[kereru67]

Maybe they grew up on Acol and still use them? Most of my club still prefers 4-card, but I'm aware that 5 card is very much the norm in the US and in serious competition. Can someone please explain the advantages and disadvantages of 5 vs 4, and why one might be better than the other in duplicate, IMPs and rubber?

[DavidKok]

Almost nobody at high level plays four card majors. It is practically extinct.

In theory, there are some advantages and disadvantages to 4cM compared to 5cM. For decades people enjoyed debating the issue. However, simulations, current theory and top player's habits all loudly scream the same thing: four card majors are inferior. Sure, you will have some gains and losses, some swings and roundabouts. But on average, it's worse. Personally I do not think it's close.

If you want to look into the classical arguments, I like Roy Hughes' "How to build a bidding system". For a more modern take, I recommend David Collier's blog, where you can find multiple evaluations of 4cM systems. If you are curious about simulations, Jan Eric Larsson's "Good, Better, Best" is the only work that took a decent stab at this.

[Cyberyeti]

Does anybody play canape these days ?

[DavidKok]

Even fewer people than play 4cM. Personally I think canapé can actually be extremely strong when done juuust right, but this is an extreme minority view. In the larger world of bridge players canapé is more of a myth than a method. And, relating this to the title of the thread: I don't know of any top pairs that play canapé, not even a single partnership. I know a few that tried and turned away from it though.

[kereru67]

DavidKok, on 2026-October-02, 11:43, said:

Even fewer people than play 4cM. Personally I think canapé can actually be extremely strong when done juuust right, but this is an extreme minority view. In the larger world of bridge players canapé is more of a myth than a method. And, relating this to the title of the thread: I don't know of any top pairs that play canapé, not even a single partnership. I know a few that tried and turned away from it though.

What about in rubber bridge? Even if 5 card majors are still better, what impact does the change in scoring system have on optimal bidding?

[DavidKok]

I don't know, but my initial guess is that this another one of the fairy tales from before people knew what they were doing. It might be that some systems are particularly suited to particular forms of scoring, but I think it is much more common for people to invent an excuse that their system is of course only meant for some particular situation, that way they don't have to engage with the idea that it might just be bad.

Bidding theory has improved a lot the past 50 or so years. At the same time, 4cM has basically disappeared at higher level. I think it's not just not a coincidence, I think the second is a major contribution to the first ([sic], note the cause and effect I am suggesting). The fact that simulations, expert tendencies and bidding theory all point in the same direction - 5cM is better than 4cM - further supports this suggestion. Despite that, none of of these observations, even combined, are conclusive, but if all the evidence we can get isn't enough then why bother asking at all.

[kereru67]

DavidKok, on 2026-October-03, 02:23, said:

I don't know, but my initial guess is that this another one of the fairy tales from before people knew what they were doing. It might be that some systems are particularly suited to particular forms of scoring, but I think it is much more common for people to invent an excuse that their system is of course only meant for some particular situation, that way they don't have to engage with the idea that it might just be bad.

Bidding theory has improved a lot the past 50 or so years. At the same time, 4cM has basically disappeared at higher level. I think it's not just not a coincidence, I think the second is a major contribution to the first ([sic], note the cause and effect I am suggesting). The fact that simulations, expert tendencies and bidding theory all point in the same direction - 5cM is better than 4cM - further supports this suggestion. Despite that, none of of these observations, even combined, are conclusive, but if all the evidence we can get isn't enough then why bother asking at all.

So basically the clubs (at least in UK and other Acol countries) still teach Acol to beginners because it's relatively easy to understand, even though it's inferior?

[DavidKok]

I have not played or lived in the UK. My impression, almost entirely based on online discussions, is that it's more a combination of factors. I have heard people cite the following factors for teaching beginners Acol in the UK:

• By learning the systems the opponents are playing you are not just learning how to play, you are also learning how to defend. This cuts the learning curve by half.
  
• By learning the system everybody around you plays (or knows how to play) you can find a partner. By rejecting the majority system you might have a lot of difficulty finding a partner.
  
• If you are going to play pickup or amateur-expert or rubber, you need to know the most common system anyway. So learn it first.
  
• Acol is easy to learn (but difficult to master).
  
• Acol is good.
  
• By choosing a different system you are playing anti-field. This means that your score will often be pre-determined by your system and not reflective of your skill.
  
• By choosing an anti-field system you are missing out on lots of valuable opportunities to improve your skill, since your situation will not only not be comparable to other tables, the local experts might not be willing or able to engage with the problem you faced.

Personally I agree with most of these but disagree with 4 (I think 2/1 GF is genuinely easier to learn), 5 (as mentioned above, but at the beginner level this is hardly relevant) and 6 (I think there is lots of skill expression in any system). However, from the perspective of a bridge teacher for beginners, I think 1 & 2 alone are decisive regardless of system merits.

Notice how I'm asserting that not only is Acol not particularly easy to understand, I also think it is inferior. However, my personal experience has also been that discussions on what to teach beginners focus much more on learning curve and ability to fit in, and not on the ability of the system to produce good results. Personally I agree with this take, and think the learning curve is more important than the quality of the system.

[Cyberyeti]

I think 2/1 is easy for beginners playing against beginners, where the 2+ 1♣ is not treated as a massive invitation to crowd the auction, and fine for experts who have the judgment and methods to deal with the interference. There can be issues in between. Old fashioned Acol has the virtue that you bid suits you actually hold, and there are strong inferences in some sequences about shape from what you haven't bid.

[paulg]

kereru67, on 2026-October-03, 02:52, said:

So basically the clubs (at least in UK and other Acol countries) still teach Acol to beginners because it's relatively easy to understand, even though it's inferior?

They teach Acol because all the teaching material is for Acol and there is no material provided, by the authorities, for other systems. Also if you go into any club and play with other beginners they all play Acol and you can play with anyone.

[paulg]

My regular teammates play Acol, four-card majors and a weak no trump. They have represented Scotland in the (UK) Home Internationals and the European Team Championships, so I think it is fair to say that they are playing at a high level.

Of course they have a lot of agreements and their system does not bear any resemblance to what is taught to beginners.

My experience, scoring up with them, is that it is the weak no trump that is the weak part of the system. Although it has a pre-emptive value, it allows the opponents to compete when you hold a strong no trump because a strong no trump has greater pre-emptive value, albeit less often.

[blackshoe]

Some two years ago I started playing with a new partner. Part of the reason for choosing her was that in our pre-startup discussions I expressed an interest in Precision, and she said that she used to play it and was willing to try it again. So I gave her a copy of Dan Neil's Standard Modern Precision. She still hasn't read it, and we're still playing Standard American, which IMO is much inferior to 2/1, but she won't play 2/1 because she doesn't like Forcing or Semi-Forcing NT. Or so she says. I think it's more "I've been playing Standard American for forty years and I don't want to put any effort into learning anything new. I just want to come to the club, socialize, play some hands, and go home." Not what I was hoping for in a partnership, I do sympathize to the extent that I don't want to go hunting for a new partner again. Put it another way: we're both lazy. :-)

[kereru67]

paulg, on 2026-October-03, 05:50, said:

My regular teammates play Acol, four-card majors and a weak no trump. They have represented Scotland in the (UK) Home Internationals and the European Team Championships, so I think it is fair to say that they are playing at a high level.

Of course they have a lot of agreements and their system does not bear any resemblance to what is taught to beginners.

My experience, scoring up with them, is that it is the weak no trump that is the weak part of the system. Although it has a pre-emptive value, it allows the opponents to compete when you hold a strong no trump because a strong no trump has greater pre-emptive value, albeit less often.

What's the issue with the weak no trump? It can't be all that often that it goes -3 doubled vul. Usually if it doesn't make, then the opponents could have scored better by bidding. Also, why is it that 4 card majors is usually combined with a weak NT, and 5 card majors with a strong NT? Are there issues with 4cm/strong NT or 5cm/weak NT? Because no system caters for every hand you might be dealt, sometimes you have to choose which lie to tell.

[awm]

 kereru67, on 2026-October-03, 22:37, said:

What's the issue with the weak no trump? It can't be all that often that it goes -3 doubled vul. Usually if it doesn't make, then the opponents could have scored better by bidding. Also, why is it that 4 card majors is usually combined with a weak NT, and 5 card majors with a strong NT? Are there issues with 4cm/strong NT or 5cm/weak NT? Because no system caters for every hand you might be dealt, sometimes you have to choose which lie to tell.

The biggest issue with weak notrump is what happens on the STRONG notrump hands. By opening a suit you make it much easier for opponents to intervene and create some awkward decisions for openers. Even if opponents pass, your game auctions after the strong notrump will be more revealing and help opponents defend accurately.

There are some technical issues with combining four card majors and strong notrump. Most basic is your responses to 1M — Acol relies on the idea that the hand without 5M has extras, and defines 2/1 bids as “enough for game opposite strong notrump” so this obviously won’t work in a 4M/strong NT system. 2/1 GF relies on a forcing NT and correcting to a 5-2 major fit a lot, which leaves opener stuck if he could have a balanced hand with 4M. SAYC and SEF use 2M as a waiting bid a lot, which is at least a bit strange to be rebidding a four card suit. More serious issues arise in competition over 1M, where you want responder to raise a lot on three, which is somewhat protected if 4M opener has extras and not so much if he could have 12 balanced.

[mw64ahw]

blackshoe, on 2026-October-03, 08:13, said:

She still hasn't read it, and we're still playing Standard American, which IMO is much inferior to 2/1, but she won't play 2/1 because she doesn't like Forcing or Semi-Forcing NT.

I learnt the original Forcing NT via Goren's 5-card Majors, but prefer NF. Once you remove the 3-card Majors and cater for some of the 6-card minors I find 2/1 game invitational provides more optionality in designing a subsequent bidding structure; it takes a bit of work and is not for the faint-hearted.

I also play some Acol with local players, but few have moved beyond the basics, but I tend to score better playing an anti-field system.

[TMorris]

I play a weak nt and although I play four card majors I open the minor before the major with balanced hands so it is close to a five card majors system. There are clear issues with a weak nt. I think a large part of the advantage of strong and five is that lots of people have put a lot of effort into solving the many problems that arise from that system. That hasn't happened with a weak nt.

I see people ask questions in a strong and five context here about auctions and much of the time these questions don't arise for me so there are issues with strong and five.

When I watch viewgraph I see some Danes and Germans in particular playing a weak nt in their top league competitions so it is clearly feasible.

I also remember Chris Jagger playing a weak nt I think with Jeffrey Allerton in the Europeans.

My conclusion is that strong and five is very popular so gets more attention and hence more of it's problems are known and resolved but the difference is much smaller than it seems if one looks at the popularity of the systems.

I think it is much more important to know your system well than which one you play.