[cleveritis]

I learned Acol first. And in international competitions I've played Acol with weak NT, Acol Weak NT and 5cM, Acol 2/1, Acol variable and strong NT...

When do these cease to be Acol - who cares. Acol isnt played at the highest level hasnt been for decades.

[msjennifer]

 cleveritis, on 2018-September-25, 22:53, said:

I learned Acol first. And in international competitions I've played Acol with weak NT, Acol Weak NT and 5cM, Acol 2/1, Acol variable and strong NT...

When do these cease to be Acol - who cares. Acol isnt played at the highest level hasnt been for decades.

Sir,since the topic has been raised it looks like they do play Acol.In England one comes across a large number of Seniors who still play ACOL.However as you say it appears only a handful of players( at high level)play ACOL.

[The_Badger]

 cleveritis, on 2018-September-25, 22:53, said:

When do these cease to be Acol - who cares. Acol isnt played at the highest level hasnt been for decades.

It ceased being Acol years ago when strong twos were replaced with weak twos. Modern 5M Acol looks more Kaplan-Sheinwold these days. When you change both the strength of the bids and the length of the suits, it is hardly original. Forget about calling Acol 'Benjaminised', it is seriously 'Bastardised' [change (something) in such a way as to lower its quality or value, typically by adding new elements.] these days. I think many advanced/expert Acol players will agree that whilst Acol will probably never be a 'World Championship Winning System' it was, once upon a time, one of the neatest bidding systems that was ever invented. Personally I believe that the arrival of the original Precision system bought a more neater bidding system to prominence, and with that, plus the emergence of other 5M systems, will eventually consign Acol to the scrap bin. RIP, Acol old boy...

[pescetom]

 The_Badger, on 2018-September-26, 01:45, said:

Personally I believe that the arrival of the original Precision system bought a more neater bidding system to prominence, and with that, plus the emergence of other 5M systems, will eventually consign Acol to the scrap bin. RIP, Acol old boy...

Personally I doubt that any natural based system will survive the current century - but then we won't be around to see.
I suspect you would like Italian Naturale Lungo-Corto which was basically a modern clean up of Acol - but that's declining fast in favour of 5M 2/1.
Strong club and Canape' systems seem to resist more stubbornly, probably because they are simple and work well

[rienzi]

 Draculea, on 2018-September-24, 04:10, said:

does anyone have experience playing acol (4 card major, weak nt) with 2/1 responses being game forcing?
would a system like that qualify as acol?

[rienzi]

[blackshoe]

Nobody plays ACOL. There is no such system.

[AL78]

 Kungsgeten, on 2018-September-25, 03:06, said:

Just saying that the preemptive effect of 1M is a bit lost if its always a strong hand when just being four. Opening a four card 1M when playing strong 1NT is almost as preemptive as opening a weak NT. The "downside" is then when you open 1m with a weak NT and no major (where a weak NT probably would have been better).

I have found when playing 5CM strong NT in an Acol field here in the UK that one of the weaknesses of the system is having to open 1m on hands the field is opening 1NT and having the opposition get their major in at the one level when they wouldn't be able to at the two level. The field therefore goes one off in 1NT whilst you get a bottom when your opponents make 2S.

One of the good things about Acol weak NT is when partner opens 1suit. They either have at least five of them or a decent hand, which can help responder with judgement if the opponents come in. With 5CM strong NT you have to be a bit careful in competition in case partner has opened with a minimum weak NT hand and again if they could only have a 3 card suit when opening 1minor.

[helene_t]

 Kungsgeten, on 2018-September-25, 00:44, said:

I have never really understood the theory behind Acol with weak NT and four card majors. Sure, I understand that it is a natural system and therefore it makes sense -- I just don't understand the merits. The best thing about it must be the minor suit openings, which shows a real suit and always extra playing strength. The same could be said about the majors, but the downside is that it is harder to tell about your length.

The main benefit (to me) fit four card majors is the preemptive effect of the 1M opening. The opening itself might hinder a lower overcall (or you might open their five card suit). It could also be the case that partner raises and fourth hand is in a tougher spot compared to five card majors. I think a lot of these problems for the opponents disappear if playing a weak NT. Now if opener only has four, he'll have a strong NT. Now the opponents probably don't want to enter the auction anyways. You preempt yourself instead.

So with four card majors I'd recommend not opening 1M with a strong NT. I think weak NT fits better with five card majors. The other four card major style is canapé, where you open 1M with 4M and longer side-suit, or 6+M (and maybe some balanced hands).

I would agree with this. But you could also say that strong5 has little merit - after all, if you play 5-card majors it is quite easy to play weak NT so why don't people do that? Basically, people just play what they have been taught, which for historical reasons happens to be weak4 in the UK and strong5 in most other places.

4-card majors has the advantage that you don't have to worry about whether you play Walsh or not, since
1m-1red
1NT
denies a 4-card major just by logic, it doesn't require a partnership agreement.

Weak NT has obvious benefits.

So while there is, IMHO, negative synergy between the benefits of 4-card major and those of weak NT, it's not like either has zero benefits in the context of Acol.

[DavidKok]

For what it's worth, Jan Eric Larsson's "Good, Better, Best" contains summaries of numerical investigation of these systems. He compares these claims through extensive simulations, much more in depth than any other bridge simulation I've seen. About a third of the book is devoted to discussing possible flaws and inaccuracies.

His conclusion are that 4cM and 5cM are about equal on balance, but of the 5cM systems the 5533 system is better than 5542 (which itself is a lot better than 5551) and of the 4cM systems the "HCSD" order beats the others, though "HSCD" is not far behind while "CDHS" is noticeably worse. Furthermore, strong notrump is significantly better than a weak notrump in both 4cM and 5cM systems.

[AL78]

 helene_t, on 2023-April-11, 10:27, said:

4-card majors has the advantage that you don't have to worry about whether you play Walsh or not, since
1m-1red
1NT
denies a 4-card major just by logic, it doesn't require a partnership agreement.

Why?

[diana_eva]

Finally, rienzi's necro worked

[Cyberyeti]

 helene_t, on 2023-April-11, 10:27, said:

I would agree with this. But you could also say that strong5 has little merit - after all, if you play 5-card majors it is quite easy to play weak NT so why don't people do that? Basically, people just play what they have been taught, which for historical reasons happens to be weak4 in the UK and strong5 in most other places.

4-card majors has the advantage that you don't have to worry about whether you play Walsh or not, since
1m-1red
1NT
denies a 4-card major just by logic, it doesn't require a partnership agreement.

Weak NT has obvious benefits.

So while there is, IMHO, negative synergy between the benefits of 4-card major and those of weak NT, it's not like either has zero benefits in the context of Acol.

This is simply not true. The fact that you play 4 card majors, doesn't mean you always open them. There is a style popularised by Crowhurst that we still play where 4m4M32s are opener the minor, we play 4 card majors mainly because 44(32)s are opened 1♥ rather than a shorter minor.

[helene_t]

 AL78, on 2023-April-11, 11:25, said:

Why?

Well, I assume that 4-card majors implies that you always open a 4-card major (if you have one) with 4432 shapes.

There are of course styles such as Dutch Acol and Henderson's book in which you open the minor. I don't understand why anyone would play that, IMHO it combines the disadvantages of 4cM with the disadvantages of 5cM. But to each their own.

[Cyberyeti]

 helene_t, on 2023-April-12, 02:32, said:

Well, I assume that 4-card majors implies that you always open a 4-card major (if you have one) with 4432 shapes.

There are of course styles such as Dutch Acol and Henderson's book in which you open the minor. I don't understand why anyone would play that, IMHO it combines the disadvantages of 4cM with the disadvantages of 5cM. But to each their own.

It works fine as long as your minors are basically always 4 card suits. There is a style where you play a 4 card heart and 5 card spade, meaning you only open 1♣ on 3 with 4333 15-19. Constructive bidding is actually easier playing this style, you lose out when they can overcall your 15+ hands.

[rienzi]

 P_Marlowe, on 2018-September-24, 04:25, said:

The defining feature of Acol: 2/1 responses that are 1 round forces only.
You can play 2/1 responses being game force with 4 card major and weak NT,
but this is certainly not an Acol system.

[AL78]

 helene_t, on 2023-April-12, 02:32, said:

Well, I assume that 4-card majors implies that you always open a 4-card major (if you have one) with 4432 shapes.

There are of course styles such as Dutch Acol and Henderson's book in which you open the minor. I don't understand why anyone would play that, IMHO it combines the disadvantages of 4cM with the disadvantages of 5cM. But to each their own.

One reason is to avoid wrongsiding a NT contract when you have a strong NT hand, responder has a weak hand and only has 1NT available.

[AL78]

 Cyberyeti, on 2023-April-12, 03:58, said:

It works fine as long as your minors are basically always 4 card suits. There is a style where you play a 4 card heart and 5 card spade, meaning you only open 1♣ on 3 with 4333 15-19. Constructive bidding is actually easier playing this style, you lose out when they can overcall your 15+ hands.

I played that a long time ago with one partner, 5CM in spades only, opening 1♥ promises either 5+ hearts or a four card spade suit.

[rienzi]

The Weak Twos seem to have arrived with the EBU Foundation level 2017. It doesn't mean that they exclude the Strong Twos, the choice is a matter for partnership agreement. The Convention Card is the place for them.
If we abandon the Strong Twos in favour of the Weak Twos then we seriously weaken the structure of the system.

[pescetom]

 DavidKok, on 2023-April-11, 11:04, said:

For what it's worth, Jan Eric Larsson's "Good, Better, Best" contains summaries of numerical investigation of these systems. He compares these claims through extensive simulations, much more in depth than any other bridge simulation I've seen. About a third of the book is devoted to discussing possible flaws and inaccuracies.

His conclusion are that 4cM and 5cM are about equal on balance, but of the 5cM systems the 5533 system is better than 5542 (which itself is a lot better than 5551) and of the 4cM systems the "HCSD" order beats the others, though "HSCD" is not far behind while "CDHS" is noticeably worse. Furthermore, strong notrump is significantly better than a weak notrump in both 4cM and 5cM systems.

I am open to the idea that strong notrump is better even with 5cM, but sceptical that 5533 is better than 5542. Where does 5533 gain and how does it outweigh the losses?