[bluejak]

I'm unhappy.

I sit down opposite a partner I have only played with once before. We have agreed to play Benjamin Acol, with a weak NT not vul, and a strong NT vulnerable.

I open 1♣ [vulnerable] with

---

which I know from playing over the years with various partners is what you do in Acol when you have a weak NT hand but are not playing a weak NT. Partner is asked and says I have at least four clubs. It becomes critical in the defence and opponents go wrong, miscounting my hand.

When asked, my partner did not know that a three card club opening is part of Acol. It certainly is, and many people have played it.

Tough, we tell opponents, since we had not discussed it we have no agreement. Our agreement is to play Acol but partner did not know it is part of Acol.

Everyone happy with no MI, no adjustment?

[dan_ehh]

I think "partner has 4 ♣s" is misinformation, and the correct answer should have been "We have only played once before. We agreed to play Acol but we do not have solid agreements and misunderstandings may occur".

You said so yourself, "... since we had not discussed it we have no agreement. Our agreement is to play Acol ...".
If this is the answer retrospectively, it should also have been the answer at the critical moment. Actually, I think you should have corrected the explanation when you became declarer.

Slight degression -
Of course, this is a very big problem, because one could argue that this correction strongly implies you really do not have 4 of them and that my take basically means you have to tell them what cards you hold. However, I don't think this is true, because you should offer this correction even when you do have 4 of them. This of course leads to the other side of the problem - opponents may later claim to have been misled by the "correction".
I believe there was an appeal discussing this specific matter not too long ago, which involved a top player in the states. Also a thread in this forum discussing the appeal.

bluejak, on 2010-November-02, 13:04, said:

I'm unhappy.

I sit down opposite a partner I have only played with once before. We have agreed to play Benjamin Acol, with a weak NT not vul, and a strong NT vulnerable.

I open 1♣ [vulnerable] with

---

which I know from playing over the years with various partners is what you do in Acol when you have a weak NT hand but are not playing a weak NT. Partner is asked and says I have at least four clubs. It becomes critical in the defence and opponents go wrong, miscounting my hand.

When asked, my partner did not know that a three card club opening is part of Acol. It certainly is, and many people have played it.

Tough, we tell opponents, since we had not discussed it we have no agreement. Our agreement is to play Acol but partner did not know it is part of Acol.

Everyone happy with no MI, no adjustment?

[Zelandakh]

bluejak, on 2010-November-02, 13:04, said:

Tough, we tell opponents, since we had not discussed it we have no agreement. Our agreement is to play Acol but partner did not know it is part of Acol.

Everyone happy with no MI, no adjustment?

As you well know David, for many Acolites, perhaps even the majority, your example hand would be a 1H (wtp) kind of hand. I am sure that many would never even consider another opening bid with this hand shape outside of their NT range. 'Acol' is a set of generalised agreements and not a codified agreement for individual bids. It means different things in different countries, even different areas of countries.

I note that in this matter the EBU advice is also to open such a hand 1H and for all 1 of a suit opening bids to be 4+. So for a scratch partnership I am indeed happy to rule that the 1C bid was essentially a psyche within the original agreement. However, having done it this one time there is now an understanding that this is a possibility and should be disclosed in future. I think for such a common auction it only takes one such incident for this sort of thing to become an understanding.

In the same manner West's double here is a psyche within the agreement that E-W are reported to have had. It might have workd out very badly had East decided to raise clubs. West took a gamble and got away with it. Now East is aware of the additional hand-types possible for double and can give a different explanation in future. Note that if I were East and agreed these DONT-style bids over 1C I would assume that pass was the proper procedure with a good 1-suiter. I do not think it is reasonable to assume this East could possibly untangle the mess West made; double followed by some number of hearts would surely be interpreted as clubs + hearts.

Finally, if someone bids 1S "any 13 cards" against my 1C I will ask them what hand types they cannot have. If they refuse to be forthcoming then I will then spend some time going through every possible alternative call to find it out. If the TD wants to take issue with this then I will explain that the opps refused to give disclosure. If the opps refuse to answer the questions then I will call the TD myself.

[mycroft]

I'm thinking of the classic weak NT auction:

1NT-X - our rescue system has bids for one- and two- suiters, and uses Pass-forces-XX. Unfortunately, they haven't discussed what to do with the hand they actually have - a 3433 1-count. Responder guesses logically to bid 2C "to play", and XX if doubled, should get the point across. Doubler's side bids on to 3NT (without allowing responder to XX 2C X), and plays the clubs wrong. No MI, no adjustment? Declarer should be expected to work out that there's a hole in the system given to him (if the system was given to him, and not just the meaning of 2C), and be able to do the "bridge logic" that responder did, even though he's never played weak NT in his life?

As a Precision player, I do find it annoying that the opponents get to play "3C Ghestem-or-clubs" against us with impunity: 1C-1H is either whatever crazy thing they've agreed it should be, or natural with hearts because they forgot again. Again, like Ghestem 3C, the ambiguity is more likely to benefit the side without the points; again, like Ghestem 3C, it happens at least one time in 4; again, like Ghestem 3C, the opponents get "the agreement", not "the agreement, and the history".

But I do believe that people should be allowed to forget their agreements, and to benefit from the forget occasionally. I don't really know how to resolve this. (Please note that I ruled on a 2=5=1=5 Flannery opening a couple of weeks ago - I have experience with this person, and believe him that he was looking at 4=5=1=3 when he opened (as he explained. So I know it happens with other things than interference).

[wank]

bluejak, on 2010-November-02, 13:04, said:

I'm unhappy.

I sit down opposite a partner I have only played with once before. We have agreed to play Benjamin Acol, with a weak NT not vul, and a strong NT vulnerable.

I open 1♣ [vulnerable] with

---

which I know from playing over the years with various partners is what you do in Acol when you have a weak NT hand but are not playing a weak NT. Partner is asked and says I have at least four clubs. It becomes critical in the defence and opponents go wrong, miscounting my hand.

When asked, my partner did not know that a three card club opening is part of Acol. It certainly is, and many people have played it.

Tough, we tell opponents, since we had not discussed it we have no agreement. Our agreement is to play Acol but partner did not know it is part of Acol.

Everyone happy with no MI, no adjustment?

one presumes you learnt your acol in the netherlands. in the UK we play acol with 4 card majors.

[blackshoe]

No law against being annoyed by opponents' legal bidding.

[jallerton]

As Gerben's blog explains, "Dutch Acol" includes opening 1♥ on this shape.

In original Acol, the choice of opening bid was partly governed by Opener's rebid, so this shape would open 1♥ only if it happened to be in range for 1♥-2♦-2/3NT.

I agree with dan_ehh that the 4+♣ explanation should have been corrected by the opening bidder before the opening lead

Quote

Law20F5(b] The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is
(i) for a defender, at the end of the play.
(ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.

[bluejak]

dan_ehh, on 2010-November-02, 15:15, said:

I think "partner has 4 ♣s" is misinformation, and the correct answer should have been "We have only played once before. We agreed to play Acol but we do not have solid agreements and misunderstandings may occur".

You said so yourself, "... since we had not discussed it we have no agreement. Our agreement is to play Acol ...".
If this is the answer retrospectively, it should also have been the answer at the critical moment. Actually, I think you should have corrected the explanation when you became declarer.

It was invented. I meant that we finished up defending. Assume that Acol means a three card club suit is possible.

[bluejak]

Zelandakh, on 2010-November-02, 15:35, said:

As you well know David, for many Acolites, perhaps even the majority, your example hand would be a 1H (wtp) kind of hand. I am sure that many would never even consider another opening bid with this hand shape outside of their NT range. 'Acol' is a set of generalised agreements and not a codified agreement for individual bids. It means different things in different countries, even different areas of countries.

I neither "know" nor agree. The majority of Acol players always play a weak NT. Other Acol players know they have to open 1♣ on this hand because there is no rebid otherwise.

Zelandakh, on 2010-November-02, 15:35, said:

I note that in this matter the EBU advice is also to open such a hand 1H and for all 1 of a suit opening bids to be 4+. So for a scratch partnership I am indeed happy to rule that the 1C bid was essentially a psyche within the original agreement. However, having done it this one time there is now an understanding that this is a possibility and should be disclosed in future. I think for such a common auction it only takes one such incident for this sort of thing to become an understanding.

EBU advice is not about Acol, it is about one of two very simple teaching systems, which are based around a weak NT. Of course you show 4+ card suits when you play a weak NT.

[bluejak]

wank, on 2010-November-02, 16:11, said:

one presumes you learnt your acol in the netherlands. in the UK we play acol with 4 card majors.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Acol is a four-card major system. Having lived in England for the last 62 years I learnt Acol in England. One of the first things you learn is to know your rebid, and accordingly occasional three card minors are necessary. An Acol player would not open 1H on the hand and leave themselves with no rebid over 2D.

[NickRW]

As a matter of factual information regarding this side thread of David's, it is true that there is much material from the EBU (and other authors) suggesting that a 4=4=2=3 outside the NT range should be opened 1♥. However, it is also true that if you download the EBU simple systems card it gives the minimum lengths of openers as 4;4;4;3.

More subjectively, I'd be shocked to be told that a 1♣ opener is "4+ cards" or indeed "Acol" (in the part of the country where I play) and find that it is not in fact 4+ cards - regardless of what I used to know about Acol from books 30 years ago - and consider that I had been given MI. People from other parts of the country may not be so shocked, however.

Nick

[dan_ehh]

bluejak, on 2010-November-02, 17:17, said:

It was invented. I meant that we finished up defending. Assume that Acol means a three card club suit is possible.

I had a feeling it was invented.
Still, everything I said stands (except for the declarer correcting part).

I don't think you can tell me to assume that "Acol means a three card club suit is possible".
"Acol" is one word, "3 or more clubs" are four words.
One phrase does not translate into the other.

A more extreme example: "Acol" in Israel basically means a 5533 system with a strong NT. This is of course a great distortion of the original system, however the point is that convention names or system names mean different things for different people.

The crux of the issue here is that your imaginary partner does not know how to provide correct explanations. This is unfortunate but it's not the imaginary opponents' problem. They deserve redress.

[jeremy69]

Quote

Subject to proper disclosure, of course, which is in my view pretty much impossible for something claimed to be "random" or "13 cards". Certainly I don't believe those who describe such a bid as showing 13 cards actually make the bid whenever they have 13 cards, and neither do I believe that it is completely random whether or not they make the bid since there are usually other bids available, too, which are sometimes chosen instead when appropriate.

I agree with this and those who do it in a regular partnership know what sort of hands do get overcalled 1♠. If you say to them, presumably you do not overcall 1♠ on.... and give them a hand covered by other parts of their defence then they get very huffy usually by saying "you know perfectly well what I mean"

[iviehoff]

Going rather OT, people who are quoting EBU advice on which suit to open with a flat hand out of range of 1N, should realise that EBU advice is on the assumption that you are playing a weak NT. If you are playing a weak NT, opening a suit with a flat hand means you are 15+, so you are not embarrassed if partner makes an inconvenient 2 over 1, because you can rebid 2N. But if you are playing strong NT, open a suit with a flat hand, and partner gives an inconvenient 2 level response, you can't rebid 2N, because the trad Acol view is that a 2 over 1 is (good) 8+. So you have to look very carefully at your rebid with a flat hand when choosing your opening bid when playing strong NT.

So in fact the trad Acol/strong NT opening on 4432 12 count is 1S, not 1H, because partner's 2C/D response skewers you if you bid 1H. But if you bid 1S, you can rebid 2H. Note that in trad acol bidding a second suit does not promise 5 in the first suit.

But nonetheless trad Acol/strong NT has to admit the possibility of opening 1C sometimes on a 3 card suit, (or else stiffen up the 2 over 1 requirements). This happens with 4333 hands (any 4-card suit) and also the specific 4243 hand, because in these cases you don't have a convenient rebid over partner's inconvenient 2 level response whether you choose 1D or 1S. (Note that with 4342 you open 1S, as you can raise partner's 2H response, because that is a 5 card suit.)

Opening 1C on any 4333/4432 weak NT hand presumably makes 1C 2+. Or else 1D is also 3+. Whilst some people did this, I don't think it is traditional Acol/strong NT.

Edited to clear up garbles.

[Free]

mfa1010, on 2010-October-31, 14:14, said:

Upon request west explains that he is in trouble about what to bid over 1♣. He can't show a onesuiter except for jumping to 2♥. But with a strong hand that is not ideal, so with his regular partner they have agreed to X and then bid hearts to show this hand type (strong 6-3). It's unclear how much of all this east knows.

I don't buy this argument. If he was planning to show a strong 6-3 hand, he should've started with 1♦ showing ♦+another. He has better values in ♦, for sure this would give a much more accurate picture of his hand.

[nige1]

mfa1010, on 2010-November-02, 12:48, said:

It's just that EW seem so much more likely to get it right at the table than NS. E is a thinking person. Maybe he has noticed the hole already (it's not like it's a small one...). Or maybe he will be able to figure out what is going on if something looks strange underway. In bidding or in defense. NS on the other hand have virtually no chance. They are only told about a piece of the whole system (the meaning of double) and it is unrealistic that they will ever suspect a hole and a consequent offbeat bid. This annoys me.

As far as the original topic is concerned, I agree with mfa1010's posts. Especially as "It's unclear how much of all this east knows"..

Bluejak's" 1♣ opener (when playing "Acol with a strong no-trump") poses an interesting problem in disclosure.

A similar case: you play "Precision with a 15-17 no-trump opener and a 2♦ opener showing 18-19 flat". Is it sufficient to explain your 1♣ opener as "16+"?

Posted to the appropriate forum, were suggestions as to ways in which disclosure laws might be simplified and improved.

[dburn]

I confess myself baffled. "Acol" is a system based on a weak no trump and four-card majors - and therefore, four-card minors. If I sat down opposite a stranger who told me that he wanted to play "Acol with a strong no trump", then whatever he thought he meant by that, it would never occur to me that he intended 1♥-2♦-2NT as anything other than a weak no trump. Nor would it cross my mind that he would open 1♠ with 4-4 in the majors and a balanced hand.

Of course, "Acol with a strong no trump" means that 2/1 responses are not what the founding fathers of Acol intended them to be - they must be prepared to play at least 2NT facing a weak no trump, instead of frequently being made on hands where opener's best chance of a plus score is probably to pass. But if I sat down against bluejak and he told me that his partnership used "Acol with a strong no trump", and then he opened 1♣ on a three-card suit "systemically", and then I messed up the defence because I played him for four clubs, I would certainly summon the constabulary and could save a great deal of judicial time by simultaneously summoning the executioner.

Meanwhile: if in the original case West has said to East "we play double of a strong 1♣ as clubs and another, and East has said "fine", and West doubles a strong club on a 1=6=3=3 shape for reasons known only to himself and utterly unknown to East, then South has no recourse. Indeed, if West were to become declarer he would be under no obligation to tell the opponents before the opening lead that he might be 1=6=3=3 with a good hand; that is not part of his partnership's agreements. But the constabulary should take pains to convince itself that "utterly unknown to East" in the foregoing means precisely that.

[nige1]

dburn, on 2010-November-06, 17:33, said:

I confess myself baffled. "Acol" is a system based on a weak no trump and four-card majors - and therefore, four-card minors. If I sat down opposite a stranger who told me that he wanted to play "Acol with a strong no trump", then whatever he thought he meant by that, it would never occur to me that he intended 1♥-2♦-2NT as anything other than a weak no trump. Nor would it cross my mind that he would open 1♠ with 4-4 in the majors and a balanced hand. Of course, "Acol with a strong no trump" means that 2/1 responses are not what the founding fathers of Acol intended them to be - they must be prepared to play at least 2NT facing a weak no trump, instead of frequently being made on hands where opener's best chance of a plus score is probably to pass. But if I sat down against bluejak and he told me that his partnership used "Acol with a strong no trump", and then he opened 1♣ on a three-card suit "systemically", and then I messed up the defence because I played him for four clubs, I would certainly summon the constabulary and could save a great deal of judicial time by simultaneously summoning the executioner.

When I play Acol with a strong no-trump, 1♣/♦/♥/♠ openers all show at least four cards.

Skid Simon deemed Acol to be an attitude of mind, however -- the title of his preface to "The Acol System of Contract bridge" (1938) by Ben Cohen and Terence Reese. On page 5 of that book, the authors recommend a 1♣ opener with 4333 shape when playing a strong no-trump. That advice is confirmed on page 1 of "Precision Bidding in Acol" (1974) by Eric Crowhurst. And I know lots of modern Acol players who follow that tradition. So in this instance, in my experience, David S is right and David B is wrong.

[bluejak]

dburn, on 2010-November-06, 17:33, said:

I confess myself baffled. "Acol" is a system based on a weak no trump and four-card majors - and therefore, four-card minors.

Come off it David, no it is not, and you and I have played full weekends together with a mini no-trump, a strong no-trump, and playing Acol. We played three card minors.

Further more I do not see the point. I was trying to make a point about MI, and how does a sustained attack on my knowledge of a system I have played for 45 years help the argument about MI?

[mycroft]

nige1, on 2010-November-06, 01:43, said:

A similar case: you play "Precision with a 15-17 no-trump opener and a 2♦ opener showing 18-19 flat". Is it sufficient to explain your 1♣ opener as "16+"?

Of course not. "Artificial and forcing. 16+ unbalanced, 20+ balanced." Almost exactly how I get my "standard Calgary" Precision pairs to explain 1C when asked (but we don't play the Mexican 2D, so it's 18+ balanced).