[inquiry]

1) was directed to the hog.

2) Does a 1NT overcall still show 12-14?  Absolutely not, this way disaster comes. Standard 1NT overcalls, or if you are adventuresome, overcall 1NT (weak three suit takeouts)

3) From what I've read, Cappeletti (and Hamilton) use a penalty double after 1NT. How effective is this? Do you use it with partners who are willing?

I like DONT against 1NT that include 15 hcp in the range, Hamilton against 12-14, 11-14 type 1NT, and against 9-12, 10-12, 9-14, 10-13 1NT I prefer either Cansino or modified Cansino (dbl = penalty, 2C = playable in clubs and two other suits, 2D = majors (cansino or majors + diamonds in mod), 2H = hearts, 2S = spades, 2N = minors, 3C = clubs, 3D = diamonds).

4) Do you use transfers with a 12-14 NT, or do you prefer to keep 2D as a bailout in diamonds?

Depends upon partner. Often, I use 2D as game forcing stayman or with two old partners, my own pet convention... invitational 2D, inviting opener to game, strain yet unknown. Opener bids 2H if would reject game try in hearts.... if accept game try in hearts, bids 2S if would reject game try in spades, if would accept game try in spades... then bids 2NT if would reject try in NT (not very likely if accepting both hearts and spades)...etc. So auction can go 1N-2D-2H-pass... responder had game try in hearts, opener rejected... if auction goes 1N-2D-2S-3S Opener rejected game try in spades, responder makes a retry in spades giving opener a chance to change his mind... a very strong game try.

I use the invite 2D with any invintational hand without a four card major (or 2 five card majors). This frees up 2NT, 3C, 3D, and 3H to be transfers if you like (I play this way). 3D, 3H are game forcing transfers. 3C and 2NT are either very weak signoff or game forcing. So... 1N-2N-3C-3H responder shows long clubs. 4+ hearts, and game force. I also play 1N-2C-2D-3D as artificial and forcing, asking opener to bid a 3 card major, 1N-2C-2D-3H as invintational with longer hearts than spades, etc.

5) When you play this in a field where a strong NT is more common (i.e. BBO), do you alert?

I try to remember to announce my notrump range everytime I use it, regardless of the range...at least the first time used against any pair. This gets sillly an hour or two into playing against the same pair in the BBO.

6) Playing a strong NT, and using the rule of 20 for openings, I will almost always pass a 4333 shape with 12 pts, and sometimes pass 4332s and (less often)5332s. Do you open all/almost all 12-14 balanced hands? Do you open doggy looking 15 pointers as 1NT?

I open 4-3-3-3 hands, 12 point hands 1NT. This is why one chooses the weak NT system. I also open 5-2-3-3 11 point hands 1NT (wider range). Do I open 15 point hands 1NT? Generally no. However, hand evaluation is an important part of bridge. If you think a 15 point hand is not worth 15 points, then it is not a 15 point hand....  

[the hog]

Richard has answered a number of the following questions from a Moscito systemic point of view, where we play an 11-14 NT.

For all of last year I played a 2/1 system using a 12-14 NT and I will assume that we are playing a 5 card M system, or 4 card Acol in the following replies.


1) For The Hog - since you open 6322 with 6m, do you open 5422 with 5m?  Either/both cases, do you do this only with a weak long suit?

Almost never with 4S and 5m, frequently with 4H and a 5 card m to solve rebid problems. We have and frequently do open 2245 2254 shapes with 1NT. Particularly the former to avoid rebid problems. Again with the ms, the NT opening is pre emptive in intent.

2) When you overcall 1 of a suit, does this also mean 12-14?

Definitely not. We play a weird NT overcalling structure.
Over (1m) 1NT = 15-17 bal or 6-10 with an unspecified 6 card Major.
Over (1M) 1NT shows 9-14 points and precisely 4 in the other M and some longer m; which is often called Raptor in the States.

3) From what I've read, Cappeletti (and Hamilton) use a penalty double after 1NT. How effective is this? Do you use it with partners who are willing?

Haven't been stung with a penalty x in a long time. I agree with Richard, we don't like them much either. Having said this, we do use penalty xs, but I can't remember when we caught the opps last.
I think Cappelletti is a really poor defence to NT, weak or strong. We use Asptro 2C shows H and another, 2D shows S and another. With both Ms you link to the weaker M.


4) Do you use transfers with a 12-14 NT, or do you prefer to keep 2D as a bailout in diamonds?

We have used 4 suit transfers, now we use Keri. For those who don't know this system of responses to 1NT, have a look at it. Personally I believe this is the best structure over 1NT that I have ever seen. More and more pairs here are using it and it could eventually make Stayman redundant.


5) When you play this in a field where a strong NT is more common (i.e. BBO), do you alert?

We always post a convention card. In ftf bridge we don't alert because most here play a 12-14 NT. On line we announce our methods to the opps at the beginning. As the weak nt is so prevalent here, I must admit I occasionally forget to alert.

6) Playing a strong NT, and using the rule of 20 for openings, I will almost always pass a 4333 shape with 12 pts, and sometimes pass 4332s and (less often)5332s. Do you open all/almost all 12-14 balanced hands? Do you open doggy looking 15 pointers as 1NT?

Ok 2 answers here.
a) Playing 2/1 with a 12-14 NT. We open ALL 12-14 counts in ALL seats. We hardly ever downgrade a 15 count, preferring instead to play a dodgy contract if we get raised to 3NT.

Playing Moscito. Richard has answered this. With 11-14 hands we have the choice of opening 1NT or 1D to show H or 1H to show S. The choice depends on many factors - how good is the M, would I like it led is probably the main one. as we virtually always raise with 3 card support I don't really want to play in a Moysian with xxx opposite xxxx so if the M is poor we open 1NT. As Richard points out, however, this is a whole different philosophy to bidding and as such is not really that relevant to this discussion. Most pairs would not have a choice as to what systemic opening they can make.

[inquiry]

Keri... ugh.... Nice but requires a lot of extra work. Anyone wanting to know about Keri should get "Bid Better, Much Better after Opening 1 No-Trump" by Ron Klinger, and be ready to spend a lot of energy learning it... and then, find a parnter as dedicated as you are so you can actually play it.

Hog, so you are saying Keri works well with weak notrump?

[the hog]

"Hog, so you are saying Keri works well with weak notrump?  "

NP with a weak NT. Ron Klinger has actually written 2 versions of "Bid Better....", one based on a 15-18 NT the other based on  12-14 . Virtually identical books. Have had numerous discussions with Ron about using it over a weak nt . Keri might be a bit of work, but is definitely worth it.
Apart from being able to stop in 2M with an inv hand facing a min NT opening, you are able to find excellent 5m contracts when 3NT is going down. In Sayc, 2/1, Acol etc the following auction has slammish connotations

1NT  2D*  2H  3C*
Where 2D is a t/f and 3c is a 2nd suit
So most will bid 2D followed by 3NT, when 5C could be the best spot. Keri avoids this.

Anyway isn't anything that is worth while worth a bit of extra work? As well as that, playing against opps we don't know, its nice to say "We don't play Stayman".

[EricK]

I have "Bid Better ..." by Klinger, although I have never played Keri in real life.

It seems a good structure, but what do you do with  weak 4-4-4-1 or similar?

Playing Stayman, one can bid 2C and pass any response.  Playing Keri, does one sit for 1NT and rescue if doubled, or guess to transfer to D,H or S?

Also, don't sequences like 1NT 2C 2D 2NT 3C 3D 3H 3NT, give lots of opportunities for the defence to make lead directing doubles?

I am interested in whether these problems are more imagined than real

Eric

[the hog]

This thread has come a long way from its original discussion of Acol. Perhaps we should move it to a thread based specifically on NTs and responses to such? It would seem that quite a few people are not familiar with Scanian responses - (very good), or Keri (even better imho - sorry Richard  8) ). That neither of these methods is more commonly played in the States is probably due to unfamiliarity with the methods and the inertia of the typical bridge player.

In response to EricK. I have not played garbage stayman in years. I think its silly, so I have not missed it. All of our stayman responses have been constructive. Playing Keri, 2C is constructive anyway. In response to your question as to what we do with weak hands, I generally take out to my best suit if vul.

1NT 2C 2D 2NT is a gf. You are no worse off than any pair in the room which is investigating a 4-4 M fit.

1NT 2C 2D 3C/D are inv hands with long ms. The only time you are going to get a lead directing x here is in this sequence

1NT 2C 2D 3D, where they can x the C bid. If you have an inv hand with C and they x, you are laughing anyway.

"Also, don't sequences like 1NT 2C 2D 2NT 3C 3D 3H 3NT, give lots of opportunities for the defence to make lead directing doubles."

Granted, doesn't seem to happen that often though and sometimes when it does you can avoid a dodgy 3NT to play in a making Moyse. Also sometimes you can play a xx contract judging by the sort of waste paper some players x on these days. That has happened a bit recently and 2CXX making, perhaps with an overtrick, does not do much for their morale in a long team's match.

[hrothgar]

Any chance that you could provide a basic Keri summary?
I haven't had the chance to really look it over

[inquiry]

Quote

Any chance that you could provide a basic Keri summary?
I haven't had the chance to really look it over

I am neither endorsing or validating that the following web page has keri right. I remember reading about it in a borrowed book on improving NT, but no one I knows plays it, so I read it as an educational exercise. Since you asked, I googled the term and found this colorful webpage describing Keri... looking over it, I don't think this is exactly as I remember keri, but it appears  close. Maybe someone more up on keri could comment.

http://www3.cm.deaki...ge/1NT-keri.htm

[the hog]

This was written by the guy I played with last year; it is in fact an good summary of Keri and true to the original.
I have the notes and would be pleased to email them to anyone who wants them.

Very briefly:
Keri structure

1NT      2C puppet to 2D.   4333s/4432s and good 5   card Ms

          2D/H      Transfers to S. If GF with a 5 carder,  suit will be Qxxxx at best - else go via 2C

          2S      Range probe OR s/suited slam hand

         2NT      Transfer to 3C

        3C/D/H/S      GF with a s/t in the next suit
        Usually 4441, 4450, 4351, 3361. Not 1345

       3NT      To play



Continuations

1NT      2C
2D        2H      Invit with 4/5 H Various continuations
         
1NT     2C
2D       2NT          GF. various hand shapes

The above allows for 4333 opposite 4333/5332 to play in 3NT rather than 4M where you may have 9 tricks only.

The system also includes canape transfers in the Ms to show GF and inv hands with both Ms at an acceptable level.

Obviously the above is a very condensed summary.

[oldfogey]

On the two occasions I've started a topic it's been invaded and taken over by 'high-flyers' ("advanced" or "world-class" posters, like US Generals with rows of medal ribbons) talking at great length about things irrelevant to the subject.     I wish they'd keep to their own patch.     No offence X,Y, Z and W.     ;D

[Rhutobello]

Quote

On the two occasions I've started a topic it's been invaded and taken over by 'high-flyers' ("advanced" or "world-class" posters, like US Generals with rows of medal ribbons) talking at great length about things irrelevant to the subject.     I wish they'd keep to their own patch.     No offence X,Y, Z and W.     ;D

LOL, take no offence from this either, but if you ask a question, who is the better to answer this then just those who you blame:)

If a thread goes out of the hand, maybe you have asked the wrong question, or maybe the question is to broad, but the info given by the partisipants I think is good for us "lowerlevel" players:)

[inquiry]

Quote

On the two occasions I've started a topic it's been invaded and taken over by 'high-flyers' ("advanced" or "world-class" posters, like US Generals with rows of medal ribbons) talking at great length about things irrelevant to the subject.     I wish they'd keep to their own patch.     No offence X,Y, Z and W.     ;D

As the only "world class" poster responding in this thread, I guess you must be specifically referring to me as "x".  

When the post was initially made, I read it but did not post, as I am not a person Acol questions should be directed to. But when a beginner (pbleighton) thinking about playing weak notrump, which I do frequently play, posed a question about switching to weak notrump, and asked about getting a bad result because missing 4-4 major fit. I thought the three replies to his question, including one from you (oldfogey)did not address his concern. So I weighed in that his concern was justified, and even pointed out that his exact concern was why matchpoint precision suggest not open weak NT with any four card major.

Later, again the same beginner then asked six very specific questions, none ACOL-specific, one addressed specifically to one person, so I answered the other five, as did several other posters, because everyone has their own ideas. From these diverse six questions, you then get post focusing on the idea raised in these responses. This is the way forum threads frequently, as a matter of fact, almost always go. They develop a life of their own when one persons answers includes a related question that then leads to branching. It certainly isn't limited to threads started by you.

In fact, until this specific response, all my post in thread have been in specific response to specific questions asking for help (write up on Keri, for example). This is the essences of how branching occurs. A perfect example of this branching is your own post in this thread that the thread has gone off topic, and both my reply and the one by Rhutobello. You found it interesting enough to complain about degradation of a topic, creating the same kind of off topic item in the thread you were complaining about, and then at least two of us felt inspired to respond, extending the off-topicness of the issue you raised yourself. You may find this a bad thing, but threads that grow and expand are actually good in my opinion.

And like Rhutobello, I take no offense in your comments, after all, I have a chest full of row upon row of medals, so must have a very thick skin.    But I find it odd that you would suggest these posters (including myself) should stay in our own patch, since I didn't know some patches were limited to specific people.

[byroner53]

Having read the postings re: Acol with interest & as an Acol practitioner of 25+ yrs  I should like to add my 'two-penny-worth' to the discussion.
I dissagree with Draco that weak NT (12-14) is generally Tournament Acol but it is probably appropriate to playing casual bridge on BBO with non-regular partners - a feature of on-line bridge.
I can well understand Orla being a "scaredy cat" (doesn't sound your style  ) of being left in 1NT with little support from ptr. In my experience this should seldom occur; either ptr will trans. for weak t/o or ops will intervene.
It also seems to me that you have everything to gain by making a weak 1NT opening, esp. when non-vul. against vul. ops.  I would go so far to say that the limit should be extended to 11-14 hcp when 3rd in hand.  It may be possible to engineer a profitable sacrifice with little risk: often ops will not be able to collect a large enough penalty to compensate them for loss of their vul. game
Concerning weak NT being a feature of Tournament Acol, in my opinion to use weak NT, irrespective of vul., in Tournament (playing for imp's) or rubber (playing for money) bridge, is foolhardy.

Yes, bidding a weak NT when non-vul. makes certain hands (bal. 11-14hcp) easy to bid, but I am strongly of the opinion that when you are vul. you must treat it with respect. For this reason when playing with a regular ptr. I prefer the variable NT ref. to by Gordon who started this thread.  Note of caution! .. this is fine playing with a regular 'understanding' ptr., but is difficult in BBO with casual ptrs as all responses have to be modified accordingly.

Incidentally, does anyone remember when t/o doubles were ref. to as "Sputnik" doubles, or is my memory playing tricks  :-/

Cheers,  Charlie

[Laird]

Hi Charlie

Sure I remember Sputnik doubles, used to have it on my profile but was getting regular complaints about not calling it by its proper name of negative double so i just changed it to avoid confusion.

Better watch out you will be changing the point of this Acol thread  ;D

John

[byroner53]

Thanks John, ... for reminding me!
Of course, "Sputnik" doubles were negative doubles not t/o as I wrote in my posting.
But I guess you know me and my memory  
Cheers, Charlie

[hallway]

Well, now that Charlie & John have put in their two penneth worth so shall I  ;D

Way down here in the BLN department  (that stands for BeginnerLearnerNovice by the by) (If you want to comment on that pls start anoher thread )  ......now where was I ? oh yes  ACOL !

I am very fond of our weak 1NT 12-14 Balanced Opener  -  there's no need to worry about one's faulty judgment  ;D     We play it as 4432,4333, 5(minor)332.
- over to you P you're in the driver's seat.    It can / does put a spoke in the BLNOpps wheel - they can't get started at the 1 level  

Likewise our 1NT response is a wee gem 6 - 9 hcp not necessarily balanced , denying a holding of a 4 card suit that could be bid at the 1 level.   No ambiguity - nice.

And ofcourse the BLN's greatest asset the 4 / 4 fit.   Such a pleasure to sign  score sheets 3NT making 3-5 with all the other tables with their 5/3 fits having bid to 4H/S going variable sums of light .  (Now I know thousands of you will have sound mathematical probabilities in favour of the 5 card opener but I liked the odds on Fri when the above actually happened twice in 24 boards  ;D )

But when all is said and done isn't the first essential in Bidding to simply be having a 'legal' conversation at the table with one's Partner with  both of you 'speaking' the same language .  

And then there is .......JUDGMENT....... for which there is no System :'(      A BLN forever.... :-/

[oldfogey]

What is Acol?    That is the topic - the definition of the Acol system.    About three replies addressed this.    The question on the use of weak NT was relevant, but became a point of divergence as we got Matchpoint Precision, Kaplan-Scheinwald, Nightmare, Moscito, and question and answer about the definition of Keri.

Of course no topic is banned to any poster, but if he is going to contribute to it he might have the consideration to keep to the topic, even if a query, such as the weak NT one, tempts him to branch into his pet systems and theories.    There must be forums or topics that cover these, or they could be started as "Scientific Systems", "Modern Systems", "Advanced Systems", or whatever he prefers.     I promise I will not trespass on his patch to talk about Acol, etc.

My other topic received worse treatment.     It was under 'Find a Partner', and sought an Acol-using partner.    Yet again we got Nightmare, Moscito, Forcing Pass, as well as game theory, the science of information exchange, and scientifically designed systems.    What have these to do with finding an Acol partner?

One expert poster has expressed disregard for Acol, and described Acol, SAYC and 2/1 as obsolete.    Maybe they are, but one wonders why he bothers to read such topics as Find an Acol Partner.

[quote]

LOL, take no offence from this either, but if you ask a question, who is the better to answer this then just those who you blame:)

If a thread goes out of the hand, maybe you have asked the wrong question, or maybe the question is to broad, but the info given by the partisipants I think is good for us "lowerlevel" players:)

Rhutobello, if you read the question  raised when I started the topic you will see that the people referred to made no attempt to answer it, and self-proclaimedly are not interested in it.    The question was not too broad, but specific.    What do you mean by "asked the wrong question"?    Should I have asked a question that required discussion of scientifically-designed systems, etc?    If you are a lower-level player perhaps you'd do better to use simpler systems for the time being;  but it's your life.

[inquiry]

Quote

[size=2]What is Acol?    That is the topic - the definition of the Acol system.    About three replies addressed this.    The question on the use of weak NT was relevant, but became a point of divergence as we got Matchpoint Precision, Kaplan-Scheinwald, Nightmare, Moscito, and question and answer about the definition of Keri.

Well once again, you point your finger directly at me with three of these comment. I am the only one who mentioned matchpoint precision and kaplan-scheinwold, and I a) ridiculed the mention of keri when it was raised by another poster and then went and found a web-link for keri when someone asked about (even though I do not play nor even like keri).

Let's handle my introduction of the phrases "matchpoint precision" and "Kaplan-Sheinwold." As I said I don't play ACOL, but the question was about weak notrump. I only introduced matchpoint precision to point out that one system had modified it's weak notrump for exactly the reason that questioner was asking his question. That is all I said about MP Precision. I then I added KS to explain the experience behind my view that weak notrump works ok even at MP despite the problem with missing 4-4 fits on part-score hands. Never once did I advocate people play either system or try to change the topic of this thread from ACOL to these other systems. That is, I have not once advocated any pet theory at all, nor try to switch people from ACOL to either of these systems.

I do admit your find an acol partnership thread has been responded too somewhat poorly. If you look, you will find that I am not among the responders to that one. I almost responded volunteering to play ACOL with you. I have played it once in a while, but I am a beginner at it, so I thought maybe not qualified to be volunteering myself.

But ok, to make my post relevant to your first post, I will address your intitial questions. Where you said "So there are not many features defining ACOL.    Yet we see described as ACOL, e.g. 15-17 NT, 5-card majors, 5-card Spades (why?), weak 2s in S, H and D, and sometimes a 2C opening which obviously isn't good enough to force to game.

From my very limited understanding of ACOL...
1) What feature defines acol? To me it is the ACOL two bids that no one bothered to discuss. Opening 2H or 2S with a good 8/9 trick hand.

2) The times I play Acol, I play 12-14 1NT

3) Why 5S? I think this comes from dutch ACOL where they open 1H when 4-4 in the majors to keep the bidding at the one level when looking for 8 card major fit.

I think acol is losing its unique appearance because of conventions like multi-2D, and strong 2C which can include acol 2 in major hand and the "drop dead" 2H and 2S responses to 2C. Once you take away the ACOL 2 bids from ACOL, the system becomes very much like other systems, at least in my humble opinion.

[EricK]

What is Acol?

Here is something from rec.games.bridge by David Burn (English International), who, by the way, does not play Acol by choice.

Acol is not a system; it's a state of mind. "Get in cheap, get out quick" was Simon's watchword, and that about sums it up.

Here is another quote from the same post

It has often been a source of some bafflement to me that, whereas five-card majors and a weak no trump is a perfectly playable method without much preliminary discussion, as is four-card majors and a strong no trump, most "natural bidding" in the world at levels other than the highest has tended to be based either on "weak and four" or "strong and five". Zia remarked, a couple of years ago, that he couldn't understand this either - "if you are going to play a weak notrump, then you *must* play five-card majors", were his words.

So there you have it!

Eric

[Cave_Draco]

Good points, Ben.

However, I don't know of many who still play "vanilla" Acol. I ditched "vanilla" Acol over 30 years ago,  .

1) The Acol 2 bid is alive & well as the Benjamin 2C but 2H/S bids are so much more useful as Weak 2s.
2D has always been the theoretician's "problem child" be it Flannery, Multi, Tartan... etc. Benji uses the bid to distinguish between distributional & semi-balanced hands. You can open a Benji 2C with a powerful 2-suiter.  Maybe someone plays Benji SAYC but I've never seen it; Benji Acol, on the other claw, is fairly standard.

2) The Weak NT is not integral to Acol, it's just more common with Acol than it is with 5-card major systems. It fits in with being able to bid 4-card majors somewhat better, IMO.
When one opens 1 of a suit in Acol, one is announcing "I have points (15+)" and/or "I have distribution"; as opposed to a system like SAYC, where 1M says "I have distibution, might have points too" and 1m says "I don't have a Strong NT opening".

3) I've had debates about the 5-card S suit implication. To some extent its justifiication depends, IMO, on what system one is playing against.
I prefer to grab the Spade suit if I can and quite like the inferences that flow from Acol's handling of 4-4-4-1 hands.
Playing against 5-card major systems, I see no good reason not to grab the Spade suit; playing Acol V Acol it is less clear.

4) Oops, lol. Acol has "always" allowed a "prepared" Club, but there is no way I am going to allow opps to play "short club", or "inconvenient minor", I paid the table stakes...

5) The other key point about Acol is the concept of limit raises, if memory serves they originated in Acol? I still have a problem with the Jacoby 2NT, .

P.S. to Eric...  At IMPs "Get in cheap, get out quick" is not a winning strategy, at MP...  .
Zia has... a reputation, but not as a theoretician; mostly it's what people learn, 5-card majors & Strong NT are "safe"... we'll all live to a ripe old age,  :.
Wrt "if you are going to play a weak notrump, then you *must* play five-card majors" as I pointed out above; playing the Weak NT a 1NT bid says "I don't have distribution & am 12-14, you decide, P".