In 1997 the English Bridge Union defined a "Standard English" bidding system. The full version, called "Standard English Modern Acol", is described here.
The system is perfectly playable, but it is only a "standard" in the sense that it gives you a well-defined system as a basis from which you can outline the differences of the system you actually play. I do not know of anyone who plays unadulterated "Standard English Modern Acol". But I know it well, and I would be very happy to play it with anyone who made the proposal to do so. Much better that than to get halfway through an auction and find a point we have not discussed.
The following links will help you to find what you want if you wish to play or learn Standard English Modern Acol.
| Complete system description |
| Convention Card (MS-Word format) |
| Convention Card (PDF format) |
These notes summarise the Standard English Modern Acol system.
Much criticism has been levelled at the EBU for choosing to stick with strong two opening bids. In my view this criticism is entirely justified. A poor decision was made here, and it has led to a loss of credibility, since few serious players would contemplate playing Standard English Modern Acol. Whereas the Americans have SAYC, which is modern, highly usable and effective, we in the UK are stuck with the outmoded Acol Strong Two bids.
Nevertheless, although agreeing that the decision was wrong, I don't believe it is a serious defect. It is very easy to replace the three strong two opening bids with three weak two opening bids, without any knock-on effects whatsoever on your bidding system. Refer to my notes on Weak Two Opening Bids. It is very simple to play "Standard English Modern Acol with three weak twos". You can even download the EBU's MS-Word version of the convention card and make the necessary changes to it.
One thing is undoubtedly true. If you make up a casual pairing in an English club and have not discussed the strength of your two-level opening bids, both you and your partner will assume that you are playing Acol Twos. To that extent, teaching the default as standard has a great deal of merit. But not enough to counteract the lingering air of out-of-datedness, I feel.
A similar criticism can be levelled against the 1NT response system. But here all I can say is that while it would not be my first choice it is certainly very playable.
Once again, a partnership can easily drop in their own 1NT response system without altering anything else in the bidding system, so this is not much of an issue.
Author: Chris Burton
Gravesend Bridge Club