Re: I've been wondering

>><snip>
>> That said, is anyone playing and winning using anything like 
>> old-fa****oned
>> Acol in high level international tournaments or major national
>> champion****ps?
>
> I sure don't know of any.
>
>
>> Or do all the experts who want to play serious bridge play
>> complex methods with most bidding sequences tightly defined?
>
> Yes.
>
> There is nothing terribly wrong with old fa****oned methods--they work
> pretty well most of the time. My guess is an expert pair using good
> modern methods has a moderate advantage, perhaps 1-2 board per
> session, over an expert pair using old fa****oned methods. If Reese and
> Shapiro reincarnate and use their 1940's methods in a top tournament,
> their play and defense skill will be large enough to overcome that
> disadvantage occasionally, especially in sessions where few of the
> awkward hands for their system come up. But they would win more by
> adopting modern methods. And when your income depends on winning,
> winning more is a very good thing.
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
Many thanks to all who responded to my question and even those who didn't 
since some interesting side roads were explored.

I have my answer and I am not wondering any more. And thanks to Gerben for

his reply also.

I do notice that when top pairs play top pairs they seem to do a lot more 
ba****ng whatever their system framework. They know that anything they say 
can and will be used against them on defense. And they love the 
psychological effect of making an unmakeable contract. But by and large
they 
convey all necessary information to arrive at the best contract, even when

the opponents are listening in.

BB