rhm, on 2015-April-17, 04:28, said:
Should I complain that nobody except me creates new ideas for the system?
I naturally have the same issue for my system. Trying to develop a personalized system to a high level is a lot of work and most of us cannot devote enough time to updating it constantly with all of our best ideas. Things go much more quickly and easily if more are involved and developing in parallel.
The_Badger, on 2015-April-16, 20:35, said:
To me, and to many more, 5 card major Acol ISN'T true Acol. Yes, once upon a time, Acol used a strong NT and a prepared ♣ opening, but as time went on the weak NT was adopted.
...in England. In other countries, Holland for example, the weak NT was not adopted. Why do you get to decide which set of developments are "official" and which elate to a different system?
The_Badger, on 2015-April-16, 20:35, said:
But the abiding principle for 50 odd years was bidding 4 major card suits with idea of finding 4-4 fits instead of 5-3 fits. Not to say 5-3 fits weren't established in later rounds of bidding, but opening 1♥ or 1♠ could be done with a 4 card suit.
Maybe that is your abiding principle - others see more important fundamentals and build on those
The_Badger, on 2015-April-16, 20:35, said:
I know, I know, lots of people play an Acol-type system with 5 card majors these days, but wouldn't it be better to call it a SAYC-like system with a weak NT?
That would be like calling Acol a Culbertson-like system with a weak NT.
The_Badger, on 2015-April-16, 20:35, said:
I'm sure the likes of Terence Reese and many of the original contributors to the Acol system would be turning in their graves to see what it has become.
I suspect they would be very proud that their system is still being played and of the role they played in developing bidding theory.
It is surely nice for you that you have strong opinions and feel able to speak for others...but that does not make what you write any more accurate.