[gordontd]

WellSpyder, on 2014-July-03, 02:06, said:

What are the key differences between SA and "Acol" with 5M and strong NT?

The strength and forcing nature of 2/1 responses, with various consequences.

[Zelandakh]

And in this part of Germany a pair playing "Standard American" will generally be playing Forum D except for opening 1♣ instead of 1♦ with 4=4=3=2 shape. The common theme seems to be that wherever you live "Standard American" just means some variant of the local standard.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2014-July-03, 02:18, said:

The strength and forcing nature of 2/1 responses, with various consequences.

Also, less importantly, Acol may include between 0 and 3 weak twos, even Lucas Twos... "Acol with a Multi" is aometimes heard as the opponents' initial description of their methods. Also various treatments after 1NT openings, our and theirs. Generally lots of variations are possible.

Acol is less a system than a state of mind...

[FrancesHinden]

WellSpyder, on 2014-July-03, 02:06, said:

What are the key differences between SA and "Acol" with 5M and strong NT?

the two biggest differences are:
SA: a 2/1 promises a rebid; not in Acol
SA: 1X-3X and 1X-2NT are strong and forcing; in Acol they are limit raises and non-forcing


Traditionally Acol had strong 2 openings too.

There are other differences, but they are minor.

p.s. while Acol is a state of mind, IMO it is a state of mind that includes 4-card majors which are a fundamental part.

[Zelandakh]

FrancesHinden, on 2014-July-03, 13:30, said:

p.s. while Acol is a state of mind, IMO it is a state of mind that includes 4-card majors which are a fundamental part.

So you are excluding Swiss Acol? Round here that is the most common version. The first systems I learned were Culbertson (4 card majors) and Acol (with 5 card majors and a 16-18 NT range) so perhaps I think about it a little differently. I think that the idea of 4 card majors and/or a weak NT being a fundamental part of Acol is a very British attitude. The latter is obviously wrong (since variable was very common early on) while there are enough forms with one or both 1M openings promising 5 to invalidate the former too. To me it is no different from saying a 15-17 NT range is fundamental to 2/1 or that a 14-16 range is fundamental to Precision. On the other hand, add an "English" in there before the "Acol" and I am right there with you.

[helene_t]

Acol means that 2♣ is artificial and forcing, and a 1NT response to a suit opening is nonforcing.

SA means that 1NT is strong, and 2♣ is artificial and forcing.

So many systems could be described as either.

[mikeh]

FrancesHinden, on 2014-July-03, 13:30, said:

the two biggest differences are:
SA: a 2/1 promises a rebid; not in Acol
SA: 1X-3X and 1X-2NT are strong and forcing; in Acol they are limit raises and non-forcing


Traditionally Acol had strong 2 openings too.

There are other differences, but they are minor.

p.s. while Acol is a state of mind, IMO it is a state of mind that includes 4-card majors which are a fundamental part.

I don't think SA uses 1x 3x as forcing, not in the past 40+ years anyway. Indeed, I think you have to go back to when SA used 4 card majors to find that treatment at all popular.

[the hog]

spencecat, on 2014-July-02, 08:02, said:

I remember reading a book by Ron Klinger(who happens to be Australian, but is part of the commonwealth nonetheless). He used Acol. I guess some Commonwealth countries use it too. If I ever play bridge abroad, it is best that I get acquainted with the governing laws of the country in question, as well as the most common bidding system in that country. Sometimes the laws and play are virtually identical to the US (as in Canada), other times they are quite different (as in the United Kingdom.) Poland is the most fascinating- many players there play a weak and strong combined club, called Wspolny Jezyk (Polish Club, to non-Polish speakers.) I think that system is by far my favorite. I will have to find an online bridge partner from Poland so we can play the same system.

Ron has not played Acol for decades. He dislikes 4 card Ms. He played Power, his own artificial relay system, or else some artificial 5 card M system with lightish openings.

[the hog]

FrancesHinden, on 2014-July-03, 13:30, said:

the two biggest differences are:
SA: a 2/1 promises a rebid; not in Acol
SA: 1X-3X and 1X-2NT are strong and forcing; in Acol they are limit raises and non-forcing


Traditionally Acol had strong 2 openings too.

There are other differences, but they are minor.

p.s. while Acol is a state of mind, IMO it is a state of mind that includes 4-card majors which are a fundamental part.

"SA: a 2/1 promises a rebid; not in Acol". It certainly does in Baronised Acol, where 2/1 is forcing to 2NT.

[gordontd]

the hog, on 2014-July-04, 01:08, said:

"SA: a 2/1 promises a rebid; not in Acol". It certainly does in Baronised Acol, where 2/1 is forcing to 2NT.

Does anyone still play this? I think it was a minority treatment even in the 70s.

[helene_t]

gordontd, on 2014-July-04, 01:31, said:

Does anyone still play this? I think it was a minority treatment even in the 70s.

We have at least one pair in Leeds that play 2/1 forcing to 2NT in a 4cM 12-14 system. I don't think they have any particular name for the system other than they of cause would call it "Acol" if pressed for a system name.

[Zelandakh]

gordontd, on 2014-July-04, 01:31, said:

Does anyone still play this? I think it was a minority treatment even in the 70s.

I used to play it. It was recommended in a Master Series book from the late 80s/early 90s so is not only a 70s thing.

[gordontd]

Zelandakh, on 2014-July-04, 02:21, said:

I used to play it. It was recommended in a Master Series book from the late 80s/early 90s so is not only a 70s thing.

OK, and you called it Baronised Acol?

[PhilKing]

gordontd, on 2014-July-04, 01:31, said:

Does anyone still play this? I think it was a minority treatment even in the 70s.

Baronised Acol is fairly popular in Australia. In Melbourne there was (and probably still is) a group that play Borinised Acol, which was Jim Borin's interpretation of Acol, but it only produced one hit on Google, so they are in danger of being erased from world history.

[helene_t]

PhilKing, on 2014-July-04, 04:04, said:

Baronised Acol is fairly popular in Australia. In Melbourne there was (and probably still is) a group that play Borinised Acol, which was Jim Borin's interpretation of Acol, but it only produced one hit on Google, so they are in danger of being erased from world history.

Nah, nobody will bother to submit a right-to-be-forgotten request for such a story

[Zelandakh]

gordontd, on 2014-July-04, 02:28, said:

OK, and you called it Baronised Acol?

No, not at all. Although I suppose I could have, since various Baronisms were also included. Of course since "everyone" now plays some Baronised Acol, such as 1♠ - 2♥ = 5+ hearts, I guess any modern Acol system could reasonably be described as Baronised if desired.

[rhm]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-July-02, 08:23, said:

The tournament I mentioned in Pula, about half the people we played were playing Polish club (most of the rest were playing something much closer to standard American or 2/1), it seems to be pretty popular across Eastern Europe.

Because t is a better system though not necessarily a better attitude of mind.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

deleted

[helene_t]

rhm, on 2014-July-04, 04:26, said:

Because t [wj] is a better system though not necessarily a better attitude of mind.

I think you nailed it. Acol is like smoking: Unhealthy, but possibly associated with good social skills.

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2014-July-03, 16:21, said:

So you are excluding Swiss Acol? Round here that is the most common version. The first systems I learned were Culbertson (4 card majors) and Acol (with 5 card majors and a 16-16 NT range)

Gosh that is an unusually narrow range!

Quote

so perhaps I think about it a little differently. I think that the idea of 4 card majors and/or a weak NT being a fundamental part of Acol is a very British attitude. The latter is obviously wrong (since variable was very common early on) while there are enough forms with one or both 1M openings promising 5 to invalidate the former too. To me it is no different from saying a 15-17 NT range is fundamental to 2/1

Isn't it? For "2/1" as a system?

Quote

or that a 14-16 range is fundamental to Precision. On the other hand, add an "English" in there before the "Acol" and I am right there with you.

Acol Road is in London, and this is where the bidding philosophy or system originated. Other forms of Acol may use modifiers, but English need not, as it is the default.