[euclidz]

Is there any feature(s) that define Acol from SAYC? I know there are many Systems and I know that some (e.g. Precision) are so different that anyone playing that system can not suggest that they are playing Acol but is also know that there are players playing many different values which to me look more like SAYC than Acol but they believe that they are playing Acol. So my question is - where is the line in the sand, what is it that a player must or must not do to define themselves as Acol or SAYC?

[Vampyr]

 euclidz, on 2016-November-06, 15:33, said:

Is there any feature(s) that define Acol from SAYC? I know there are many Systems and I know that some (e.g. Precision) are so different that anyone playing that system can not suggest that they are playing Acol but is also know that there are players playing many different values which to me look more like SAYC than Acol but they believe that they are playing Acol. So my question is - where is the line in the sand, what is it that a player must or must not do to define themselves as Acol or SAYC?

The best way to find out is to get ahold of a yellow card, but anyway 5-card majors, 3 weak twos and strong NT are part of SA. Many people have incorporTed these features into Acol, though.

The main difference is the strength of 2/1s. In Stndard American they promise another bid, and there are some auctions that are game forcing and some that aren't.

[Zelandakh]

Acol is a family of systems based around an approach-forcing style of bidding. Standard American is another family of systems but there is some overlap between the two. SEF/Forum D is yet another family - that also has a little overlap with the Acol family and a great deal of overlap with Standard American.

If I am playing a form of Acol with 5 card majors and a strong NT, which is the first form of the Acol family that I personally learned, then it could quite possibly be described quite correctly as being in any of these 3 families of systems depending on what else was included. Sometimes you cannot take a system and immediately classify as one thing or the other - as already mentioned, there are overlaps.

On the subject of 2 over 1s, while I agree with Stefanie that Acol generally has lighter minimum requirements than SA, this is not a necessary part of Acol. There are plenty of pairs that play a 2 over 1 as "promising another bid", or "forcing to 2NT", or "forcing to 2 of Opener's suit". None of these agreements would be enough to disqualify a system from being Acol, at least not for me. In the end it matters less what you call it than that you both agree.

Of course the corollary of this lack of detail is that you should not ordinarily describe a call as "Acol" to an opponent as they may well have a different interpretation of what that means. That in turn makes it rather moot whether the opps say they are playing Acol, SA or Standard Ukrainian. They need to tell you what their bids mean so what they actually call their system makes no difference whatsoever.

[helene_t]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-November-07, 08:25, said:

On the subject of 2 over 1s, while I agree with Stefanie that Acol generally has lighter minimum requirements than SA, this is not a necessary part of Acol. There are plenty of pairs that play a 2 over 1 as "promising another bid", or "forcing to 2NT", or "forcing to 2 of Opener's suit".

Just curious - if you play 5 and strong and 2/1 forcing to 2NT, in what way is your system better described as "Acol" than as SA? I can understand that if you play strong and 5 and 2/1 forcing only to 2M, you would rather call it Acol than SA.

[Zelandakh]

 helene_t, on 2016-November-07, 08:28, said:

Just curious - if you play 5 and strong and 2/1 forcing to 2NT, in what way is your system better described as "Acol" than as SA? I can understand that if you play strong and 5 and 2/1 forcing only to 2M, you would rather call it Acol than SA.

If you started with Stone Age 5 card major Acol including Strong Twos but decided to play a strong NT throughout rather than the traditional variable NT but left everything else exactly as it is in the base system, do you not think that it would be reasonable to describe this as Acol? Of course if you started with SA and decided to switch to Strong Twos for reasons best known to yourself and then took on a few "Acolisms" then describing exactly the same system as SA would also be reasonable. I doubt you could say that either set of changes is so great as to make the base system invalid, which is rather the point here.

[Tramticket]

For players in the UK, Acol is usually considered as being a system based on weak NT and four-card majors.

Yes, historically Acol players used different NT ranges (often a variable NT, with 12-14 non-vulnerable and 16-18 vulnerable). But Acol has come to mean a weak NT system.

I don't think that five-card majors have ever featured as part of the Acol system in Britain. But I am aware that players outside the UK describe their five-card major systems as Acol.

Acol traditionally featured a strong-two openings (Acol Twos), but few would now play strong twos.

[Vampyr]

 Tramticket, on 2016-November-07, 08:47, said:

For players in the UK, Acol is usually considered as being a system based on weak NT and four-card majors.

...

I don't think that five-card majors have ever featured as part of the Acol system in Britain. But I am aware that players outside the UK describe their five-card major systems as Acol.

What is true is that if people give their system description as simply "Acol" they are likely to be playing weak NT and four-card majors. Similarly if their description consists of "Benji Acol". However, I don't think that different choices here disqualify a system from being Acol. I play 5-card major Acol with most of my partners.

I am interested to know what qualifies you to speak for all players in the UK

[euclidz]

Thanks for the helpful replies.

[helene_t]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-November-07, 08:45, said:

If you started with Stone Age 5 card major Acol including Strong Twos but decided to play a strong NT throughout rather than the traditional variable NT but left everything else exactly as it is in the base system, do you not think that it would be reasonable to describe this as Acol? Of course if you started with SA and decided to switch to Strong Twos for reasons best known to yourself and then took on a few "Acolisms" then describing exactly the same system as SA would also be reasonable. I doubt you could say that either set of changes is so great as to make the base system invalid, which is rather the point here.

Hmmm it sounds like "Acol" might just mean "Strong twos" if I understand you correctly. Or maybe it means "Gambling 3NT", as Fluffy says it means in Spain.

I wonder if putting the word "Acol" in the general approach section of the CC is anything other than window dressing. The forcing character of 2/1 bids are rarely something opps are very interested in knowing, except maybe if you play some system with non-forcing 2/1 such as Vienna, but in that case you alert your 2/1 which should be enough. Same with the 2-openings (in case somebody thinks that "Acol" implies anything with respect to 2-openings, which in my experience is not the case except that the 2♣ is strong and artificial, but again, that will be alerted or anounced whatever it means).

So if "Acol" means anything at all I think it should be 4444 as opposed to 5533 (which is also not anouncable but the distinction might of of interest to opps).

I suppose, if "Acol" means "At least one of the following: 4cM, weak NT, nf 1NT response, strong 2s, rule of 19/20 openings" then it might be meaningful concept in other contexts than CCs.

[Zelandakh]

 helene_t, on 2016-November-07, 10:13, said:

Hmmm it sounds like "Acol" might just mean "Strong twos" if I understand you correctly.

If this is what you took from my post then I did a poor job. I used Strong Twos to take a factor that was obviously more Acol than SA and this was more obvious and direct than the "Acolisms". The point I have been trying to make is that Acol is not one system but a family. In the UK the most common form of Acol is 4444 with a weak NT but this is not universal and it would be quite arrogant to say "my version" of Acol is the real one. Stefanie clearly plays a form of 5cM Acol and, as already stated, the first Acol book I got taught 5cM Acol with a 16-18 NT.

As for a weak NT being Acol, well the original form of the system featured variable so that would be silly. Not to mention that there is at least one system around carrying the name Acol that used a strong NT throughout. Similarly, while Strong Twos were part of the original system, they are probably not in the majority of Acol systems anywhere any more. Even at a low club level, Benji and 3 weaks usually outnumber the pairs playing 3 strongs.

A non-forcing 1NT response is in every version of Acol I know so you are welcome to that. Unfortunately it is also featured in the vast majority of natural methods so cannot really be seen as a fundamental identifier for Acol.

And the Rules of 19 and 20 are very much modern concepts. Certainly older Acol textbooks will talk at length about Acol light openers, though the majority of those would not really be considered light these days even for 2/1 players. And I doubt very much that anyone at the club would take offence at a pair playing Standard English Acol with sound openers and describing their system as Acol.

What constitutes Acol is much more nebulous than any of these things. It is the mentality that bids are natural, often non-forcing, with new suits being constructive and raises and NT bids being limited under the approach-forcing principle. That is, the rules of natural bidding as developed in Britain during the (approx) 50s-70s is pretty much what defines Acol for me. The rules are similar to but not identical to those developed in other countries. Taking those rules and applying them to various bases creates a system family. For some families, only certain bases are used for historical reasons. That is not the case for Acol, which is one reason why Acol has so many different flavours and so few parts that define it.

[gordontd]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-November-07, 08:45, said:

If you started with Stone Age 5 card major Acol

This sounds like a contradiction to me.

 Zelandakh, on 2016-November-07, 08:45, said:

including Strong Twos but decided to play a strong NT throughout rather than the traditional variable NT but left everything else exactly as it is in the base system, do you not think that it would be reasonable to describe this as Acol?

Not really, but nor would it be very like Standard American.

[barmar]

A bidding system is not generally defined by any single convention. The way I see it, a system is a collection of agreements. These serve as a default baseline, then you add and remove things.

Asking what specifically distinguishes Acol from SA is like asking what the difference is between English and French. And much like natural languages, there are numerous "dialects" of bidding systems. As demonstrated by all the different answers here, Acol is not played the same by everyone, just as English isn't spoken the same.

[rhm]

Acol used to be a natural system based on:

Frequent 4 card major openings
light openings, though not by today's standards.
Variable notrump
A fairly low minimum requirement for responder to bid a new suit at the two level in response to an opening bid at the one level.
Acol was based on few forcing sequences, lots of non forcing limit bids and strong two level opening bids.
It was a bidding philosophy or style, which favored fast arrival to a final contract over science.
Gadgets like 4th suit forcing were only adopted reluctantly and after resistance

What is nowadays played as Acol at tournaments has frequently little in common with the original system except the name and even less with the philosophy.
Why people call their system still Acol escapes me, maybe it has to do with nostalgia.

Rainer Herrmann

[fromageGB]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-November-07, 10:39, said:

What constitutes Acol is much more nebulous than any of these things. It is the mentality that bids are natural, often non-forcing, with new suits being constructive and raises and NT bids being limited...

This sums it up for me.

The OP was requesting comparison between Acol and SAYC. One way of looking at it is that in Acol nothing is defined, while in SAYC, practically everything is defined. Agree "Acol" with a random partner and you will be tearing your hair out at the mixups. Agree "SAYC" and you will have a more balanced blood pressure.

[barmar]

 rhm, on 2016-November-07, 14:11, said:

Why people call their system still Acol escapes me, maybe it has to do with nostalgia.

Probably because of the slow, incremental nature of the changes.

Once upon a time there was an Acol system that was as you described. Then they adopted a small change, but it wasn't big enough to consider it a new system. Then sometime later they adopted another change. This repeats, every few years something else creeps in. No single change is revolutionary enough to change the name, but eventually you're far removed from the original. And now the name Acol can be used for the current version, as well as all the versions going back to the original -- there are surely people who didn't bother to pick up various changes, and still consider what they play to be Acol.

It's kind of like the Ship of Theseus: You start with a ship and periodically replace each part, the final result is still considered the same ship, even though it shares no material with the original.

[helene_t]

 barmar, on 2016-November-07, 11:34, said:

Asking what specifically distinguishes Acol from SA is like asking what the difference is between English and French.

Maybe a better analogy would be asking what's the difference between Yorkshire and Lincolshire dialects. I mean, it's not like you often hear someone claim to speak French while many people think that what he is speaking is closer to English.

[barmar]

 helene_t, on 2016-November-08, 10:21, said:

Maybe a better analogy would be asking what's the difference between Yorkshire and Lincolshire dialects. I mean, it's not like you often hear someone claim to speak French while many people think that what he is speaking is closer to English.

The point of my analogy was that everyone knows that English and French are clearly different, it's hard to name a specific difference that distinguishes them. It's just all the collective differences. It's not like you can say "It's French if they say 'Royale with Cheese' instead of 'Whopper'".