Talk:Acol

Road confusing or not
This article starts off saying it's about a road, and veers off into talking about bidding. Terribly confusing! If this is really about some bridge-related matter, it should start by saying so... -- Oliver P. 23:23, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC) I found the bit about the road very useful and not at all confusing. It should stay because it explains the origin of the name straight away. Prior to this I assumed it was an acronym. ZoeEGrace (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Not acronym
I changed "ACOL" to "Acol" because it is not an acronym. EricK 21:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Response suit length
Responding to one of a suit with one of a new suit requires four cards in the suit, not five, and I have therefore reverted to the earlier wording. For example, if partner opens 1H and you have AQxx x xxxx xxxx, you will respond 1S in case partner has 4 cards in both majors or 5 hearts and 4 spades. JH 19:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Browser problem
I'm using Firefox on OSX and I can't see the "suit" symbols - all I see are coloured vertical or horizontal bars (e.g. 2| instead of 2 ). This makes the page impossible to understand. Can anyone tell me how I can fix my browser? It works with Safari but I'd like for it to also work on Firefox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.138.27 (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Opener rebid
I have pointed out in 3.7 Opener's suit rebid after one-level opening that this rebid shows at least five cards, since this is an important distinction from five card major systems. My very first Wikipedia contribution! Buzzilla (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I updated the opener's rebid to show support for the responder's suit. Bothyhead 10:45, 7 October 2008 (GMT)

Acol Club, Forcing principle
I think the Acol Bridge Club is still there, so the "was" in the first line of the article might be misleading. What is misleading is the part where the approach forcing principle is contrasted with the "level forcing" principle. Two over One is an approach forcing system, as are all of the systems descended from standard OR Acol. The feature that a two-over-one bid is forcing to game doesn't change that. Also, the concept that it is a good idea to rebid a five-card suit if your opening bid doesn't guarantee one is not all that useful. In Acol, rebidding a suit shows six unless you have no other good bid. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I know you from the newsgroup. I think that, though there is still an Acol Bridge Club, it's a recent re-creation and not the original club. And I don't think it's located in Acol Road. JH (talk page) 18:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * For the last 40+ years it's been in nearby West End Lane. Not a recent re-creation so much as a continuing presence which has had various owners over the years. Usual fare offered: duplicate; rubber bridge; teaching sessions...


 * The article seems to miss one of the most distinctive features of Acol, namely the priority given to competitive bidding. This is laid on thick by the early writers like Skid. It takes an effort of will to remember the chaos that overcalls could cause before the advent of 'Sputnik' doubles... Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Standard Acol or Standard English Acol
Is the "Standard Acol" that appears as one of the headings the same thing as the "Standard English Acol" that has been introduced a little earlier in the article? If so, then the references to "Standard Acol" should be changed to "Standard English Acol" for consistency and to avoid confusion. If not, and something more nebulous is meant, then the term "Standard Acol" would probably be better avoided, and at the very least when it appears in the text rather than as a heading the "s" of "standard" shouldn't be capitalised. JH (talk page) 20:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Acol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407075911/http://surreyschoolofbridge.com/some-theory.php to http://surreyschoolofbridge.com/some-theory.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Direct support of opener's major
Other system (Five card major related ones, at least) use the following bids, in order to support an opening of 1 in a major, with opening 1H as example : With 10-12 HCP the total length of the trump is considered together with the quality of the minors. 10 HCP and shortest possible supporting length - 2H can be used if no "decent" minor exists 12 HCP and a total trump length of 9 cards - 4H can be used if no "decent" minor exists 10-12 HCP and a total 10 card trump - 4H unless there also is a good reason to show a minor. This saves space for really strong support - the 3H reply (in this example). Is this not introduced in Acol ? Boeing720 (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 0-5 HCP - pass
 * 6-9 2H
 * 10-12 "the difficult zone" - (usually) the best of 2C and 2D (new colour is forcing), else a choice between 2H and 4H, as 3H is reserved for stronger than game support
 * 13-15 4H
 * 16- 3H (naturally forcing at least to a game)
 * In traditional Acol, a raise from 1H to 3H shows 10-12 points and is non-forcing, a so-called "limit raise". That is a fairly fundamental part of the system, and if the bid was to show a stronger hand and so be forcing I'm not sure that you could call the system "Acol". JH (talk page) 08:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)