[1eyedjack]

helene_t, on Mar 26 2009, 12:07 PM, said:

Yes, but it still seems to be non-forcing in the Standard English Acol system file. Most people at the local club play it as forcing.

Indeed, the criteria for an appropriate system to teach to beginners differ from the criteria for an appropriate system for advanced players who intend to use it in anger in a competitive environment. "Standard English" as promoted by the EBU in its various publications is unashamedly aimed at the beginner market. Nothing wrong with that, mind, but an uninformed outside observer might be forgiven for not appreciating that distinction. Most people at the local club have probably progressed beyond that milestone.

[EricK]

shevek, on Mar 26 2009, 10:58 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Mar 26 2009, 05:14 AM, said:

I agree that 2NT is natural invitational.

Acol is a limit bidding system.  So you pass or bid 2H on a minimum, bid 2NT/3C/3D/3H with an invite, and do something else with a game force.

The messy hands are the slam tries with 3-card heart support, they have to go through fourth suit.

Pass?

Surely not.
Even Reese came to advocate that a sequence like

1♥  -  2♣
2♦

was forcing (I think, can't find the reference)

In the Foreword to "Acol in the 90s" by Reese and Bird (first published 1990):

Quote

Inevitably, there has been a move away from S.J. Simon's lofty advice "When I have nothing to say I say nothing." Several sequences previously played as non-forcing are now treated as forcing (for example 1♠-2♣-2♥, 1♠-2♣-2NT, 1♠-2NT, 1♦-1♠-2♦-2♥). Whatever the technical arguments, the game is easier to play that way.

But they do not advocate that 1♥-2♣-2♦-3♥ is forcing. In fact it shows the same sort of hand as 1♥-1♠-2♦-3♥, except with a ♦ suit instead of a ♠ suit.

[shevek]

1eyedjack, on Mar 26 2009, 02:58 AM, said:

The sequence is traditionally non-forcing in (english style) Acol and is still taught as non-forcing in standard english acol.

That said, there is an emerging trend among modern players who stick with Acol as the basis of their system but insist on tweaking it (as you do), for this sequence to be forcing, and I have to say that in my view it makes a lot of sense.

This emerging(?) modern style (in fact I would say that it has been around for some time), uses a slightly higher than traditional bare minimum for a 2/1 response.

In traditional acol with a weak 1N the sequence 1H-2C-2N shows 15-16 and is non-forcing.  Most modern acol players (despite what it says on the EBU website) accept that this is an inefficient use of bids.  It is sufficiently infrequent that responder will want to pass that it makes more sense for the 2N rebid to have a wider range and be GF, taking strain off the 3N rebid.  This has I think in part driven up (just slightly) the minimum response for a 2/1, to increase the safety in the 2N rebid being GF.  You still get into a few tight 3N spots, but the trade-off is worth it.  It still can't guarantee the strength of a full-blown american 2/1 (even a non GF style one) because you don't want opener to be embarrassed as to whether to pass or raise a 1N response with a 15 to (poor?) 16 count.  The stress in this area is certainly a weakness in the weak 1N, but one of many factors in that argument that is not the subject of this thread.

Once you have driven up the minimum requirements for a 2/1, the window of strength required for a simple preference by responder at the 2 level (following a 2/1) can cope reasonably well with an invitiational hand, freeing up the jump support to show a GF hand, and I know a lot of good players who adopt this method.

So that is no longer Acol?  Perhaps, but you won't find many experienced partnerships playing Acol the way that it is taught in schools, but they at least still call it Acol.

On the hand in question I worry that whichever method I played I may get to the wrong spot, but that is a judgemental point.  West is light on high cards but has nice distribution, until he hears partner bid his void suit, in which responder happens to hold no wasted values.

Thanks for all that. We don't play much Acol in Oz so there is no body of knowledge to refer to, other than decades old texts. I have this idea that Acol and Standard are converging, that some sequences that were non-forcing in Acol have become forcing. Also some forcing sequences in SA have become invitational.
This (the example in the post) seems to one area of divergence.

I think of 1x - 1NT as 6-9 but chunky 9-counts or those with a decent 5-carder are worth 2-over-1. The uncomfortable auctions in Acol start with 1NT on a 9-count followed by 3 passes. Missing 16+9 was acceptable a few decades ago, not now. Added to this you have wrong-sided. Still no-one can be proud of a 16+6 2NT.
A "solution" is to play 5 cd-majors with a forcing notrump. Americans would call this KS. What do English call it and how many do that?

I can see that 1♥ - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ is needed for 9-10 counts with a doubleton heart. I guess I have tended to bid that way with a 3-card limit raise and survived.

[1eyedjack]

shevek, on Mar 27 2009, 09:03 AM, said:

A "solution" is to play 5 cd-majors with a forcing notrump. Americans would call this KS. What do English call it and how many do that?

I have heard it described as "Acol with 5 card majors and a forcing Notrump"
I have played that happily for many years, although some of your forcing NT continuations get a bit complicated. It helps to lose any inhibitions about opening 1NT with a biddable 5 card major.

shevek, on Mar 27 2009, 09:03 AM, said:

I can see that 1♥ - 2♣ - 2♦ - 2♥ is needed for 9-10 counts with a doubleton heart. I guess I have tended to bid that way with a 3-card limit raise and survived.

Yes there is a bit of a trade-off.
If you are going to give simple 2-level preference with a poorly fitting 9-10 count and with a full-blown invite, then opener is under pressure to make a game try on some hands that get you into an uncomfortable 3-level contract (or 2NT) when responder has the worst hand type. As against that, you gain when opener never intended to make another try and you stop one level lower when responder is upper end. Also it makes it harder for the opponents to judge the size of fits when considering balancing, perhaps, and you get the benefit of a forcing jump preference without having to go through a kludgy fourth suit forcing sequence.

[gnasher]

shevek, on Mar 27 2009, 09:03 AM, said:

A "solution" is to play 5 cd-majors with a forcing notrump. Americans would call this KS. What do English call it and how many do that?

They'd generally just describe their methods, eg "weak notrump, 5-card majors, game-forcing two-over-ones". (Or "twos-over-one", if they happen to be competent in their own language.)

"Acol" would be used to describe only a 4-card major, approach forcing system. This is partly because that's what it means, and partly because this usage is (sensibly IMO) encouraged by the regulators.

Of the four combinations of notrump ranges and major-suit lengths, a weak notrump and five-card majors is the rarest. Many younger and/or better players play a strong notrump and five-card majors, and there are places where it's popular to play strong and four-card majors, but the majority still play 4-card majors and a weak notrump.