On May 5, 9:38 pm, "Blind Broccoli" <blindbrocc...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >><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
In general, they bash to games and bid scientifically to slams.
IMO, the two most im****tant changes since the 1940's are:
1. Good scientific tools for slam bidding
2. much better tools for competitive bidding (AKA the near death of
the penalty double)
A.
|
