[EzioBridge]

Hi,

I'm really just a novice, but being UK-based am learning ACOL.
Even my tutor says that it is a system very much designed 'to seek good game contracts whenever possible'.


Although that's exactly what you want in duplicate 'Teams' events, it strikes me that it's inherently a rather unsuitable system for 'Pairs' events, where there's no real bias to wards 'game' hands whatsoever.

How do other bidding systems compare to ACOL at Pairs? Are most popular bidding systems similarly disadvantaged? Is it actually a disadvantage in practice, or do all systems have pros/cons and, at my fairly 'beginner'/'learner' level it really doesn't make much difference?

Thanks for people's thoughts or insights.

[Tramticket]

There are swings and roundabouts. Playing a weak no trump is less of a risk at pairs, because if you get doubled and go for a number it is just one board rather than a huge IMP swing against you. But this doesn't happen often and more importantly, opening a weak no trump can be a very profitable source of part-score gains when the opponents can't compete with their balanced hands.

On the other hand, you sometimes find yourself playing in 1NT rather than an eight-card fit in a major, which the strong no trumpers have found.

I think that modern 2-over-1 systems are well equipped at game bidding because they have established a forcing auction earlier on, but less well-equipped in part-score auctions.

To be honest, it is more important to play a system that you know and thoroughly understand. I have played Acol for nearly 40 years and I am happy to continue doing so.

[gordontd]

EzioBridge, on 2021-December-10, 05:45, said:

Even my tutor says that it is a system very much designed 'to seek good game contracts whenever possible'.


Although that's exactly what you want in duplicate 'Teams' events, it strikes me that it's inherently a rather unsuitable system for 'Pairs' events, where there's no real bias to wards 'game' hands whatsoever.

I have to disagree with your tutor: any advantage that Acol may have relies on its ability to stop in part-scores on appropriate hands.

[AL78]

I only have experience of Acol and 5 card majors (not 2/1), both weak and strong NT, and my limited experience of bidding systems suggests whatever you play, there will be occasionas where it does well and where it does badly, and it will depend on what the field is largely playing. If you are playing a different NT range to most of the field, there will be occasions where you play NT the other way round to the majority, which can work very well or very badly if one of the defensive hands can be classed as dangerous. Ultimately what matters is the core system is something you are comfortable with, and you have good agreements as to what bids mean when the opponents interfere, which they will do frequently at MPs.

[pescetom]

I think Gordontd has it right: the more natural a system really is, the better it will locate viable part scores, which is useful at pairs (although hardly enough to offset the many other areas in which the system is outgunned).

Beyond that, it's important for a beginner to get familiar with both pairs and teams, and recognize that Acol is probably just a stepping stone towards something more advanced in the future.

[Tramticket]

pescetom, on 2021-December-10, 08:51, said:

... and recognize that Acol is probably just a stepping stone towards something more advanced in the future.

Some move on from Acol. But, Acol can be a pretty sophisticated system if played properly and there is no reason why players need treat Acol as a stepping stone.

[mycroft]

Note: K/S, not Acol, player here. But that shouldn't be relevant to my answer.

My read from experience is that GordonTD is correct on the technical advantages Acol has over (especially American-influenced) strong NT, 2/1GF systems. But that, too, is not relevant to my answer.

The biggest advantage Acol has in the UK is Tramticket's side comment: "has played Acol for 40 years...". As has everybody else in the club (even if they don't now, even if they don't prefer it, they have and can). Which means you can get partners. Maybe even Tramticket-level partners, at least once or twice.

Bridge is unfortunately an incredibly cliquey game, and one of the hardest things to do is to break out of the group you are in, either when you outgrow it or you are willing to work on outgrowing it more than the group is. Playing a system that not everybody in the "next group" knows how to play is just another barrier to entry.

Same argument applies for the (one or two) people you hope to mentor you (occasionally, odd question, don't leech, ...) If you play a system they don't understand thoroughly, you're going to get less advice and it will be less good (sometimes actively bad). If you play Acol in the UK, again even if they don't play Acol in their regular partnerships any more, they will still know the Acol Way.

I would give the same advice for strong NT in my local Canada, or Polish Club in Warsawa. Play what the locals play, and you can always get a game.

Having said that, technical advantages/disadvantages aside, the effort required to learn "a matchpoint system" and "an IMPs system" will always be better spent learning a single system more thoroughly. Especially at the "learning bridge" stage, but MikeH, for instance, frequently says in these forums that his system is tuned to long-form IMP matches. That doesn't stop him from winning more than his share of matchpoint games with his "IMP system". And he's no longer "learning bridge" (except in the way that we all are...)

[DavidKok]

An added benefit of learning the system that all the people around you are playing is that you simultaneously learn how to defend against their bidding. I'm not sure how dominant Acol is in UK clubs, but I would definitely go with the majority system or at least with a well-represented system.

I do think that 2/1 can help beginning players develop their bidding skills and bridge judgement more quickly than older systems, especially if you regularly play IMPs. But I don't think it outweighs the argument above.

[Douglas43]

Lots of good advice from Mycroft and AL78. I play Acol and think its a good pairs system because it's good for part-scores and fine for games. But it's less effective at slam level.

A club night might feature 12 part-scores, 10 games and 2 slams, and at pairs each board is worth the same. But at teams, the slams are worth much, much, more than the part-scores. Hence Acol is less effective in team of 4. Most England teams of 4 sides seem to play a strong NT / 5 card major system.

I'm an experienced player with a respectable NGS rating and the limitations on my game seldom come from the bidding system.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2021-December-10, 10:58, said:

An added benefit of learning the system that all the people around you are playing is that you simultaneously learn how to defend against their bidding. I'm not sure how dominant Acol is in UK clubs, but I would definitely go with the majority system or at least with a well-represented system.

I agree with almost all said so far, in particular this point.

But a dominant system can bow out remarkably quickly once its time has come: first France, then Turkey, now Italy all gave up their 4-card major systems to embrace 5-card major in the flavour current at that moment. Now our beginners start off learning 2/1 and the percentage playing the national 4-card major system has dropped from around 70% to 20% (0% in serious competition) in just a few years. I wouldn't be surprised if UK followed suit.

[Douglas43]

pescetom, on 2021-December-10, 13:39, said:

I agree with almost all said so far, in particular this point.

But a dominant system can bow out remarkably quickly once its time has come: first France, then Turkey, now Italy all gave up their 4-card major systems to embrace 5-card major in the flavour current at that moment. Now our beginners start off learning 2/1 and the percentage playing the national 4-card major system has dropped from around 70% to 20% (0% in serious competition) in just a few years. I wouldn't be surprised if UK followed suit.

Predictions are difficult, particularly about the future. When I started out the fashion of the day was Precision Club, but strong club never really swept the board as many expected. Anyway, the game would be much less interesting if everyone played the same methods.

[helene_t]

EzioBridge, on 2021-December-10, 05:45, said:

How do other bidding systems compare to ACOL at Pairs? Are most popular bidding systems similarly disadvantaged?

Compared to 5-card major systems with strong NT (strong5), Acol is poor at slam bidding (at least in uncontested auctions), because responder usually can't establish a game force straight away, and also opener has limited options with strong hands. This is primarily a concern at teams.

On the other hand, Acol wins when responder has some 9-11 points which can make a more descriptive response than the "dustbin" 1NT response. This is particularly useful for partscore hands, which are more important at pairs.

The non-forcing 1NT response in Acol, plus the weak NT opening, makes you play 1NT more often than strong5 pairs would, which is often considered an advantage at pairs.

For bidding game contracts, Acol is less accurate, at least in uncontested auctions, but on the other hand Acol leaks less information to the opponents which sometimes gives you an extra trick.

Acol also tends to be played with fewer conventions than strong5, which is an advantage at pairs because pairs is quite exhausting and you don't want to spend energy on remembering conventions.

So I think Acol is better suited for pairs than for teams, compared to strong5.

But arguably, strong club systems are even more geared towards pairs than Acol is.

In any case, the differences between popular systems w.r.t. pairs and teams performance is small, and it is far more important just to play a system which you are comfortable with. It would be a mistake to play different systems at different forms of scoring - that is just confusing yourself for very little gain.

[TMorris]

Agreeing with the others - it is much more important to play a system that you know well than a system that is ideal. Unless you get to county A team level Acol will do very well for you if you understand it properly. Even then you can do well with it. When (if) you are close to that you can reconsider.

[pescetom]

Douglas43, on 2021-December-11, 02:32, said:

Predictions are difficult, particularly about the future.

It's always a good quote.
I was just looking at the system cards for the imminent Bermuda Bowl and saw that all three pairs of England are playing some flavour of 5-card majors with strong NT.

[Bad_Wolf]

Weak NT can be devastating when not vul. The risk of missing a major is real, but overstated in my experience. Example; yesterday (in an imps tournament)...

---

We are vul. We have missed our 9 card heart fit. Worst possible advertisement for weak NT right? Wrong. As often happens 1N-1 was a push against 3H-1.

[DavidKok]

3♥-1 by West? That's quite impressive by NS. North needs to defend very well to not be thrown in repeatedly - I couldn't have done it!

[nige1]

Bob and Jim Sharples were brilliant at Acol theory and practice, arguably, the best bidders of all time, They were the leading EBU grandmasters, winning many consecutive bidding magazine competiitions

[paulg]

pescetom, on 2022-March-26, 15:46, said:

I was just looking at the system cards for the imminent Bermuda Bowl and saw that all three pairs of England are playing some flavour of 5-card majors with strong NT.

Five-card majors and strong no notrump dominates at the top of the UK game, whereas Acol still dominates the clubs. However at the last world championships in Wuhan, Jagger-Allerton were playing Acol in the England Open team. However whether a club player would recognise their system as Acol is debatable, in the same way that all the top pairs have lots of gadgets to fix their system choice.

When it comes to pairs, it makes a lot of sense to play a similar system to the field if you think you are a stronger player. Many years ago, when Sally Brock and Nicola Smith played in the USA for some time, they changed from Acol to five-card majors and strong no trump to stop the highs and lows of playing against the field.