[GrahamJson]

Completely agree with The Badger. BBO is full of "Experts" who list all manner of conventions in their profile but who clearly have not mastered the basics of the game. Learn the basics first before adding toys.

One other thing. When you do add a convention make sure you discuss details with your partner. What do various rebids mean? What do you do if oppo intervene? Conventions are of little use if you go off the rails later in the auction.

[The_Badger]

Thank you Graham for agreeing with me

Just as parting thought on this 2425 hand, the 17 HCP given

♠ A J
♥ A J 8 3
♦ K J
♣ K 9 7 6 2

and the bidding let's say goes

1♣ - pass - 1♦ - 1♠

rebidding 1NT makes things extremely difficult if the bidding subsequently goes

1♣ - pass - 1♦ - 1♠ -
1NT - 2♠ - pass - pass -
???

or even worse

1♣ - pass - 1♦ - 1♠ -
1NT - 3♠

where you could easily miss a ♥ game

Crowhurst and Checkback go straight out of the window, so 2♥ seems (in my opinion) the only sensible rebid (as opposed to 1NT) with that hand, as it describes it perfectly as 5+♣ and 4+♥ with 16+ HCPs - a standard reverse in Acol, forcing for one round. (Ok, you might once in a while get too high in the auction, but it's better I feel to announce your suits than pitty-pattying around hoping the opponents aren't going to throw a spanner in the works.)

I believe what has happened is that because players tend now to open 5 card majors as opposed to 4 card ones with Acol, and that the Checkback Stayman option has been imported from SAYC and 2/1 so that 4-4 ♥/♠ fits can be found later in the auction. All well and good if no interference from the opponents, but the modern game is a little more ferocious these days, players overcalling light for lead direction, and partners supporting them on the principle of The Law of Total Tricks.

The Acol system might have been superseded by more up-to-date and advanced bidding systems, but it is still a very neat system when used correctly. Three major changes, I feel, have changed its structure somewhat: the modern use of 5 card majors; the ubiquitous use of a weak NT (12-14); and, the use of weak 2's, whether by Benji/Reverse Benji and/or the Multi. Admittedly, in its purist form (with strong 2's) it is not quite suitable for the cut and thrust of competitive bidding, and the weak NT can cause problems to the opponents, but has to used with discretion, especially when vulnerable, as it has the habit of biting you on the bum every so often

[Caitlynne]

If you give preference to showing shape and strength to showing a major with opener's first rebid, your West did a MISERABLE job of it. A 19 HCP 5-4 pattern is NOT best described by a rebid of 1NT showing a balanced 15 to 17 HCP. 19 HCP is substantially stronger than the 17 HCP maximum and a 5-4 pattern is not balanced.

A simple 1H rebid surely was far better than 1NT.

If you want to play checkback over 1C-1D, 1NT - go for it.

But, if you do that, you had better decide what the priorities are. Most people play that opener's first priority is revealing 3 card support for responder's suit before another 4 card suit is shown.

[Cyberyeti]

The_Badger, on 2016-July-16, 11:57, said:

Thank you Graham for agreeing with me

Just as parting thought on this 2425 hand, the 17 HCP given

♠ A J
♥ A J 8 3
♦ K J
♣ K 9 7 6 2

and the bidding let's say goes

1♣ - pass - 1♦ - 1♠

rebidding 1NT makes things extremely difficult if the bidding subsequently goes
snip

Nobody on earth rebids 1N with that it's a terrible bid.

I can double to show 4 hearts, some can't, but you deserve LHO not to raise with 3 and find you're losing 4 or 5 spade tricks and in hopelessly the wrong partscore when partner has either 3 clubs or 4 hearts.

[Stephen Tu]

The people recommending 1nt rebid with 2425 and 15-17 (not 18-19 as in the first post, which was an error corrected by OP in a subsequent post) are doing so in a context of no bid by 4th hand, uncontested, and also where responder prioritizes bidding majors over 1d, with 4-4/4-5/4-6 when holding less than a GF hand after a strong 1nt rebid (so 10+ HCP if bidding 1♦ with 4-5/4-6).

Whether to show the hearts depends a lot on whether your partner is likely to have them or not after 1♦. If you prioritize bidding majors over longer diamonds with weak hands, there is really no need for opener to bid hearts, because either
(1) You don't actually have a heart fit
or
(2) Responder will be strong enough to bid hearts later.
In this context, it's much better for opener to rebid 1nt, because you:
- protect the spade tenace from the lead
- conceal the heart holding from the opponents, which might get you an advantageous heart lead
- avoid the guessing game of whether to raise after 1c-1d-1h-1nt where 1nt is 6-10.

I guess bypassing diamonds to show majors as first priority is not very common in UK Acol, since most players are opening 4 cd majors in preference to 1♣ with balanced hands. But if you are a 1♣ opener, I think it greatly simplifies auctions for responder to prioritize majors. You find out immediately if you have a fit or not, and can gladly pass a 1nt rebid knowing you don't have a major fit (with maybe exception of 4xxx balanced opposite 44xx/45xx weak hand), and not find yourself in 2nt with 15-17 opposite 6/7 or whatever or missing games with 16 opposite 9 or 15 opposite 10.

[The_Badger]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-July-16, 15:09, said:

Nobody on earth rebids 1N with that it's a terrible bid.

I can double to show 4 hearts, some can't, but you deserve LHO not to raise with 3 and find you're losing 4 or 5 spade tricks and in hopelessly the wrong partscore when partner has either 3 clubs or 4 hearts.

And I couldn't agree with you more, Cyberyeti, (believe it or not!) on the 1NT rebid.

But players will bid 1NT, irrespective of a ♠ overcall to show either 'shape' - sort of balance(ish) 2425 with a partial ♠ stop, and/or point count, a poorish 17 downgraded to 16.

The inference that I was suggesting with my previous post was, in Acol, why use Checkback Stayman, or an semi-unlimited 1NT rebid when there are better options available with natural bidding?

In the modern style

♠ A J
♥ A J 8 3
♦ K J
♣ K 9 7 6 2

1♣ - pass - 1♦ - pass -
1♥ - would be acceptable and forcing (new suit), and,

1♣ - pass - 1♦ - 1♠ -
2♥ - would be, in my opinion, be preferable (though I am not totally keen on this as the hand is 5422, perhaps not a great Kaplan and Rubens count (but as I've now checked it, surprisingly 17.05), but we have to compete and show our strength and shape) and forcing (reverse), and,

1♣ - pass - 1♦ - 1♠ -
Dbl - is an option to show 4♥s but if the ops raise ♠s, how will your partner know that you are either a) being competitive with a minimum hand, or, b) semi-strong , or c) with longer ♣s than ♥s?

Acol is neat but not infallible

[Cyberyeti]

The_Badger, on 2016-July-16, 23:21, said:

1♣ - pass - 1♦ - 1♠ -
Dbl - is an option to show 4♥s but if the ops raise ♠s, how will your partner know that you are either a) being competitive with a minimum hand, or, b) semi-strong , or c) with longer ♣s than ♥s?

Acol is neat but not infallible

I can double 2♠ (or 3♠) with appropriate values. If minimum of course I can't have a weak NT so will have longer clubs as 1444 opens 1♦ for us.

We also play (reverse) lebensohl over 1♣-(P)-1♦-(1♠)-X-(2♠) so partner can bid a merely competitive 3♥