[han]

EricK, on May 20 2007, 05:56 PM, said:

Hannie, on May 20 2007, 06:34 PM, said:

OK, I admit, I do find 2H offensive and Acol was what I learned first.

Why exactly?

Because my dad taught me to play bridge and he only knew Acol.

[EricK]

Hannie, on May 21 2007, 04:51 AM, said:

EricK, on May 20 2007, 05:56 PM, said:

Hannie, on May 20 2007, 06:34 PM, said:

OK, I admit, I do find 2H offensive and Acol was what I learned first.

Why exactly?

Because my dad taught me to play bridge and he only knew Acol.

My question was targeted at the first half of your statement, not the last!

[han]

Sigh, I was afraid of that. My cheap joke won't do it then.

I think it is not a good idea to bid 2H on such a large range of hands. 1S is already bid on a huge variety of hands. If 2H is also bid on so many hands then it becomes too hard to figure out what the best spot is. And you have already taken up so much bidding space. Most of the hands you will be bidding 1S-2H on are your hands: hands where you may have a game or slam. These are the hands with which you often want to have a careful constructive auction.

It is true that this style may serve you well on some hands (when you blast into game and the opponents have less information, or when you quickly find a fit and the opponents never find theirs), but on even more hands you don't have enough space to figure out what the right level or even the best strain is.

On a less serious note: you say that Acol was far ahead of its time and that may be true but others call this the old-fashioned style and there likely is a reason why this style went out of fashion.

[helene_t]

Hannie, on May 20 2007, 08:34 PM, said:

OK, I admit, I do find 2H offensive and Acol was what I learned first.

With all respect, Han, I think Biedermeijer ("Dutch Acol"), rather than Acol, was your first bidding system.

In Biedermeijer, a 1NT opening is 15-17 so a 2/1 must be strong enough to let partner play 2NT if he has 12 points. In (English) Acol, this hand is close to 2♥ and in some older styles it would be strong enough.

[gwnn]

I'd bet 1000000$ partner has 5 spades. So 2♠.

[han]

helene_t, on May 21 2007, 01:27 AM, said:

Hannie, on May 20 2007, 08:34 PM, said:

OK, I admit, I do find 2H offensive and Acol was what I learned first.

With all respect, Han, I think Biedermeijer ("Dutch Acol"), rather than Acol, was your first bidding system.

Details, my father called it Acol.

[Quantumcat]

Recently I was told to always support your partner if he might have five of the suit and you have 3, or you never get to find out if he is planning on going the game or beyond. If he knows you can have 3 for the bid, if he is planning to go to game he can go via NT and give you a choice. 7 card fits in partscores is not a bad thing if he wasn't planning to go further. 2S for me.

[EricK]

Jlall, on May 21 2007, 06:28 AM, said:

EricK, on May 20 2007, 05:56 PM, said:

Aren't "Colours first" and "Shape before points" both cornerstones of modern bidding theory?

no.

Really? I thought they were.

eg in the old days people would double an opening bid with many strong hands which today would make a simple overcall. Why the change? Because it is more important to get your shape across than your strength.

eg manyt people will open 1M on hands which in the old days would have been opened 2♣ (especially two suited hands). Why? Because it is more important to get your suits into the auction than just your strength

eg hardly anybody play control responses to a strong club anymore. Why not? Because it is more important to bid your suits.