[EricK]

Partner has suggested Hearts as a trump suit. I am happy with hearts as a trump suit. 2♥ sends this message. If partner is interested in game, he can find out more about my hand before committing to a heart contract if he so wishes.

WTP?

[MickyB]

If you consider this hand too strong to bid 2H, then it's (in part) because you are happy to be in game opposite 15-16 balanced. If pard bids 2S, we go back to 3H, and he'll know what to do from there.

As I said before, it's a slight overevaluation of the hand, but still - not ridiculous.

[paulg]

Everyone on the team bid 2♥ without thinking it was a problem, so they will be happy with this thread.

But they would also have bid 2♥ holding

♠Qxx
♥Kxxx
♦xxx
♣Jxx

This is why I think it is not a wtp hand and prefer Mike's double. (In much club bridge you hesitate with the initial hand to distinguish between these hands, but I am giving a good thrashing to the team members who do this).

Paul

[Walddk]

cardsharp, on Oct 9 2008, 09:47 AM, said:

But they would also have bid 2♥ holding

♠Qxx
♥Kxxx
♦xxx
♣Jxx

True, Paul, but that goes for all raises. Different hand types. If 1MA-3MA is limit, you would raise 1♠ to 3 with ...

♠ Axxx
♥ Kxx
♦ Qxx
♣ Qxx

as well as ...

♠ KJxx
♥ x
♦ Axxxx
♣ xxx

You can't distinguish between the two hands (balanced/shapely), as is the case with a single raise in this thread.

Roland

[helene_t]

If dbl shows 3-card support, how do you find a 4-4 fit in spades? My guess is that with 15+ balanced and 4-4 majors opener responds 2♠ to the double, which is a sort of reverse. Wouldn't work for those who play 4cM with strong NT, obviously.

[gnasher]

Walddk, on Oct 9 2008, 09:18 AM, said:

If 1MA-3MA is limit, you would raise 1♠ to 3 with ...

♠ Axxx
♥ Kxx
♦ Qxx
♣ Qxx

I'm not sure that I would, actually.

[gnasher]

I think this is worth game opposite 15-17 balanced, so I agree with Paul that 2♥ is inadequate.

Possible solutions are:
- Allow this hand to double and convert 2♠ to 3♥, as suggested by others. That works OK if opener rebids 2♥ or 2♠, but less well if he has a good hand with spades, or if there is further competition.
- Bid 3♣, forcing to game. If 1♥ promised an unbalanced hand (with 5332s always opening 1NT), that might be OK.
- Agree that 3♦ doesn't promise four-card support, but also includes a 3-card limit raise that is willing to play 3NT opposite 15-17 balanced.
- Play 2NT as a 4-card limit raise and 3♦ as a 3-card limit raise.
- Play transfers from 2NT upwards, thereby creating an extra cue bid, and use one of these cue bids to show a 3-card limit raise.
- Play a different s ... Sorry.

[Walddk]

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

[paulg]

Walddk, on Oct 9 2008, 08:18 AM, said:

cardsharp, on Oct 9 2008, 09:47 AM, said:

But they would also have bid 2♥ holding

♠Qxx
♥Kxxx
♦xxx
♣Jxx

True, Paul, but that goes for all raises. Different hand types. If 1MA-3MA is limit, you would raise 1♠ to 3 with ...

♠ Axxx
♥ Kxx
♦ Qxx
♣ Qxx

as well as ...

♠ KJxx
♥ x
♦ Axxxx
♣ xxx

You can't distinguish between the two hands (balanced/shapely), as is the case with a single raise in this thread.

Roland

True, Roland, but these hands have the same 8 losers so there is some semblance of similarity (although I agree that the ability to make game opposite will vary enormously).

My problem is where we are making the same bid with 8-10 losers.

Paul

[shintaro]

mm how strange why not just PASS (if you cannot bring yourself to Double) ;

If partner has a GOOD hand he/she will re-open it with a DOUBLE (unless you do not play Bridge)

WALD Acol is NOT dead when will those who cannot play Bridge realise that FACT

[Walddk]

shintaro, on Oct 9 2008, 12:47 PM, said:

mm how strange why not just PASS (if you cannot bring yourself to Double) ;

If partner has a GOOD hand he/she will re-open it with a DOUBLE (unless you do not play Bridge)

WALD Acol is NOT dead when will those who cannot play Bridge realise that FACT

Pass first then bid will show this hand you mean? Then you are right when you write

"WALD Acol is NOT dead when will those who cannot play Bridge realise that FACT"

Do you offer lessons?

Roland

[shintaro]

but seriously roland would you not like to know what partner has opened with?

and would not a pass let partner tell you with a re-opening double he/she was strong or merely 2!h to show weak and 5 (or 6)

[Walddk]

shintaro, on Oct 9 2008, 01:12 PM, said:

but seriously roland would you not like to know what partner has opened with?

and would not a pass let partner tell you with a re-opening double he/she was strong or merely 2!h to show weak and 5 (or 6)

No and no. Pass is completely out of the question. If you do, you deserve to lose your legitimate partscore when partner is unable to reopen. Even a game could be on when partner won't bid again.

To stay with your own terminology. No bridge player would pass.

Roland

[helene_t]

shintaro, on Oct 9 2008, 11:47 AM, said:

mm how strange why not just PASS (if you cannot bring yourself to Double) ;

When playing a weak notrump, the good news is that you have a higher safety level after RHO interferes over partner's opening because you don't have to cater for partner having a 12-14 balanced. So you can make lighter sputnik doubles.

The bad news is that you must make lighter sputnik doubles (and lighter raises) to cater for partner's 15-16 balanced that will not be able to reopen.

I am not implying that pass would have been an option if we were playing strong NT. But playing a weak NT it is even more out of the question.

[fred]

I am never played Acol before, but the concept of opening the bidding with a 4-card major when you are dealt a strong notrump seems REALLY bad to me.

If Acol forces really forces you to do this, then I agree with those whose "Acol advice" was to play another system.

If Acol does not force you to do this (ie it is acceptable to open 1C or 1D on such hands) then there is not much point in playing 4-card majors. Again, I think the best advice would be to play another system.

I have nothing against either:

1) 4-card majors

or

2) Weak notrumps

But I strongly believe that the combination of 1+2 will put you at a serious disadvantage to those who play only one (or neither) of 1 and 2.

To those Acol loyalists who (wrongly) read this post as an attack on Mother England, please ask yourselves this: How many of England's leading pairs actually play Acol as it is traditionally taught? If the answer is higher than "zero" then ask yourselves this: When is the last time any of these pairs have had a notable result in a major tournament outside the UK?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Walddk]

fred, on Oct 9 2008, 02:44 PM, said:

To those Acol loyalists who (wrongly) read this post as an attack on Mother England, please ask yourselves this: How many of England's leading pairs actually play Acol as it is traditionally taught? If the answer is higher than "zero" then ask yourselves this: When is the last time any of these pairs have had a notable result in a major tournament outside the UK?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

To be fair, Townsend-Gold and the Hackett twins do to some extent, but they play a 15-17 and 14-16 1NT respectively. Regarding international achievements, T-G won the bronze medal in the pairs in Tenerife 2005 (European Open Championships). Fred was there, so I think he remembers.

Roland

P.S. I am NOT an Acol loyalist as I am sure you can tell from leading my posts in this thread. To the contrary!

[fred]

Walddk, on Oct 9 2008, 12:51 PM, said:

fred, on Oct 9 2008, 02:44 PM, said:

To those Acol loyalists who (wrongly) read this post as an attack on Mother England, please ask yourselves this: How many of England's leading pairs actually play Acol as it is traditionally taught? If the answer is higher than "zero" then ask yourselves this: When is the last time any of these pairs have had a notable result in a major tournament outside the UK?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

To be fair, Townsend-Gold and the Hackett twins do to some extent, but they play a 15-17 and 14-16 1NT respectively. Regarding international achievements, T-G won the bronze medal in the pairs in Tenerife 2005 (European Open Championships). Fred was there, so I think he remembers.

Roland

P.S. I am NOT an Acol loyalist as I am sure you can tell from leading my posts in this thread. To the contrary!

They are both excellent pairs and I would think twice about playing against either of these pairs for money.

But as you point out, they don't play 1+2 (ie they don't play Acol as it is traditionally taught).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Walddk]

fred, on Oct 9 2008, 02:55 PM, said:

Walddk, on Oct 9 2008, 12:51 PM, said:

fred, on Oct 9 2008, 02:44 PM, said:

To those Acol loyalists who (wrongly) read this post as an attack on Mother England, please ask yourselves this: How many of England's leading pairs actually play Acol as it is traditionally taught? If the answer is higher than "zero" then ask yourselves this: When is the last time any of these pairs have had a notable result in a major tournament outside the UK?

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

To be fair, Townsend-Gold and the Hackett twins do to some extent, but they play a 15-17 and 14-16 1NT respectively. Regarding international achievements, T-G won the bronze medal in the pairs in Tenerife 2005 (European Open Championships). Fred was there, so I think he remembers.

Roland

P.S. I am NOT an Acol loyalist as I am sure you can tell from leading my posts in this thread. To the contrary!

They are both excellent pairs and I would think twice about playing against either of these pairs for money.

But as you point out, they don't play 1+2 (ie they don't play Acol as it is traditionally taught).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Curiously, the original Acol concept (30's) was a variable NT. 12-14 NV and 15-17 vulnerable. I don't know how many subscribe to this today, but I doubt that you find many top pairs. One, however, is Peter Lund-Steen Møller, members of the Danish seniors team, both strong players.

Roland

[paulg]

Frances may be able to tell us how many English pairs are playing 4-card majors and a weak 1NT in the English Premier League, but my expectation is that it is a very small number.

In the recent Scottish trials there were hardly any pairs playing these methods.

Although I'm sure that Fred is right, and playing weak NT with 4-card majors is a handicap, playing alternative methods does not appear to guarantee success. Should I ask for my money back?

But in UK clubs I guess 90% of the players are playing weak 1NT with 4-card majors. And this is what is still taught - with major before minor in England and minor before major in Scotland.

Paul
(who thinks that Acol is a 4-letter word)

[MickyB]

fred, on Oct 9 2008, 01:44 PM, said:

To those Acol loyalists who (wrongly) read this post as an attack on Mother England, please ask yourselves this: How many of England's leading pairs actually play Acol as it is traditionally taught? If the answer is higher than "zero" then ask yourselves this: When is the last time any of these pairs have had a notable result in a major tournament outside the UK?

Holland/Armstrong butlered very well in the Europeans just before JA's untimely death a few months back - but there haven't been many others.

In the Premier League, basically the England open trials, there are sixteen teams of 4-6 players. There are four pairs that I know to be playing Acol weak no-trump, and another couple who might be - so not a great proportion. One of these is Holland/Brunner who are carrying all before them so far!