On May 4, 5:59 pm, "Blind Broccoli" <blindbrocc...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Having been raised (in bridge terms) on the writings of Terence Reese,
even
> though I'm a yank I've always had a fondness for old-fa****oned Acol. You
> know, the Skid Simon variety "bid what you think you can make and pass
when
> you feel like it." I know that in the post-Crowhurst era many
"improvements"
> have been made to "tournament Acol" and even Reese said "we cannot
continue
> to grunt at each other like cave men."
>
> That said, is anyone playing and winning using anything like
old-fa****oned
> Acol in high level international tournaments or major national
> champion****ps? Or do all the experts who want to play serious bridge
play
> complex methods with most bidding sequences tightly defined?
>
> BB
For tightly defined bidding sequences you need a tightly defined
partner and presumably a tightly defined bidding system.
However it is wrong to tightly define the word 'old fa****oned' in the
pejorative sense of its meaning as something surpassed. The m***** are
often wrong, often putting an etiquette to everything. Numerous
bidding systems are defined 'ai giorni nostri' nowadays as 'old
fa****oned' in the negative sense of the word but I am of the opinion
that no system sufficiently tightly defined can be characterized as
such. As for whether going against the field, with a four card major
system like 'The Blue Team Club' or ' Modified Acol', for instance,
can gain a few points 'qua e la' here and there? I think that an anti-
field system can make a difference in some cases and therefore using a
different system from the rest of the 'crowd' is wise for many
reasons, too many for a brief enumeration.
Boris
|
