[Al_U_Card]

Well, the point offered is kind of like saying that idiomatically, English is superior to French or Russian etc. Good bridge players have good partnership agreements, good (bidding) judgement and good playing technique. Partnership style aside, those players with more bridge acumen tend to win more, period. That is why the "best" players in the world can be using any given system at any given time. Modern bridge may be more agressive than 25 years ago, but it has evolved to this and will continue to evolve where the bridge community takes it. Results are the driving force (no matter what the theorists propose) and winning methods will be the ultimate dictator of what we will be playing in 25 years from now.

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on Jun 13 2005, 11:10 PM, said:

Results are the driving force (no matter what the theorists propose) and winning methods will be the ultimate dictator of what we will be playing in 25 years from now.

Results at the table are not why the Poles, Australians, and Swedes gave up on their strong pass methods...

[Al_U_Card]

Quote

Results at the table are not why the Poles, Australians, and Swedes gave up on their strong pass methods...

Reference to.....? 200,000 North Americans are members of the ACBL, but 25 MILLION know and play bridge. The ACBL doesn't "like" strange methods for club play out of deference to its aging membership. Personally, I have always supported a 2-tier playing field. A "closed" field for sayc types and an "open" field where anything goes. Bring on the infusion of new blood, as hybrids are always more vital than purebreds.....

[pigpenz]

I think as long as partner knows what you have and you can make life difficult on your opponents then is sound bridge, but if you start to saddle partner than that is bad bridge. In the fifties the americans used to have a hard time with the Italian take out doubles, but they worked it out. On BBO is seems like alot of turkish players have adapted the same strategy And usually it makes life hard on their partners not their opponents.

[Winstonm]

Quote

If our side has a 4-4 spade fit, we will find it when many other pairs will not. There will be pass-out deals at other tables where we are going plus because we have spades, or at the least the bad guys don't (and even if they do, they are breaking badly). And in general, on all competitive partscore battles, the side that opens has the natural advantage.

I agree with some of this; however, some of the times when you find your major fit you go minus when you bid too high; unless playing a strong club system, or some other system where opening 1-bids are limited, it's difficult to stop at precisely 2S when responder holds an 11 or 12 count. Opposite many of the "iffy" openers I have witnessed, the 3 level can be too high. Also, opening on any 11 count can make it difficult to assess whose hand it is, for the opps as well as us.

So it still makes me wonder how well someone like Kantar/Eisenberg in their prime (or any other of the great players) would fare if they adopted the super-aggressive stance in the majors, passed the 11-count minors unless strongly unblanced, thereby moving a tiny bit back toward the middle?

If they succeeded, would that lead the rest of us on that path? I guess the real question is not about aggressive verses conservative, but rather are the vast majority of us followers rather than free thinkers? Do we look to the top of the heap to determine the best style to play or do we adopt the style that best fits our skills and temperaments? Seems to me the latter would lead to better results than emulation.

Just one of those things that makes me go, Hmmmmm.

WinstonM

[Al_U_Card]

Quote

Just one of those things that makes me go, Hmmmmm.

A very cogent comment. Free-thinkers and mavericks always have a place in any endeavor although partnership games tend to restrict them to a degree that discourages them from continuing to "operate". 2/1 is a good example of a popular and effective method that gained favor, in part, due to the adoption by top pairs. (Much as the precision club had its ascendancy in the 70's.) Everyone likes a winner......

[pclayton]

I watched a lot of the match with Shawn and Mildred too. I saw Shawn open 2nd seat on x, AJxxx, xxxx, KQx. I can't remember what happened but it didn't turn out well. I was pretty amazes at a lot of the pass / game decisions. It seems that a lot of hopeless games were bid - perhaps teammates just aren't forgiving if you fail to bid a vul game that happens to make - I don't know.

Overall, the bridge was pretty sloppy. I think all the ladies were just flat out tired- which is a good thing, as the format sort of seems to mirror the Worlds - series of swiss or pool qualifiying and three or four long knockout matches. Stamina is and should be a part of these matches. But when will we see bridge players actually trying to condition themselves? Perhaps some do, but its not obvious looking at them

I think in the 4th segment of the final they swung around 140 IMPs. Thats like 9 IMPs / board! You won't see that at your club.

[mike777]

Trade offs

1) If we are going to open 11 hcp junky and shapely 10HCP and rare shape 8-9 HCP we will have some poor constructive auctions compared to SOUND OPENINGS.
2) If we accept that 99.5% of the 'at the table" opponents have less detailed agreements after we open, then we may gain on some hands compared to when we would have passed.
3) But we may lose some on some penalty doubles the sound passers gain on.

Meckwell seems to have bet on point 2 being winning bridge.
Many others have bet on points 1 and 3.

My guess is those players who muddle the two, get muddled results.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jun 14 2005, 11:27 PM, said:

Trade offs

1) If we are going to open 11 hcp junky and shapely 10HCP and rare shape 8-9 HCP we will have some poor constructive auctions compared to SOUND OPENINGS.
2) If we accept that 99.5% of the 'at the table" opponents have less detailed agreements after we open, then we may gain on some hands compared to when we would have passed.
3) But we may lose some on some penalty doubles the sound passers gain on.

Meckwell seems to have bet on point 2 being winning bridge.
Many others have bet on points 1 and 3.

My guess is those players who muddle the two, get muddled results.

Meckwell apply the same methods play's against "World Class" opposition...
I doubt that the success hinges their opponent's lack of preparation.

Pressure bidding is an extremely successful tactics... Its exceedingly draining to defend board after board after board, expecially when you have no idea whether the opponents are in a cold contract or have bid to 23 HCP 3NT where every trick is precious.

Equally significant, light opening do not necessarily lead to poor constructive auctions. Pairs who play very light openings typically typically adopt limited opening bids and gimmick their response strcutures. There are systemic tradeoffs, however, these typically occur when the pair is forced to make a strong, artifical, and forcing opening.

[mike777]

hrothgar, on Jun 14 2005, 03:37 PM, said:

mike777, on Jun 14 2005, 11:27 PM, said:

Trade offs

1) If we are going to open 11 hcp junky and shapely 10HCP and rare shape 8-9 HCP we will have some poor constructive auctions compared to SOUND OPENINGS.
2) If we accept that 99.5% of the 'at the table" opponents have less detailed agreements after we open, then we may gain on some hands compared to when we would have passed.
3) But we may lose some on some penalty doubles the sound passers gain on.

Meckwell seems to have bet on point 2 being winning bridge.
Many others have bet on points 1 and 3.

My guess is those players who muddle the two, get muddled results.

Meckwell apply the same methods play's against "World Class" opposition...
I doubt that the success hinges their opponent's lack of preparation.

Pressure bidding is an extremely successful tactics... Its exceedingly draining to defend board after board after board, expecially when you have no idea whether the opponents are in a cold contract or have bid to 23 HCP 3NT where every trick is precious.

Equally significant, light opening do not necessarily lead to poor constructive auctions. Pairs who play very light openings typically typically adopt limited opening bids and gimmick their response strcutures. There are systemic tradeoffs, however, these typically occur when the pair is forced to make a strong, artifical, and forcing opening.

Tradeoffs

Agree world class opp are prepared but I used the phrase "less detailed agreements". My argument is even at A level bridge the opponents will have a less detailed bidding auction if we open the bidding compared to if we pass in first or second chair. Less detailed auction inferring we may gain more often if we make them start with x or overcall.

Of course in a 2/1 framework we lose something by opening these hand types also.

Richard makes a great point about pressure auctions that can start at the one level with our opening bids rather than the commonly discussed pressure auctions many others play with various weak 2 bids.

We of course need to be able to try and make some of those 23 hcp nt hands that meckwell are always bidding also. Which brings us full circle to what Fred and many others often point out; learn to play the hands and defend, worry about the fancy pants bidding later.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I watched a lot of the match with Shawn and Mildred too. I saw Shawn open 2nd seat on x, AJxxx, xxxx, KQx. I can't remember what happened but it didn't turn out well. I was pretty amazes at a lot of the pass / game decisions. It seems that a lot of hopeless games were bid - perhaps teammates just aren't forgiving if you fail to bid a vul game that happens to make - I don't know.

I think there are two interesting concepts in your reply. First, let me say that I am not familiar with Ms. Quinn, but Mildred Breed is world class in anyone's book. When players of her caliber get lost in the bidding due to partner's weak opening, who has lost? Part of the problem goes back to what is ingrained - it's hard to break the habit of thinking that a pretty decent 12-14 point hand isn't good enough to force to game. That's a hard habit to break. It seems as though one would almost be required to play some form of Non-fit Drury in all seats just to ask if the opening was close to sound - and then you've told your opponents, as well.

The second point is stamina. Are we trying to find the best bridge players or the ones who can play the longest? Why is it required to play 64 boards each day?

I've known players in my life who seemed like "bridge idiot savants" in that they could play for what seemed like days without a break - for me, I'm pretty well done in by a single K.O. match these days (age? Nah!!!, LoL).

But it seems that at some point one of these great partnerships might look back at their results, get tired of being burned, and decide to stop battling fire with fire.