[1eyedjack]

Acol is not very prescriptive. Indeed it comes in a number of flavours. You have to have a prepared rebid when forced, but that is the same in any method. I don't think that there is any distinction between Acol and KS here.

1N is absolutely the normal modern opener. And it is not just about whether 1C.-?-2C is "safe" because the suit is OK. It is as much about pre-emption, cutting out the 1M overcall, and getting in and out of the auction early.

Those who say that in Acol you don't open 1N on 5422 shape are I think falling into the trap of considering what we teach beginners. There is a lot of things that we teach beginners that we would not recommend for experienced players. That said, this is the novice/beginner forum. Should I change my mind in that context or bid what I think is right? Nah - bid what I think is right, every time. How else do you learn?

I remember once on BBO opening a 12-14 1N with 4-2-2-5 shape, the one 5422 shape that most strongly argues for opening 1C, and we got a great score for keeping them out of 4H. I am not saying that opening 1N will always work on such hands but I do remember that the opponent on that occasion was extremely annoyed with me. "You must open 1C with that! You have no rebid problems!" That was at best a neutral argument: Neither do I have any rebid problems after opening 1N. If he were honest, his annoyance stemmed more from the fact that he had been effectively pre-empted than it had to do with the technical merits of my bid.

[PhilG007]

eagles123, on 2013-September-01, 08:48, said:

w/w imps ACOL 4 card majors 12-14NT

---

Spoiler

I opened this 1NT, thinking it was relatively obvious due to the rebid problem after 1 club 1M, but i've looked at the traveller afterwards and only 2 of the other 17 norths have done the same, everyone else went for 1 club opening so wondering if my judgement was off or not basically!

Thanks,

Eagles

edit: we are dealer

I would not even think of opening 1NT on this hand,even if playing a 12-14 For one thing the
shape of the hand is unbalanced 5-4-2-2 is a suit distribution. I would open 1♦ then rebid 2♣
showing a minor 2 suiter and 14 pts max. To open NTs on this hand is to go down among the dead men (!)

[mycroft]

Unfortunately, the way I play it is that 1♦ then 2♣ is "almost forcing, good to almost great hand". So that is right out.

Again, I'm not an Acol person, I'm a K/S person. 1♦ on this hand, playing K/S, is approaching PLM (partnership-limiting manoeuvre). 1♣ is arguable. Other systems are - other systems.

One benefit of 1NT is that of the opponents have the majors - which they frequently do, and which 1♦ is catering for - they have to go looking at the 2 level.

[suleiman22]

I like 1♣ with the systems I play. What if opps have ridiculous spades? You could go down hard in NT. 1♣ seems safer and if partner is weak you are fine.
Suleiman

[Vampyr]

PhilG007, on 2013-September-13, 08:38, said:

I would open 1♦ then rebid 2♣ showing a minor 2 suiter and 14 pts max.

An Acol player would never do this.

[Cyberyeti]

The other thing to consider when opening a weak NT is your runout method when doubled (add a card and I don't mind so much opening a strong NT). If you play one of the methods where partner bids say 2♥ as 4+ in each major as has happened to me, this can be horrible.

[the hog]

Vampyr, on 2013-September-23, 16:22, said:

An Acol player would never do this.

This is not correct. When I first played, many years ago with a very good county player, this was common, as was opening 1S on some
45xx hands, so that you could rebid 2H.

[Vampyr]

the hog, on 2013-September-23, 17:56, said:

This is not correct. When I first played, many years ago with a very good county player, this was common, as was opening 1S on some
45xx hands, so that you could rebid 2H.

Oh, I didn't know that. But it seems to me that the practice has died out.

[the hog]

Vampyr, on 2013-September-23, 18:02, said:

Oh, I didn't know that. But it seems to me that the practice has died out.

Yes, my Majors example has certainly died out. Not so sure about the 4D/5C though. I think good players look at the quality of the C suit and see whether it is worthwhile rebidding.
eg
x
AKx
AQxx
xxxxx
Open 1D
x
AKx
xxxx
AQxxx
Open 1C

[Vampyr]

the hog, on 2013-September-23, 20:46, said:

Yes, my Majors example has certainly died out. Not so sure about the 4D/5C though. I think good players look at the quality of the C suit and see whether it is worthwhile rebidding.

Yes, in your first example it is reasonable to treat the clubs as a 4-card suit. I feel that I myself must have been in this position before, but I can't remember ever opening 1♦ with this sort of hand.

If it is done routinely with this shape, in what jurisdictions does the 1♦ opening require an alert? I am pretty sure it does in the EBU.

[Zelandakh]

I think the 4♠5♥ 1♠ opening died out before I was born. But 1♥ on 4♥5♦ persisted for quite a while (into the 80s even) despite many writers discouraging the practise. It led to many 4-2 heart fits. I think opening a weak (13)45 hand containing very bad clubs with 1♦ is not so unheard of amongst better players but is still not the norm with the rank-and-file. I am also fairly certain that systemically opening 1♦ with (13)45 did not require an alert when I was last playing in EBUland. An obvious example is real diamond Precision. A quick perusal of the Blue Book (pp 11, 14) seems to reinforce that that is still the case.

[campboy]

Zelandakh, on 2013-September-30, 03:01, said:

I think the 4♠5♥ 1♠ opening died out before I was born. But 1♥ on 4♥5♦ persisted for quite a while (into the 80s even) despite many writers discouraging the practise. It led to many 4-2 heart fits. I think opening a weak (13)45 hand containing very bad clubs with 1♦ is not so unheard of amongst better players but is still not the norm with the rank-and-file. I am also fairly certain that systemically opening 1♦ with (13)45 did not require an alert when I was last playing in EBUland. An obvious example is real diamond Precision. A quick perusal of the Blue Book (pp 11, 14) seems to reinforce that that is still the case.

My reading is that it is alertable, by 4H2b: "Because they have a potentially unexpected meaning, players must alert: [...] The first bid in a potential canapé sequence".

[fromageGB]

I go with Zel on this. I open 1♦ on this hand and do not alert, nor has anyone objected. 1♦ guaranteeing 3 cards is natural (3E1) and natural openings are not alerted (4B1) and (4C1A).

Campboy's 4H2b refers to canape which does not apply as you do not necessarily intend to rebid clubs, and if you had a different hand with say diamonds and spades, 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ is not canape. Even if you did choose to rebid 2♣ partner will not expect clubs to be longer. So 1♦ followed by 2♣ is not canape.

[fromageGB]

Hijack interruption - what's the easy way of getting an e acute into this reply box when you do not have one on your keyboard?

[helene_t]

OB 5 G 2 (2) states as alertable "The rebid if in a suit that may be shorter than the first suit, following a
possible canapé opening."

Looks a bid weird, maybe "shorter" should read "longer". In any case the 2♣ rebid should probably be alerted if it is frequently based on 4♦5♣.

[Zelandakh]

fromageGB, on 2013-September-30, 04:22, said:

Hijack interruption - what's the easy way of getting an e acute into this reply box when you do not have one on your keyboard?

Make sure your NumLock is on. Then hold down the Alt key and type 130 on the NumPad. Let go of the Alt key and you should see é. Similarly for Alt-144 if you want a capital É.

[fromageGB]

I can't find any equivalent of the OB clause in the blue book that replaced it. The closest thing may be 4B1b's "has a potentially unexpected meaning". But 2♣ has no unexpected meaning. It doesn't indicate canapé (sorry, Zel, ubuntu must be different, I have to copy from libreoffice, but thanks) either, because the sequence is much more likely to be xx54 or xx55 or xx64.

Maybe this is equivalent to a minor distortion caused by judgement, upgrading or downgrading, and as such is not alerted as no hidden information is conveyed.

[campboy]

fromageGB, on 2013-September-30, 04:12, said:

Campboy's 4H2b refers to canape which does not apply as you do not necessarily intend to rebid clubs, and if you had a different hand with say diamonds and spades, 1♦ 1♥ 1♠ is not canape. Even if you did choose to rebid 2♣ partner will not expect clubs to be longer. So 1♦ followed by 2♣ is not canape.

The first sentence is irrelevant -- the regulation says "potential canapé sequence" so it doesn't matter that other potential sequences are not canapé. I can see that the alertability may depend on whether you have a rebid which shows longer clubs, though. Whenever I've agreed to open 1♦ on xx45 it's been with an unbalanced diamond, so that 1♦ - 1M - 2♣ was definitely canapé and 1♦ - 1M - 1NT showed both minors with diamonds longer or equal.

[Zelandakh]

campboy, on 2013-September-30, 06:00, said:

The first sentence is irrelevant -- the regulation says "potential canapé sequence" so it doesn't matter that other potential sequences are not canapé. I can see that the alertability may depend on whether you have a rebid which shows longer clubs, though. Whenever I've agreed to open 1♦ on xx45 it's been with an unbalanced diamond, so that 1♦ - 1M - 2♣ was definitely canapé and 1♦ - 1M - 1NT showed both minors with diamonds longer or equal.

Out of interest, why do you do it this way round rather than 1NT = ♣ >= ♦; and 2♣ = ♦ > ♣? I thought that 2♣ showing longer clubs was usually only used for limited openings. But in these cases, my guess is that the 1NT/2♣ rebid should be alerted rather than the 1♦ opening.

Oh, and it does not surprise me that it could be different in a Unix-based OS. A quick search threw up this link, which gives 3 possibilities. Also, I saw a post that said the Alt codes worked for someone but they had to use the right Alt key and not the left. So try that too.

[campboy]

Zelandakh, on 2013-September-30, 06:56, said:

Out of interest, why do you do it this way round rather than 1NT = ♣ >= ♦; and 2♣ = ♦ > ♣? I thought that 2♣ showing longer clubs was usually only used for limited openings. But in these cases, my guess is that the 1NT/2♣ rebid should be alerted rather than the 1♦ opening.

Yes, you're right, I was misremembering.