Conventions

Home

M J Bridge

♦

♠

♥

♣

Bidding

Hands

Theory

Context  -  Acol bidding - combining the two-level bids.

No strong bids

Although I do not really recommend this approach, and it is far from standard, it is a method which does exist.

And it is by no means totally without merit.

A fascinating letter from an exponent (David Burch) of just such a method is to be found in the August 2016 edition of English Bridge, in which the author recommends the approach, provides a justification for the approach, and gives an example of a hand on which it was outstandingly effective.

In the author’s implementation these four weak suit openings are linked with a 2NT opening bid on any balanced hand of 21 or more points (no defined upper limit) unless the opener holds game in his hand in which case he bids it (I have added my own interpretation at that point).

The observation that twenty five points facing zero points (for example) is far less likely to yield a game contract than thirteen points facing twelve highlights a consideration which is relevant in a much wider context.

In his example, an opening bid of 2♣ (weak) and a preemptive raise by responder kept their opponents out of their best contract and earned a score of 73.33% on the board.

I suspect that David and his partner may be far more eminent than I am in the world of competitive bridge - a point which you may wish to bear in mind as you look at my assessment of the method below.

My thoughts on the method

My first observation is that something of an Aunt Sally was put up to be shot down.

In the letter reference was made to the comparative probabilities of weak twos and an Acol strong two on 23 or more points.

I couldn’t agree more.

But if you are considering three weak and one strong as a possible alternative, then you should give some thought to your strong bid being more in the style of ‘an unlimited one-round force’ - (game-forcing in its own right, or a lower range on a strong single-suited hand) rather than the ‘game-forcing Acol 2♣‘ bid quoted.

The conclusions relating to four weak twos might still apply, but the comparative probabilities will have become significantly more reasonable.

This is no more than a passing observation and it is almost certainly not a true reflection of the case, but it is worth noting that (and this is something which we have all done) no method can be justified by one hand on which it worked a treat.  (It is quite amazing which hands we remember and which hands we forget, intentionally or otherwise.)

More importantly, I assume from the percentage quoted that the example came from a pairs tournament at match points scoring.

This may well be an excellent method in that context in which frequency is the overriding consideration.

Playing for imps I suspect that the loss of accuracy on some big hands might prove costly.

I have no strong evidence to support that feeling, so go with it or go against it as you wish.

My conclusion is that this may well be an excellent method at pairs.

For serious teams play I feel that it will pay off to have rather more versatility in defining the big hands, and rather more accuracy in locating the best slams.