[gordontd]

campboy, on 2011-October-13, 01:03, said:

Presumably she meant to say 'Also in England they say "relay" when they mean "bye-stand". When they mean "relay" they say "sharing".'

Presumably. Though it's hard to see what there is to object to about calling it "sharing" when two tables share a set of boards.

[helene_t]

gordontd, on 2011-October-12, 14:36, said:

Ah, you live in the North, don't you?

Yes but Northerners who don't like that style refer to it as "Southern"

[Zelandakh]

Acol is really just a set of rules for natural bidding, arguably the most important being approach forcing and that fewer bids are forcing than you might think having learned a different rule-set. The first book I read on Acol suggested 5 card majors and a 16-18 nt range - "5 card major Acol" - so I tend to disagree with posters who suggest that 4 card majors is required. In addition there are Dutch and Swiss Acol variants, neither of which is a 4 card major system. Similarly for NT range, only here it is even clearer since the original Acol used a variable NT, 12-14 nv and 15-17 vul.

I think Cyberyeti's answer contains pretty much all the pertinent information. The link given is English Acol which is only one variant. Many English players think that English Acol is Acol but that would not be correct for the wider usage.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2011-October-13, 02:47, said:

Acol is really just a set of rules for natural bidding, arguably the most important being approach forcing and that fewer bids are forcing than you might think having learned a different rule-set. The first book I read on Acol suggested 5 card majors and a 16-18 nt range - "5 card major Acol" - so I tend to disagree with posters who suggest that 4 card majors is required. In addition there are Dutch and Swiss Acol variants, neither of which is a 4 card major system. Similarly for NT range, only here it is even clearer since the original Acol used a variable NT, 12-14 nv and 15-17 vul.

I think Cyberyeti's answer contains pretty much all the pertinent information. The link given is English Acol which is only one variant. Many English players think that English Acol is Acol but that would not be correct for the wider usage.

I think actually most English players think that "Acol" with no qualifier is English Acol. They readily acknowledge that Dutch Acol etc exist, but use the full name if talking about the other variants.

Also there's a prevalence of putting "Acol style" on convention cards when playing pretty much any non 2/1 GF approach forcing system, some of which bear only a passing resemblance to Acol.

Traditional Acol also is very different to modern Acol. Look at what players make a 2/1 on for example, a subject that's been debated on several threads in the past. Also look at what constitutes 1♣-1N when holding a diamond suit.

The variant I was taught nearly 40 years ago by my grandfather was 16-18 1N and "phoney club", which lasted till I got some more modern stuff when playing at school, and then completely overhauled it at university to playing something pretty close to what Sally Horton (as she was then) and Sandra Landy played. I now play (and have done for 15+ years) a probably fairly unique version that culls ideas from all over the place to make something coherent but odd.

[manudude03]

When I started playing bridge, I was brought up playing "Standard Acol". It was a pretty standard 4 card major system with a 12-14 NT, stayman, gerber, blackwood and gambling 3NT, the rest were natural. We were taught to always open the minor with a 4M4m hand (except when 4441). Needless to say when I moved to England for university, it was a bit of a culture shock to find everyone opening the major with a 4324 16 count. After a while with Helene's help, I then discovered that most pairs didn't even know which suit their partner would open with that 4324 16 count .

But yeah, if you don't play a weak NT and 4 card majors, please don't call it plain acol

[Lurpoa]

manudude03, on 2011-October-13, 03:55, said:

When I started playing bridge, I was brought up playing "Standard Acol". It was a pretty standard 4 card major system with a 12-14 NT, stayman, gerber, blackwood and gambling 3NT, the rest were natural. We were taught to always open the minor with a 4M4m hand (except when 4441). Needless to say when I moved to England for university, it was a bit of a culture shock to find everyone opening the major with a 4324 16 count. After a while with Helene's help, I then discovered that most pairs didn't even know which suit their partner would open with that 4324 16 count .

But yeah, if you don't play a weak NT and 4 card majors, please don't call it plain acol

♥♥♥

Yes, but you are talking about standard ENGLISH acol. Please Google it.
In Basic Dutch Acol, the 1NTopener = 15-17.

♥♥♥

[Vampyr]

campboy, on 2011-October-13, 01:03, said:

Presumably she meant to say 'Also in England they say "relay" when they mean "bye-stand". When they mean "relay" they say "sharing".'

Yeah, should have checked my post better!

[blackshoe]

According to Baron Barclay:

Quote

It is also possible to run a game with an even number of tables without a skip. This movement is called a BYE-STAND AND RELAY. One set of boards is out of play and on a bye-stand each round and two tables (usually table 1 and the highest-numbered table) relay boards. During a relay the two tables exchange their boards during the play of each round.

[Vampyr]

wank, on 2011-October-12, 13:12, said:

oh well. it's sad that you don't like it here. be sure to write when you go back to america won't you?

I think you must have a pretty thin skin if you were that offended by my post!

gordontd, on 2011-October-12, 14:34, said:

I don't see why it's backwards to call it by the suit that's bid.

[transfers] It seems backwards to me, especially because when people say "4-suit transfers" they mean transfers to four suits, not that four suit bids are used as transfers (and indeed this is usually not the case). Also the "red suits" could be transferring to something else besides the majors, so the term lacks definition. Would you ask a partner if he'd like to play South African Texas by offering: "Minor-suit transfers at the four level?"

gordontd, on 2011-October-13, 01:51, said:

Presumably. Though it's hard to see what there is to object to about calling it "sharing" when two tables share a set of boards.

That is OK; it is the "relay" boards that are not being relayed but are in fact sitting out that are misnamed.

[SimonFa]

I have found Acol to be a generic term that covers just about anything a person wants to play and it is best to sit down with partner and and discuss what they think it means.

When I first learned the mechanics of the game it meant: Length then strength, bidding up the line with equal length, weak NT and strong 2s. But that was probably the book I and my partner were using to learn the game.

This is a good start to find out a bit more: http://www.bridgeguy...col_bridge.html

[blackshoe]

Note that the alerts and announcements list referenced in that link are based on EBU regulations, so they don't apply in other jurisdictions, such as the ACBL.

[Lurpoa]

SimonFa, on 2011-October-15, 03:29, said:

When I first learned the mechanics of the game it meant: Length then strength, bidding up the line with equal length, weak NT and strong 2s.

♥♥♥

That is about right..... Those are the Basics, and "open 4card major" is a result of that.
Also what you said about sitting down with partner to agree, is right for whatever system you play.

Right ?!

♥♥♥