[mila85]

What does "Acol" mean?
I met players on BBO who play "Acol" and open 5card major and strong no trumph. So I would like to know what it means for you.

How many Acol players are here?
We have "SAYC and 2/1 Discussion" and "Non-Natural System Discussion" but no "Acol Discussion." And from my point of view Acol is more natural than SAYC.

I think SAYC players know that you can make good results with any system and they don't need to learn anything new.
And there are players who are interested in all the non-natural methods, forcing pass systems, strong clubs, relay bidding,... They want to play something special.
I'm in the first group. But I began with Acol.

The idea of my (it's not mine but I play it) system is to open 4 card majors and weak no trumph.
When I compare it to sayc:
1nt - both weak and strong no trumph have some advantages. I think that none of them is better.
1M - When your partner opens standard 1h you are in better position than me. But not much. If my partner has only 4 heards he has at least good 15 poins. So I can bid as if it shows 5 heards. (1h-2h/2nt shows 16-18 hcp and exactly 4 heards)
1m - This is the biggest advantage of Acol.
Partner opens 1c, RHO overcalls 1h and you hold x-xxxx-Kxxx-Kxxx. You bid 3c. Partner has at least 4 clubs (90% 5 clubs) and if he has balanced distribution he must be strong. Will they find their spade fit?
When you open 1d, LHO overcalls and partner doubles (negative), you have always 4card side suit or six diamods or strong no trumph.
....
Opening one of a minor is a real suit as one of a major.

If there are any other Acol players here, how do you play it?
And if you don't play Acol: Do you think that it's a bad system or do you just have your favourite one?

[jikl]

Personally I like Acol. Many people are afraid to try it because you can go for numbers when 1NT gets doubled. However, 1NT is a good pre-empt in many auctions.

People that wimp out and play strong NT with 4 card suits lose most of the advantages that Acol has.

Acol would be a more widely accepted system if it was invented on the other side of the Atlantic.

Another however...

Acol has not done well in international competition. There are defensive measures against any system.

Sean

[hotShot]

ACOL players use strong NT or weak NT, some think that ♠ must be 5.
Lots ACOL player have the 2Level replaced with Benjamin and weak majors.

"Pure" ACOL is very rare, because it is not protected.

SAYC, Frensh Standard, Forum D, .... are systems protected by a national bridge organisation. They define what belongs to the system and what does not.

Playing with 5card ♥ has in fact not much of the 4card suit revolution left and should not be named ACOL.

But i sympathise, that people that start playing ACOL, and modifying it, still think they play ACOL allthough they turned it in some sort ob better minor .....

[belgian_in_TO]

hotShot, on Feb 5 2005, 02:50 PM, said:

SAYC, Frensh Standard, Forum D, .... are systems protected by a national bridge organisation. They define what belongs to the system and what does not.

I now live in Canada (and therefore am a bit out of touch with European bridge), but it seems to me that the Dutch Bridge federation defines a Blue, Red and Green version of ACOL, much like the ACBL defines a Yellow version of Standard American.

<belgian/>

[badderzboy]

There are a number of Acol players on BBO, I know of around 50 myself and I'm sure there are a lot more..

Typical Acol is Weak NT 12-14, 4 Card majors, 2♣Strong, 2 other Acol 2 = 8 playing tricks in that suit but yes a lot play weak 2's in various guises.

Strength of the system is the weak NT in my view - as long as you have an exit routine if u are doubled you tend to be protected by LOTT if your partner can transfer to a 5 card suit if very weak or have a mechanism to find a 4-x fit of some descprition...

It's been a long time since I played 1NTx down whatever!

As long as people bid up the line when I open 1♥ and especially 1♠ I will have 5 most of the time I think it's 85%+ or have at least 15/16 pts with 4 and be rebidding 1NT or whatever.

I love the system personally and find it good to find a natural fit which is obviously the weakness as it pon-points the shape to opps too...

We are also quite lucky to have as good an author as Ron Klinger write some excellent books on the system which helped me learn the system more quickly..

Steve

[Cascade]

At a New Zealand National Congress where 4-card majors and 5-card majors and weak NT and strong NT were all being described as ACOL someone coined the acrostic:

A ny

C ount

O r

L ength

[the hog]

There appears to be a major misconception. Acol originally consisted of a variable NT. Gradually SOME players have adopted the WNT at all vulnerabilities.

With a 4432 shape the suit opened is also subject to some debate. H-C-S-D is not an uncommon order. The Baron group introduced Baronised Acol - bidding your suits up the line. Books by authors such as Crowhurst have further modernised the system by suggesting the advisability of checkback in various auctions and a wider rang NT rebid.

A modern Acol player would robably play 2/1 bids as forcing to 2NT, hence negating the argument by Mr1310 in another thread, that 2S would be non forcing on AKxxx Jxx x AKxx after 1S 2D. Also far more common these days are weak 2 bids or some 2 suited variation rather than Acol 2 bids, and also opening 1C on 4333 shapes outside the NT range.

It is a very playable system, far better imo than Sayc, and still played by a number of people in high level competition.

[mr1303]

My reasons for disliking Acol is mainly due to the fact that almost everyone at my local club plays it, and as a result I find that people who play it get the "sheep" result.

With many different improvements, Acol probably isn't that bad, but the more improvements you introduce, the less you can call it Acol.

What I would consider standard Acol would be: 4 card majors, strong 2s, weak NT, 2/1 forcing for 1 round only, no prepared minor suit openings.

What I would consider modified Acol would be: 5 card spade suit, weak NT, Multi and Lucas 2s, 2/1 promising a rebid, plus a few other bits and pieces. I think 1S P 2NT shows 10-12 balanced. I would ditch this for example

[jikl]

Strong 2s don't have enough frequency. These bids are either put in the 2♣ basket or opened at the one level to allow more destructive/constructive bids at the 2 level.

Sean

[arrows]

I think the most significant feature of Acol is 4 card suit open.

Both strong/weak notrump okey, but seems to me weak notrump
plus wider range 1NT rebid works better, it make sense because opener
already bid once.

Various weak twos. One or one and a half strong two bid is enough.

Many dislikes acol, IMO, because it's hard to command the "pure"
natural auction.

[dogsbreath]

hi all
..as an acol fan i must reply to this thread. It is probably the most difficult 'natural' system to play. 'Modern' Acol methods including 5-card majors and weak-2 are an abortion and totally corrupt the basic ideals of the system.
There are definitely weaknesses in the system, but also strengths ,, it is a difficult system to learn because is completely dependant upon the twin ideals of a weak 1NT and a strong 2-bid. I would NEVER teach a beginner ACOL because y must be a player before y can play Acol .. but would NEVER teach the rubbish mish -mash of 'modern' Acol with weak 2s and 5-card majors..this is grossly inferior to 2/1 and precision ( IMHO .. i cant runt 10million deals to prove it!)
Rgds
Dog

[Free]

If you just play 4 card suits, longest first, lowest of two 4 cards, never support on a 3 card,... then you won't get the top results you really want. However, if you finetune the system, throw out the 2-level openings, and sometimes open your Major before a minor with a 4432, then you'll get much better results if you can handle some sharp contracts.

In Belgium most players know ACOL as following:
1X = 4+ card, longest first, lowest from 4-4, highest from 5-5
1NT = 15-17
2♣ = GF any
2♦/♥/♠ = 8-9 tricks in that suit
2NT = 20-22
Which is quite an awful system. But it's just simple, and many people just want to play some cards and have a little fun, scores aren't important to them...

[EarlPurple]

They decided to invent a "Standard English" a few years ago, part of which insisted on opening the MAJOR when holding a 4-4-3-2 hand of 15+ points with a 4 card major and a 4 card minor.

The general problem of opening the minor comes in a sequence:

1♣ pass 1♥ pass
?

Holding 4-4-3-2, 15-16 points and 4 spades, do you now bid 1♠ or 1NT? If you bid 1NT, partner may not have enough to continue, even if you do play some kind of checkback like new minor forcing, and you will be playing in 1NT, possibly going down with 2♠ cold and nothing on for them. If you rebid 1♠ partner will not know if your hand is balanced nor will he have any indication of your strength. The same issue comes up in any system, of course, but Standard English tries to resolve this by enforcing that you open the major.

However, I don't see the big advantage of this. So now perhaps you can make 2 of a minor but not 1NT and nothing is on for them, and you are certainly going to lose your minor suit fit. True your swing will be -140 instead of -160 (assuming non-vulnerable) but not enough on which to base a system. I would prefer to know that when partner opens 1 of a major it will be a 5-card suit most of the time, and when not it will be balanced and 15+. (Yes you are stuck on 12-14 4-4-4-1 hands). I can raise partner with 3-cards - though I'm not really a big fan of 4-card majors myself. Never really liked it - I guess I was too fearful of being raised with 3 (and I know many experts love 4-3 fits but when I play them the trumps always break 5-1).

[EricK]

EarlPurple, on Feb 6 2005, 06:02 PM, said:

They decided to invent a "Standard English" a few years ago, part of which insisted on opening the MAJOR when holding a 4-4-3-2 hand of 15+ points with a 4 card major and a 4 card minor.

The general problem of opening the minor comes in a sequence:

1♣ pass 1♥ pass
?

Holding 4-4-3-2, 15-16 points and 4 spades, do you now bid 1♠ or 1NT? If you bid 1NT, partner may not have enough to continue, even if you do play some kind of checkback like new minor forcing, and you will be playing in 1NT, possibly going down with 2♠ cold and nothing on for them. If you rebid 1♠ partner will not know if your hand is balanced nor will he have any indication of your strength. The same issue comes up in any system, of course, but Standard English tries to resolve this by enforcing that you open the major.

However, I don't see the big advantage of this. So now perhaps you can make 2 of a minor but not 1NT and nothing is on for them, and you are certainly going to lose your minor suit fit. True your swing will be -140 instead of -160 (assuming non-vulnerable) but not enough on which to base a system. I would prefer to know that when partner opens 1 of a major it will be a 5-card suit most of the time, and when not it will be balanced and 15+. (Yes you are stuck on 12-14 4-4-4-1 hands). I can raise partner with 3-cards - though I'm not really a big fan of 4-card majors myself. Never really liked it - I guess I was too fearful of being raised with 3 (and I know many experts love 4-3 fits but when I play them the trumps always break 5-1).

I don't think any system should be that worried about getting to the wrong partial in a 1NT/2m situation, so this is hardly a problem with Acol. The benefit of the weak NT/4 card major approach is that it makes it harder for the opponents to find their fit at a low level - 1M or 1NT are so much harder to overcall than 1m.

As for the 3 card raise of a potentially 4 card major this is also not really a problem. If you are playing a weak NT then the major suit will either be 5 cards long or you will have extra HCP so in either case there should be no problem in playing 2M.

Eric

[Free]

I've read that some acol players open their Major 4 card suit when they have a 4432 with a 4 card Major and a 4 card minor. This changes the situation a lot when you raise on a 3 card Personally I prefer that approach...

[Wackojack]

EarlPurple, on Feb 6 2005, 01:02 PM, said:

The general problem of opening the minor comes in a sequence:

1♣ pass 1♥ pass
?

Holding 4-4-3-2, 15-16 points and 4 spades, do you now bid 1♠ or 1NT? If you bid 1NT, partner may not have enough to continue, even if you do play some kind of checkback like new minor forcing, and you will be playing in 1NT, possibly going down with 2♠ cold and nothing on for them. If you rebid 1♠ partner will not know if your hand is balanced nor will he have any indication of your strength.

I am curious to know why you think 1♣-p-1♥-p-1♠ is a problem when you are 4234 with 15+HCP. Responder with a weak hand can either bid 2♣ with 4, bid 2♠ with 4 or 3, rebid hearts with long hearts or 1NT balanced. Responder with no 4-card support and a stronger hand can bid 4th suit forcing 2♦ (partner please clarify) or 2 or 3NT depending on stops in the unbid suit. I have heard your view expressed before and didn't understand it. Am I missing something?

BTW if you play up-the-line Acol and weak no-trump as I do. Then an opening bid of 1♠ will only be a 4 carder with 4333 and 15-19HCP. 1♥ can only be a 4 carder with 4333 or 44 in majors and 15-19HCP. 1♣ is always at least 4 cards.

[the saint]

As someone born and raised at the teat on 4CM, I personally love it far more than fives. Openin a prepared minor? Yuck, just wait for the pre-emption and partners subsequent complete inability to judge the auction. Those who open the lower of two 4 carders (Major/Minor) are effectively playing 5CM too. Get the majors in there, get 3 card raising! Get your (weak) nuts on the table and let opps sort themselves out!

Out of curiosity I did an IMP analysis where I did IMPs/board for each opening bid. 1NT and 1M openings running comfortably better than 1 minor openings over a prolonged period of time against good opposition (about 300 boards of an England open trials). And I find this trend continuing too...

Weak NT? High frequency, rapid definition, and I personally like the Crouch/Rosen responses - far better than Stayman/Xfers. But too long for me to go into here. Plus the fact that I've only had a few online bidding practices with them, and can't remember them properly at the monent...

Yeah, it has its structural faults and wrinkles that need to be ironed out a bit, but is it a teensy weensy bit too aggressive of all you scaredy cat 5CM 15-17 people?

Just my few words on the matter...

Alan

P.S. I bet if Lauria/Versace played 4CM 12-14 they would still win everything and everyone would say what a great system it was.

[MickyB]

Yup, Alan is right, short minors do get preempted a lot...It is much better to preempt your own auctions instead by opening 1♠ on a strong NT, that way you aren't giving the opps the satisfaction of having made a good preempt!

I agree that opening the minor from two 4 carders is awful, it is a system with the advantages of neither 4cM nor 5cM.

Interested to hear that weak NT does that well at the table - I believe it loses out slightly in the bidding, but gains in the play from not having told the opps how to defend the hand. Don't think that your evidence supports playing weak+4 in preference to weak+5.

Any info on Crouch/Rosen responses would be appreciated!

[helene_t]

Part of the confusion is that Dutch Acol (Biedemeijer) is sometimes called Acol, and not everybody realizes that it is a very different bidding system.

Acol is more fun than Standard American because you have a lot of choices (which 4-card or 5-card to bid first, whether or not to support partner's opening with 3 trumps, whether or not to conceal a 4-card hearts when partner opens 1♣). In Standard American, you're a slave of the system.

Acol is more intuitive because you don't have to bid a 3-card minor (or lousy 4-card) when you have a good 4-card major.

Standard American is easier because you can make inference from partner's bidding purely on the basis of the system. In Acol, inference is more complicated, and you have to take partner's style into account.

[mila85]

Thanks all for the answers.

I asked because I wanted to know if there are people here with who I can discuss 'Acol' problems. It means that they play the system and know how it works.

Here is one of them:
As I wrote I open 4card major and weak no trupmh. 4441 hands are opened 1d, with singleton diamond 1c.
Opener: 1-4-4-4 13hcp
Responder: 5-4-2-2 7hcp
The bidding goes:
1d-1s
2c-?
The weak responces are only 2s and 2d. We will play in 6card fit when we have 4-4 heards.
Possible solutions:
1. Play 2h as natural (not 4th suit forcing) and weak here. It destroy all the general principles and 2d is very often the best contract (opener has 5+ diamonds and not 4 heards). This is a bad solution.
2. 1d-2d shows 5-4 in majors. I play it as inverted minor now but it's not a problem. Because I play walsh responces and 3c as natural (6 clubs) GF I bid 2c with only few hands. So I can play 2c as natural or 10+ with support. The problem is with strong nt: 1d-2d/? I can bid 2nt now but partner can't invite me. And if partner has minimum I will play 2nt instead of 1nt.
3. Open 1-4-4-4 1h. But I like when 1h opening shows 5 heards when it's 12-15.
4. 1d-1s/1nt is strong nt or 1-4-4-4. I have enough space to ask now. But it means use different answers to new minor forcing than in other sequences. And not to forget it!
What do you think?