[pescetom]

 helene_t, on 2023-April-14, 03:09, said:

It may just be a question of whether the system has historically evolved from Acol or not. Dutch Acol branched off from English Acol at a time when English Acol was mostly played with a variable NT, so it was similar to how the English would play when vulnerable.

In the case of Italian Lungo-Corto, the extent to which it derives from Acol is an interesting question to which I don't know the full answer. Certainly there was English (but also French) influence in the 1930s, when bridge was popular among the ruling classes although regarded with suspicion by Mussolini who renamed it 'ponte'. Post-war, most Italians were playing regional variants of strong club, which evolved into powerful competitive systems in Naples and Rome, remaining more primitive and extremely varied elsewhere. But Milan became (or remained) a cull of natural 4 card majors which evolved to a more rigorous approach than Acol and incorporated some refinements from Italian artificial and US natural systems. During the 80's the federation defined and imposed a national standard of Lungo-Corto which largely supplanted strong club systems except in some diehard areas like Turin. The culmination of the system was Franco di Stefano's version in 1987, which was still the way most club players played until ten years ago. Now it is almost gone and beginners are taught 2/1 GF.

[the hog]

"You have no clue about what is played in the UK," It appears neither do you. Anyway your posts are of little value to anyone except yourself, so I will ignore you unless you have some rare interesting post to make

[the hog]

Helene, 4 card Majors 2/1 GF is not unplayable. The Hacketts played something like this for many years until they switched to 5 card Majors. I played it in Oz with a Scottish international. It was a lot of fun.

1M openings 10+. 1m openings up to strength.
1M - 1N 4-12 NF if opener is minimum. Else opener rebids using transfers.
14-16 NT2/1 GF

Mind you, this was nothing like Acol of course.

[helene_t]

 the hog, on 2023-April-14, 16:17, said:

Helene, 4 card Majors 2/1 GF is not unplayable. The Hacketts played something like this for many years until they switched to 5 card Majors. I played it in Oz with a Scottish international. It was a lot of fun.

1M openings 10+. 1m openings up to strength.
1M - 1N 4-12 NF if opener is minimum. Else opener rebids using transfers.
14-16 NT2/1 GF

Mind you, this was nothing like Acol of course.

This sounds similar to Scanian?
I played a congress event with Cascade in New Zealand, we played this NT ladder:
11-12: open 1M if you have one, otherwise pass (maybe 1♦ in 3rd seat if you have 4 good diamonds)
13-15: 1NT
16-22: 1c
I worked quite well but I wondered if the frequency of 1M of a 4card suit was too low to bother.

[Cyberyeti]

 the hog, on 2023-April-14, 16:14, said:

"You have no clue about what is played in the UK," It appears neither do you. Anyway your posts are of little value to anyone except yourself, so I will ignore you unless you have some rare interesting post to make

From the guy who hasn't said a constructive word in his life and doesn't live here, there are probably a few pairs who play as you describe, but I've met like 2 of them in 20+ years and none recently. Certainly none in the local area now. And yes I've played pretty much all the big tournaments here, Tollemache final, Crockfords final, Gold cup last 8 (and won the plate) etc.

[bluenikki]

 helene_t, on 2023-April-14, 03:02, said:

If 2/1 is 9+ it seems unlikely to me that it promises a rebid, but I suppose it is possible.

If the only 9-hcp hand you respond 2♣ has AKQxxx, how is requiring rebid a burden?

[Cyberyeti]

 bluenikki, on 2023-April-15, 12:20, said:

If the only 9-hcp hand you respond 2♣ has AKQxxx, how is requiring rebid a burden?

Almost nobody requires that, we require pretty much any old 5 card suit (Ax, xxx, xxx, KQ10xx is fine for 1♠-2♣ and will pass 2♠) with the exception of 1♥-2m where we won't have 4 spades unless prepared to bid them over 2♥, otherwise we respond 1♠.

[the hog]

Yeti, no one cares what system you play, what double dummy auctions you have to get to that wonderful contract or what events you played in and finished third in the plate.

[smerriman]

 the hog, on 2023-April-15, 17:42, said:

Yeti, no one cares what system you play, what double dummy auctions you have to get to that wonderful contract or what events you played in and finished third in the plate.

Whenever someone makes general statements about what "no one","we", or "everyone" thinks or wants, I replace those words with "I". It makes the post a lot more accurate. "We" get what you think; no need to imply everyone else agrees.

[Cyberyeti]

 the hog, on 2023-April-15, 17:42, said:

Yeti, no one cares what system you play, what double dummy auctions you have to get to that wonderful contract or what events you played in and finished third in the plate.

Look when somebody who doesn't live here keeps telling me all good players where I play play a system they flat out don't and I'd be surprised if 1% of them actually play and flabbergasted if 10% of them do, what am I supposed to say ? YOU DON'T PLAY BRIDGE HERE AND HAVE NO CLUE WHAT PEOPLE PLAY, so don't pretend you do. I was summarising my achievements to indicate that I do know what I'm doing at the bridge table and have played against pretty much all the good Acol pairs in the country.

Locally we had one pair 25 years ago that played this until one of them moved out of the area. His partner rapidly abandoned it.

Some would argue that if a 2/1 is F2N it is no longer Acol, as Acol tends these days to involve fairly light openers and 2/1s on 9 or 10, and this style just doesn't work with that.

[Gilithin]

 helene_t, on 2023-April-13, 11:17, said:

On the other hand, if you play 2/1 as auto-forcing (as in SAYC and SEF) I don't think many people would refer to the system as "Acol".

Interestingly enough, a number of Master Bridge series books proclaimed the advantages of making Acol 2/1 responses auto-forcing back in the late 80s and 90s. It was not controversial for such systems to be regarded as Acol at that time.

To the OP: yes you can convert Acol to 2/1 GF but you have to make some specific conventional changes (such as IJS responses) and the resulting system is somewhat less harmonious than the alternatives.

[P_Marlowe]

 rienzi, on 2023-April-13, 08:08, said:

I don't think this is right. See Standard English Acol, System File 2020. And Beginning Bridge Book One

http://wanttolearnbridge.com/acol.html
Acol is an approach forcing system - whether or not a bid is forcing, i.e. systemically requires a response, depends on the previous bidding (approach).
The description of Acol as "approach forcing system" can also be found in Skid Simons book "Why you loose at bridge" (I am not 100% sure, but pretty certain),
and if this is the case, you cant have a better source, after all he was part of the group, who invented / developed Acol, and the book was written close enough
with the regard to the date of birth of the system.
What does this mean: If you make a 2/1 response auto forcing / game forcing, the system is no longer approach forcing.
This does not mean, that such a change is not sensible / and even an improvement, but it does mean, that you change a fundamental design principle of the system,
and it is debatebke, if you still should call such a system Acol.
On the other hand, what peoble associate with a given name / Acronym changes over time, the true meaning gets lost, and other meaning become the "true" meaning.
On BBO, if you say you play SAYC, does it mean you play the booklet (nobody has read)
or a 5 card major version of Acol with strong NT? (And it is anybodies guess, if a 2NT response to a major is ... ).

[Gilithin]

Just a minor point, the term approach forcing means that new suits, most particularly in One Over One auctions, are used to transfer shape information (and are thus typically wide-ranging) and that you should bid out your shape without jumps until you either find a fit or know that game is available. Only then do you make a jump bid. The concept was pioneered by Ely Culbertson in 1930 to avoid the frequent jumps that characterised early bidding systems. Acol adapted this original idea by making most raises and NT calls that approach game (typically 3M or 2NT) invitational. Two Over One Game Force does not break approach forcing principles in any way and to describe an auto-forcing 2/1 system as "no longer approach forcing" is ignoring the origin and history of the term completely.

[pescetom]

 Gilithin, on 2023-June-30, 03:21, said:

Just a minor point, the term approach forcing means that new suits, most particularly in One Over One auctions, are used to transfer shape information (and are thus typically wide-ranging) and that you should bid out your shape without jumps until you either find a fit or know that game is available. Only then do you make a jump bid. The concept was pioneered by Ely Culbertson in 1930 to avoid the frequent jumps that characterised early bidding systems. Acol adapted this original idea by making most raises and NT calls that approach game (typically 3M or 2NT) invitational. Two Over One Game Force does not break approach forcing principles in any way and to describe an auto-forcing 2/1 system as "no longer approach forcing" is ignoring the origin and history of the term completely.

Thanks for that (non-minor) point.
I always wondered how making an economical 2/1 bid GF could break the principle of approach forcing.