[Walddk]

I had a look at the convention cards for England's pairs (open, women, seniors, U28 and U21) in Beijing. The systems are ...

Open:
Two pairs play 4-card majors (15-17 and 14-16 NT)
One pair plays two-way 1♣.

Women:
All three pairs play 5-card majors.

Seniors:
Two pairs play 4-card majors. One with a 13-15 NT (14-16 in 3rd vul), the other one 14-17 in all seats.
One pair plays 5-card majors.

U28:
All three play 5-card majors.

U21:
All three play 5-card majors.

Judged by these facts I think one can conclude that the younger top players have realised the advantage of a 5-card major system. Some of the "old" guys and gals never will.

Roland

[FrancesHinden]

Walddk, on Oct 9 2008, 05:36 PM, said:

Judged by these facts I think one can conclude that the younger top players have realised the advantage of a 5-card major system. Some of the "old" guys and gals never will.

Roland

Except that the two pairs playing 4-card majors in the England open team possibly have a lower combined age for all four of them than many of the other pairs present in Beijing.... the third English open pair are only English by adoption, they were brought up in a Polish-club-type culture.

Hey, I don't like 4CM and weak NT either. But I certainly think 4CM and strong NT, or 4CM in a strong club (or strong diamond) base can work very well. I think 4CM is both easier to learn and harder to play well than a 5CM system, which is why I started with one and changed to the other.

[Wackojack]

FrancesHinden, on Oct 9 2008, 12:05 PM, said:

Hey, I don't like 4CM and weak NT either.  But I certainly think 4CM and strong NT, or 4CM in a strong club (or strong diamond) base can work very well.  I think 4CM is both easier to learn and harder to play well than a 5CM system, which is why I started with one and changed to the other.

Yes indeed. So most players brought up with Acol, play against other Acol players and do not want to be bothered with learning something else. Thats a rational decision. Irrational or ostrich like are those that believe Acol weak no-trump is the best system.

[NickRW]

Walddk, on Oct 9 2008, 10:16 AM, said:

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

Whoa! Controversial. Especially coming from you Roland!

Why do they teach Acol here - I guess because it is just about the simplest, easiest, most natural system there is and so easy for beginners.

Some of the criticism levelled in this thread at the system I kind of agree with in the context of the the IMP game - which is what a lot of you all play apparently. Stick something a bit more aggressive on it for the 2 level, drop the silly notion of opening a minor instead of a major when 4-4 and you have quite a difficult MP system to combat - IMO. So given that we play mostly MP (a harder animal crack than the IMP game) I refute your (possibly) ill considered comment.

Nick

[NickRW]

fred, on Oct 9 2008, 12:44 PM, said:

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

What - you want to play 4cm with strong NT at MP?! Shoot me now. I had some respect for you Fred. About the worst combination I can think of.

Nick

[fred]

NickRW, on Oct 9 2008, 09:32 PM, said:

What - you want to play 4cm with strong NT at MP?!  Shoot me now.  I had some respect for you Fred.  About the worst combination I can think of.

Nick

I never made any statement about what I wanted to play and I never said anything about matchpoints.

If you care, I want to play 5-card majors and strong notrumps. I especially want to play 5-card majors and strong notrumps in matchpoint events in North America where I happen to live (because that is what the field plays, because I believe I have a skill advantage against most of the field, and because I therefore want to reduce volatility - lucky for me that I can do this with the basic style that I am most comfortable with).

I am not sure if your post was serious or not. If it was serious I don't really care if you respect my opinion or not, but you might do well to respect the opinions of the late Barry Crane (arguably the best matchpoint player in history) or Bob Hamman (arguably the best bridge player in history).

Both prefer the combination of 4-card majors and strong notrumps.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[NickRW]

fred, on Oct 9 2008, 10:10 PM, said:

NickRW, on Oct 9 2008, 09:32 PM, said:

What - you want to play 4cm with strong NT at MP?!  Shoot me now.  I had some respect for you Fred.  About the worst combination I can think of.

Nick

I never made any statement about what I wanted to play and I never said anything about matchpoints.

If you care, I want to play 5-card majors and strong notrumps. I especially want to play 5-card majors and strong notrumps in matchpoint events in North America where I happen to live (because that is what the field plays, because I believe I have a skill advantage against most of the field, and because I therefore want to reduce volatility - lucky for me that I can do this with the basic style that I am most comfortable with).

I am not sure if your post was serious or not. If it was serious I don't really care if you respect my opinion or not, but you might do well to respect the opinions of the late Barry Crane (arguably the best matchpoint player in history) or Bob Hamman (arguably the best bridge player in history).

Both prefer the combination of 4-card majors and strong notrumps.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Yeah, it was a serious post.

I can well understand your preference for 5cM and strong NT at MP where you play - you hope to out play the field - so would I if I were you - but most of us are not in your position.

4cM + strong NT + something other that what Acol or SAYC does for the 2/1 responses - well to my mind that is playable - but more geared to IMP than MP IMO.

Nick

[MickyB]

Quote

What - you want to play 4cm with strong NT at MP?! Shoot me now. I had some respect for you Fred. About the worst combination I can think of.

I consider strong NT and four-card majors to be much better at MP than IMPs - very important to be able to find your 4-4 and 4-3 major suit part-scores at MPs, where +110 can be much better than +90. For game and slam bidding, on the other hand, you are better off playing five-card majors, which is more important at IMPs.

Weak NT and four-card majors, on the other hand, has little to commend it at either form of scoring.

[NickRW]

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. Count me out. Frankly I found Roland's original post ill considered and even offensive - so I definitely don't agree.

Nick

[Impact]

As always part of the problem may be a matter of definition.

Yes Stone-Age Acol was 1930's.

However you can create quite a decent theoretical system with weak NT and opening lengths with minimum requirements of
S - 5
H - 4
D- 4
C- 3

within the general context of opening suits DOWN the line subject to the above criteria.

This is both aggressive - and susceptible to science. However it is also more involved as you have to consider at least a semi-forcing if not completely forcing response 1NT to 1S etc. Then you have to consider what that does to your 2/1 structure as between the different major openings etc. It requires some work, but I quite like the potential results for a basically natural system.

Sure - it is not "Acol" as she was writ, and neither does it conform to 4 card MajorS (plural), but it is closer.

As a non-teacher, I think the concept of teaching Acol is good to the extent that it encourages light 2-over-1 and focus on suits and rebids leading to early onset of judgment calls as opposed to "rules", but then I love bidding theory per se....and happen to believe that the way to encourage competent bidding is to teach people to think both logically in creation of a bidding system/sequence and from an objective point of view (as in what will this sound like it means to partner, as opposed to "this is what I wnat the sequence to mean because I hold this hand right now!!") rather than follow rules blindly (be they pointcount etc).

Many are blinded by having a particular set of choices thrust upon them and only narrow options provided - so they never query the initial premise.

Oddly enough there can be valid sets of internal logic attributable to different premises which can be teased out.
Whether they lead to a better widget is arguable but the process of finding the logic is useful....as is the process of then testing the logic of adopting the initial premises!!!

At least this latter point is all but ignored by most bridgeplayers (ignoring "mere cardpullers"), with lipservice being paid to argument for big club....

Aside from anything else, it happens to be fun (something of which too many people have lost sight and contributes enormously to the charm of the game).

Now if you want to really challenge me about awful systems, let me tell you what I think of Schenken.....:-)

regards

[xcurt]

MickyB, on Oct 9 2008, 06:15 PM, said:

Quote

What - you want to play 4cm with strong NT at MP?! Shoot me now. I had some respect for you Fred. About the worst combination I can think of.

I consider strong NT and four-card majors to be much better at MP than IMPs - very important to be able to find your 4-4 and 4-3 major suit part-scores at MPs, where +110 can be much better than +90. For game and slam bidding, on the other hand, you are better off playing five-card majors, which is more important at IMPs.

Weak NT and four-card majors, on the other hand, has little to commend it at either form of scoring.

I agree with this statement, but I think the reasoning is wrong.

4cm/strongNT has a relative advantage at matchpoints because you can conduct rapid and efficient auctions on partscore hands but slower and more informative auctions on game and slam hands, which are upweighted at IMPs. You also give the opponents nastier low-level bidding problems but get nastier high-level competitive problems.

I have a little experience playing these methods in national pair games and they work just fine as long as you put in some artificial methods to fill some of the holes in the system (and all systems have some holes).

[FrancesHinden]

I also prefer 4cM/strong NT (or 14-16 NT) at MPs to IMPs. I've played it occasionally (in speedball and simple system events) and it works fine. It falls over on the hands where you want to bid scientifically to slam or to a delicate 5-2 fit or similar. It gains hugely on the in-and-out nature of the partscore bidding.

It also irritates opponents who are used to playing against 5CM and like to protect on the auction 1M P 2M P P only to discover they are 3-3 in our suit!

[Wackojack]

This hand came up last Wednesday in a sims MP event where I believe at least 90% play 12-14 NT Acol. You are 4th in hand at game all and all pass to you.
♠ Q85
♥ Q43
♦ Q74
♣ AQ104

Of course all weak no trumpers will quite correctly open 1NT. We were playing 14-16NT and my partner who held this hand, took the view that the risk of opps buying the contract in a major was too great and passed.

As the cards lay the opps can make 2♠ on normal play and we can make 1NT on normal play. ♠AK742 ♥952 ♦96 ♣ K96 was 1st in hand and would obviously overcall partner's 1♣ but would be reckless to overcall 1NT. Our way +90 scored 75%, allpass scored 25% and -110 scored 8%. Even without looking at the opps cards, clearly you would want to be playing 12-14NT on this hand. What's more these types of hand come up very often.

Even if a convincing roundabouts and swings argument could be made about the difference between Acol and 5 card major strong no trump systems it is clear that if you are in a field of weak no trumpers and you dont want to risk a bad result then you should play with the field.

Just to repeat; playing Acol in a field of mainly Acol players is rational. That is a good reason (but not the only reason) why Acol persists

[MickyB]

Impact, on Oct 10 2008, 05:35 AM, said:

However you can create quite a decent theoretical system with weak NT and opening lengths with minimum requirements of
S - 5
H - 4
D- 4
C- 3

within the general context of opening suits DOWN the line subject to the above criteria.

Aha - does this involve the lesser-spotted "Half-Walsh", where you need to bypass diamonds to bid spades but not hearts?

[Walddk]

NickRW, on Oct 10 2008, 02:12 AM, said:

Well, you're entitled to your opinion.  Count me out.  Frankly I found Roland's original post ill considered and even offensive - so I definitely don't agree.

Nick

'Offensive' because I think Acol is over and out? Well, if you are that sensitive, there is probably no cure for it. It may be your preferred system, and I don't mind; you are obviously entitled to your opinion.

Perhaps you will grant others the right to express their views too? I did not criticize any human being. In my view, Acol is hopelessly old-fashioned, and I will claim that it is 24/7, whether you think that it's offensive or not. Taking offence on behalf of a bridge system is hilarious.

Roland

[NickRW]

Walddk, on Oct 10 2008, 01:49 PM, said:

NickRW, on Oct 10 2008, 02:12 AM, said:

Well, you're entitled to your opinion.  Count me out.  Frankly I found Roland's original post ill considered and even offensive - so I definitely don't agree.

Nick

'Offensive' because I think Acol is over and out? Well, if you are that sensitive, there is probably no cure for it. It may be your preferred system, and I don't mind; you are obviously entitled to your opinion.

Perhaps you will grant others the right to express their views too? I did not criticize any human being. In my view, Acol is hopelessly old-fashioned, and I will claim that it is 24/7, whether you think that it's offensive or not. Taking offence on behalf of a bridge system is hilarious.

Roland

Roland, most of the more prominent posters on this board count themselves as either "expert" or "world class" or at least quite knowlegable. Yeah fine. You say Acol is 1930s outdated - maybe so - maybe. But the people posting this opinion mostly use what exactly to evaluate hands - er - Milton Work points - also dead ancient - and, in reality, quite inaccurate as has been well enough documented for some years. And the people usng this ancient system of hand evaluation despite evidence of its inefficiency to the contrary decide that Acol is "dead" - humbug - you don't have any idea of how good a limit system can be if it is deconstructed and put back together with 21st century hand valuation. Further, with your current attitude to Acol you'll never get any idea because your eyes are closed.

Instead you want to tie people up - including inexpert people who don't have years to study the game in what - systems littered with forcing sequences - don't tell me even experts don't forget what is forcing and what is not - I've seen it happen even to the Italians.

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

Nick

[han]

Ah, I went through the thread a couple of times and couldn't find the offensive remark, glad that's cleared up.

[NickRW]

Impact, on Oct 10 2008, 04:35 AM, said:

However you can create quite a decent theoretical system with weak NT and opening lengths with minimum requirements of
S - 5
H - 4
D- 4
C- 3

within the general context of opening suits DOWN the line subject to the above criteria.

I'll certainly concede that this 5cM versus 4cM debate is perhaps unnecessarily polarised and the 5 card spades only option has its attractions. Responding to a 1♠ opening with a smattering of high cards can be quite uncomfortable when it only shows 4 and is often made easier when it unconditionally gurantees 5. On the other hand, if you play 5 card hearts as well, you are arguably not opening 1♥ often enough - even at IMP scoring. Put it with (for my money anyway) a strong NT at IMP and a weak one at MP and you have what seems to me to b a viable alternative to both 4 and 5 card majors.

Nick

[NickRW]

han, on Oct 10 2008, 02:17 PM, said:

Ah, I went through the thread a couple of times and couldn't find the offensive remark, glad that's cleared up.

There are no 4 letter words Han - that's right

[helene_t]

NickRW, on Oct 10 2008, 03:15 PM, said:

But the people posting this opinion mostly use what exactly to evaluate hands - er - Milton Work points - also dead ancient - and, in reality, quite inaccurate as has been well enough documented for some years.

I think this is a misunderstanding. When someone says "I open 1NT with 12-14 HCPs" it is implicit that some hands justify up- or downgrading.

It may be problematic to talk in terms of HCPs when it comes to unbalanced hands. Saying "we open 1♣ with 16+ points" leaves some obscurity as to how often this includes a nice hand with 13-14 literal HCPs.

But for balanced hands, it is hardly an issue. Of course we sometimes disagree whether a particular hand is worth a 12-14 1NT opening, but only in narrow borderline cases, and in any case it is irrelevant to a discussion of the relative merits of weak notrump openings.