[jtfanclub]

rogerclee, on Jun 19 2008, 07:42 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Jun 19 2008, 05:40 PM, said:

Yeah, I forgot, nobody ever passes any more.

I am having a hard time understanding what you are talking about.

When I was taught ACOL, which was many decades ago, when you had a singleton in partner's suit you bid your suit if you liked your hand and you passed if you didn't.

There were hands where you bid 1NT with a singleton because they were too weak to do anything else, but those never made a rebid. So on this auction....

1♥ 1NT
2♦ 3♦

the 3♦ bid showed a hand that bid 1NT because it was balanced, not a hand that bid 1NT because it was unbalanced and weak. Those hands just passed 2♦.

[helene_t]

Not sure if what Deep is playing is Acol. If it is 4card majors with strong notrump, a 2/1 response shows at least 10+ points. The modern style in Acol is 9+ or maybe at least a good 9. So the difference with SAYC is marginal.

[mikeh]

The_Hog, on Jun 20 2008, 12:07 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jun 20 2008, 11:13 AM, said:

Not even close to a 2♠ bid.

A diamond and about a Q or K short.

Art do you even read ops? The op is playing a 4 card M system. Persumably the 1NT response shows 6-9. In that context this is certainly a 2S bid! Responder can't even have a Q more.

I did read the OP and I also don't see this as a 2♠ bid.

Yes, it is maximum in high card, but it really isn't maximum in diamond support.

I would like to hold something like xxx Kx KQxxx xxx for 2♠... a max or near max, with ALL my cards working and GOOD diamonds.. after all, 2♠ is the strongest bid we have..

BTW, if 1N is limited to 6-9 (or 5-9), all kinds of inferences arise.

For one thing, just how many raises do we need? Presumably 5-6 point hands are passing, and so are many 7 counts. So we are raising with 7+ to 9: a narrow range of hands.... and we have 2 ways to raise... thus 3♦, to me, is about an 8 count that really isn't fitting very well, while we have the luxury of assigning to 2♠ the strongest meaning.

As it is, for the reasons I expressed earlier, this hand looks to me much more like a 2♥ preference than it does any form of diamond raise. Partner is allowed to bid again, and 2♥ permits the maximal bidding space, while not excluding diamonds if he has an extra values 5-5. If he is minimum 5=4 or 5=5, then 2♥ is likely to play just fine, thank you, while 3♦ (opposite 5=4) may fail.

[jtfanclub]

helene_t, on Jun 20 2008, 10:14 AM, said:

Not sure if what Deep is playing is Acol. If it is 4card majors with strong notrump, a 2/1 response shows at least 10+ points. The modern style in Acol is 9+ or maybe at least a good 9. So the difference with SAYC is marginal.

Wow, things have changed.

Or maybe I was mistaught, who knows.

[Halo]

If we are talking Acol, two hearts will be passed 99.999% of the time. You are choosing the contract at this point unless you raise diamonds ( or make a forcing bid which is almost inconceivable).

Partner does not have a 17 count or a 16 count (or even most good 15 counts if the 1NT goes to ten points).

[helene_t]

Halo so you say that opener makes either a jumpshift or an offshape 1NT rebid with any unbalanced 16-count?

That is just bad style. Maybe Acol-players are more likely to play that way than SA players are but that doesn't make it more correct in Acol than in SA.

[mikeh]

Halo, on Jun 20 2008, 01:04 PM, said:

If we are talking Acol, two hearts will be passed 99.999% of the time.  You are choosing the contract at this point unless you raise diamonds ( or make a forcing bid which is almost inconceivable).

Partner does not have a 17 count or a 16 count (or even most good 15 counts if the 1NT goes to ten points).

This has to be wrong... opener cannot, in any coherent method, be forced to jump the bidding on, say, x AQxxx KQxx AJx.. or to bid 2N on this shape. What about Kx AKQxx KJxx xx? And so on.

Put another way: I would need confirmation from other Acol players (Frances, where are you?) before I could accept that this is correct.

[the hog]

mikeh, on Jun 20 2008, 11:00 PM, said:

I did read the OP and I also don't see this as a 2♠ bid.

Yes, it is maximum in high card, but it really isn't maximum in diamond support.

I would like to hold something like xxx Kx KQxxx xxx for 2♠... a max or near max, with ALL my cards working and GOOD diamonds.. after all, 2♠ is the strongest bid we have..

BTW, if 1N is limited to 6-9 (or 5-9), all kinds of inferences arise.

For one thing, just how many raises do we need? Presumably 5-6 point hands are passing, and so are many 7 counts. So we are raising with 7+ to 9: a narrow range of hands.... and we have 2 ways to raise... thus 3♦, to me, is about an 8 count that really isn't fitting very well, while we have the luxury of assigning to 2♠ the strongest meaning.

As it is, for the reasons I expressed earlier, this hand looks to me much more like a 2♥ preference than it does any form of diamond raise. Partner is allowed to bid again, and 2♥ permits the maximal bidding space, while not excluding diamonds if he has an extra values 5-5. If he is minimum 5=4 or 5=5, then 2♥ is likely to play just fine, thank you, while 3♦ (opposite 5=4) may fail.

"like xxx Kx KQxxx xxx "

This would be a 2NT bid for me. As 1NT is nf, the 2NT bid is redundant and shows a different type of D raise. In fact as I stated in my earlier post, you have 3 ways to raise D.
3D, 2S and 2NT

And "yes", as you surmised in a subsequent post, opener can have a 16-17 count and bid this way in Acol.

[gnasher]

In modern British Acol as played by tournament players, a two-level response shows enough for game opposite a strong notrump (1M-2x-2NT is FG), and a 1NT response takes care of the rest. Opener's rebids after 1M-1NT are identical in meaning to those in SAYC, except that opener's lower limit may be a little less.

[Halo]

gnasher, on Jun 21 2008, 03:32 AM, said:

In modern British Acol as played by tournament players, a two-level response shows enough for game opposite a strong notrump (1M-2x-2NT is FG), and a 1NT response takes care of the rest. Opener's rebids after 1M-1NT are identical in meaning to those in SAYC, except that opener's lower limit may be a little less.

Gnasher

Yes 2 over 1 is game opposite balanced 15 (a 2NT rebid), with numerous advantages in developing the auction.

But are you saying that tournament Acol players generally rebid 2D on a 17 count in this auction?

I don't at all mind being wrong in my idea of what current tournament players do, but is that what you really meant to say?

[helene_t]

Halo, on Jun 21 2008, 05:35 PM, said:

But are you saying that tournament Acol players generally rebid 2D on a 17 count in this auction?

That is what they do. Points Schmoints but with any 2-suiter short of a GF they rebid 2♦, just like the Americans, French, Itallians etc.

[Halo]

helene_t, on Jun 21 2008, 11:45 AM, said:

Halo, on Jun 21 2008, 05:35 PM, said:

But are you saying that tournament Acol players generally rebid 2D on a 17 count in this auction?

That is what they do. Points Schmoints but with any 2-suiter short of a GF they rebid 2♦, just like the Americans, French, Itallians etc.

OK

And when responder bids 2H, the hand with 17 schmoints does what?

[helene_t]

Just like in other natural systems. Bids someting, like 3♦ or 2NT or 3♥ or maybe 3♣.

[david_c]

Halo, on Jun 21 2008, 06:32 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jun 21 2008, 11:45 AM, said:

Halo, on Jun 21 2008, 05:35 PM, said:

But are you saying that tournament Acol players generally rebid 2D on a 17 count in this auction?

That is what they do. Points Schmoints but with any 2-suiter short of a GF they rebid 2♦, just like the Americans, French, Itallians etc.

OK

And when responder bids 2H, the hand with 17 schmoints does what?

They make a third bid, just like the Americans, French, Italians etc.

[gnasher]

Halo, on Jun 21 2008, 05:35 PM, said:

But are you saying that tournament Acol players generally rebid 2D on a 17 count in this auction?

I agree with Helene's and David's answers.

I think you're right that Acol players used to bid differently. Crowhurst's 1974 Precision Bidding in Acol includes a discussion of what to rebid with AQ875 AJ6 KQJ4 2 after 1♠-1NT. The bids discussed were 2NT and 3♦ (a one-round force).

Things have moved on since then, probably as a result of the same American influences that caused us to stop responding at the two level on eight counts. Nowadays I think almost everyone would rebid 2♦ on Crowhurst's example.

[Halo]

gnasher, on Jun 21 2008, 02:12 PM, said:

Halo, on Jun 21 2008, 05:35 PM, said:

But are you saying that tournament Acol players generally rebid 2D on a 17 count in this auction?

I agree with Helene's and David's answers.

I think you're right that Acol players used to bid differently. Crowhurst's 1974 Precision Bidding in Acol includes a discussion of what to rebid with AQ875 AJ6 KQJ4 2 after 1♠-1NT. The bids discussed were 2NT and 3♦ (a one-round force).

Things have moved on since then, probably as a result of the same American influences that caused us to stop responding at the two level on eight counts. Nowadays I think almost everyone would rebid 2♦ on Crowhurst's example.

I finally give in, hardly possible to do otherwise.

Obviously, I leave you with

x
Kxxxx
AKxx
xxx

I will (and I believe most tournament Acol players will) open this hand.

I might ask you to consider the probability of this hand on the auction, as against the probability of the same hand with 17 points.

Of course, you can't win them all, but how many are you winning.

[gnasher]

Halo, on Jun 21 2008, 08:48 PM, said:

x
Kxxxx
AKxx
xxx

I will (and I believe most tournament Acol players will) open this hand.

I might ask  you to consider the probability of this hand on the auction, as against the probability of the same hand with 17 points.

It's very unlikely that opener will hold this hand, because the opponents would almost always have bid. If you do pass 2♦, the probability that you'll be allowed to to play there is approximately nil. Unless you're going to pass out 2♠ when they bid it, you may as well bid 3♦ now.

By the way, I wouldn't open this hand without at least ♥109, which would give it a veneer of decency.

[the hog]

gnasher, on Jun 22 2008, 05:51 AM, said:

Halo, on Jun 21 2008, 08:48 PM, said:

x
Kxxxx
AKxx
xxx

I will (and I believe most tournament Acol players will) open this hand.

I might ask  you to consider the probability of this hand on the auction, as against the probability of the same hand with 17 points.

It's very unlikely that opener will hold this hand, because the opponents would almost always have bid. If you do pass 2♦, the probability that you'll be allowed to to play there is approximately nil. Unless you're going to pass out 2♠ when they bid it, you may as well bid 3♦ now.

By the way, I wouldn't open this hand without at least ♥109, which would give it a veneer of decency.

I agree with this. I don't know from where Halo gets his examples.