[straube]

Is this fair use?

BridgeMatters: Why do you think it has shifted? And what does it feel like to now be in the minority?

Chip Martel: I’m not sure why that is the case. I don't know enough about the history. Certainly, weak-NT systems were more of the in thing when I was starting to play bridge. Later, other developments affected the popularity of the weak NT. For example, weak-NT systems don’t fit that well with strong club systems, where something like a 14-16 NT range works better and allows you to open lighter hands.

or...

http://www.bridgemat....com/martel.pdf

[glen]

barmar, on 2012-June-01, 11:35, said:

I replaced the interview with the link in the earlier post. I hope that's acceptable to you.

Yes it is, and feel free to quote the highlights, individual paragraphs etc., such as

BridgeMatters: What do you think of the 10-12 notrump openings?

Eric Rodwell: I am relatively timid about playing them—I like to play them white vs. red [i.e. not vulnerable vs. vulnerable]. They are definitely too dangerous vulnerable . . . I know there are a few intrepid souls who play them at any vulnerability.

...

BridgeMatters: Why don’t you like the 10-12 notrump white vs. white?

Eric Rodwell: . . . I like them more for IMPs than matchpoints. At matchpoints, it is a frequency thing, and you are burying too many of your fits. ... The weaker the opponents, the more effective bids like the 10-12 notrump are going to be.

--- ---

Btw a bunch of years ago, Rodwell played against a 10-12 all-the-time semi-pro pair (semi-pro means they are paid to play, but have regular jobs too) in a Vandy match. After the match he went with them to the bar, where he peppered them with system questions. Rodwell is always considering what works best.

[straube]

Glen,

So I started wondering what gave you the right to say it was ok to quote individual paragraphs from Bridgematters as opposed to sections of it as I did in my first post.

I figured it out.

Thanks for your work at Bridgematters. I've very much valued particularly the Rodwell interview and the one I discovered just today with Martel.

[rhm]

the hog, on 2012-May-31, 22:55, said:

A 10-12 NT is a winner, especially NV vs Vul, or even at = Green. Meckwell played it for a long time, and Bocchi and Duboin played it for some years, so Straube's argument is incorrect. Having said this, a 9-13 range is too wide. The problem lies in playing 2NT and going down when the filed is in one, making.

But I really wonder why did they stopped playing it, particularly at favorable, if this is a winner?
Arguing that they as professionals had to remember two structures does not make much sense if you are convinced you have a winning method.

Rainer Herrmann

[glen]

rhm, on 2012-June-02, 03:02, said:

... But I really wonder why did they stopped playing it, particularly at favorable, if this is a winner? ...

According to my studies of Meckwell results at the top levels, the 1NT 10-12 fav was only a marginal winner, while the 14-16 fav with frequent upgrades from 13 was a bigger winner. Likewise Meckwell used Multi but it didn't generate a lot of great results, and they don't play it anymore (though they continue to collect defenses against Multi from unprepared opponents). Rodwell likes to tweak the system for best advantage.