legs, certainly at grass roots level, than you're giving it credit.

I don't believe this is true. Acol has inertia, not momentum.

I agree that Acol, like any national system, has inertia. That doesn't inherently make it good or bad.

Anyway, if Acol has "intertia", then Milton Work Points has it in spades.

Quote

More serious partnerships will look at, and try out, different methods. Acol still dominates the clubs and is the majority choice at tournaments, but at the higher levels in the UK (which, admittedly, is not that high) 4-card majors with a weak 1NT are a minority system.

Paul

More serious partnerships certainly do try out other methods - both variants of the basic system they are used to and completely different systems.

More serious partnerships also tend to at least dabble in the team game which is scored by IMPs and that puts a whole different light on things.

If you want to assert that 4cM with weak NT is not best at IMPs then I am all ears - if you want to assert that this is dead for MP then I think you're not thinking very hard about the different requirements of MP and IMP. Most ordinary people around here play MP - the IMP considerations don't even enter their heads (and why, indeed, should it!)

Frankly, for pairs, the MP version of the game is far preferable to my mind. I hope we don't ever see the IMP scored version ever become prevalent in Britain. Why BBO has IMP scoring as the default method of scoring for pairs tables is quite beyond me.

Nick

[NickRW]

cardsharp, on Oct 8 2008, 05:02 PM, said:

And I appear to be out of line on this problem as I think this hand is really a bit too good for 2♥. Playing 5-card majors I would be showing an 8-loser hand and supporting at the 3-level and, despite the total lack of support, I'm tempted to do the same under these system conditions.

Paul

You're not the only one that thinks this hand is too strong for 2♥. A good 8hcp (that only includes one quack), 6331 shape, singleton in opps suit, 3 card support for opener's major which is almost certainly 5 cards unless substantially stronger than minimum looks more like a 3♥ raise to me.

It is true that I would be happier with 3♥ if the ♠T was a club - or if the ♥A and ♣K swapped suits - but 2♥ is just too wimpish.

I have examined several hundreds of hands where opener is not strong enough to go on after a 2♥ bid. From a purely constructive point of view, 2♥ would appear to be the stronger bid as there are a few too many cases where 3♥ is one down. But, there are also a lot of cases where you find 4♥ after responding 3♥, but there are not quite enough of these to balance the down one cases (you lose a fraction of an IMP per board on average).

However, that is not the end of the story. In the vast majority of cases where partner has not enough to go on after 2♥ opps have at least 8 tricks available in ♦ and probably better than half the time, 9 or more tricks. They are not going to be letting you play in 2♥.

So what happens after one of the opps bids 3♦?

If passed round to you, then you should be calling 3♥. The hand was nearly worth it anyway, and you're only wrong when neither 3 level contract makes (but this only happens about 10-15% of the time). But is partner going to raise 3 to 4 when you have made what sounds like a purely competitive bid? Unlikely I would have thought. So, bidding 2♥ first throws away all the constructive advantage that a direct 3♥ bid had.

Alternatively, partner with poor looking defence may call 3♥ himself over 3♦ - but will you raise this to 4 with any confidence - well - you might depending on if you think 3♥ from partner shows extras in this auction - or simply lack of defence.

Further, there are quite a few cases where opps can make 4♦ or save against 3♥ for only one down - but they are much more likely to get this wrong if you bid 3♥ in the first place.

So, 3♥ is clearly better in my view.

But if people didn't use antiquated Milton Work Points (this hand is only 8hcp) then perhaps more experts would have been able to envisage this.

Nick

[Cascade]

Walddk, on Oct 9 2008, 11:16 PM, said:

gnasher, on Oct 9 2008, 11:03 AM, said:

- Play a different s ...  Sorry.

The crux of the matter. Why do they still teach beginners Acol in the UK? You have to start somewhere, so let them start from scratch and let them learn a system of this century, not one of the 1930's, 40's and 50's.

Acol is over and out, period. Surely some people in England, Wales and Scotland have realised that by now.

Roland

I think there is a huge advantage in teaching a 4-card major system over a 5-card major system.

There are so many rules to learn when starting out in bridge that it seems to get confusing for most learners.

Being able to simplify the choice for opening bids at the one-level to:

Open your longest suit (perhaps with some rules for ties)

is much better than

open your longest suit if it is a five-card major
otherwise open your longest minor
except if you are exactly 4=4=3=2 when you open 1♣
(also with the tie breaking rules)

or maybe something even more complicated.

The players that are going to continue with the game can very easily adapt later to five-card majors or whatever.

The choice of NT range is less important in getting players started in the game.

Armed with a simple system learners can start playing quickly to begin to find out whether or not they enjoy the game.

[jikl]

Acol is much easier to learn, I have supervised players that have 5♠ and 7♣ that always will open 1♠ because they have a 5 card major, then they call me and ask "What do I do now?". If they learn with a 4 card system they already know how to adapt to a 5 card major system without these hangups.

Sean

[the hog]

Cascade, on Nov 1 2008, 06:06 AM, said:

Walddk, on Oct 9 2008, 11:16 PM, said:

gnasher, on Oct 9 2008, 11:03 AM, said:

- Play a different s ...  Sorry.

The crux of the matter. Why do they still teach beginners Acol in the UK? You have to start somewhere, so let them start from scratch and let them learn a system of this century, not one of the 1930's, 40's and 50's.

Acol is over and out, period. Surely some people in England, Wales and Scotland have realised that by now.

Roland

I think there is a huge advantage in teaching a 4-card major system over a 5-card major system.

There are so many rules to learn when starting out in bridge that it seems to get confusing for most learners.

Being able to simplify the choice for opening bids at the one-level to:

Open your longest suit (perhaps with some rules for ties)

is much better than

open your longest suit if it is a five-card major
otherwise open your longest minor
except if you are exactly 4=4=3=2 when you open 1♣
(also with the tie breaking rules)

or maybe something even more complicated.

The players that are going to continue with the game can very easily adapt later to five-card majors or whatever.

The choice of NT range is less important in getting players started in the game.

Armed with a simple system learners can start playing quickly to begin to find out whether or not they enjoy the game.

I categorically concur with Wayne here. I also believe that teaching beginners a 4 card M system teaches them bidding judgement. If they want to switch over later - fine.