[rhm]

 mike777, on 2015-April-17, 01:11, said:

Chip Martel won everything playing this style. One of the truly great players.

So what does that prove?

That Chip Martel is a gifted player
That he played a style that - surprise, surprise - suited him.

What it does not prove:

That his style was close to the Acol attitude.
That his style was superior or had an inherent advantage over others.

It is interesting, that in Bridge top players, defined as "having won everything", exhibit a vast variety of different styles. (Names on request)
When others try to mimic the style of their idol, they rarely come close.

Rainer Herrmann

[mike777]

 rhm, on 2015-April-17, 02:23, said:

So what does that prove?

That Chip Martel is a gifted player
That he played a style that - surprise, surprise - suited him.

What it does not prove:

That his style was close to the Acol attitude.
That his style was superior or had an inherent advantage over others.

It is interesting, that in Bridge top players, defined as "having won everything", exhibit a vast variety of different styles. (Names on request)
When others try to mimic the style of their idol, they rarely come close.

Rainer Herrmann

pls quote me in full. that may answer you

you miss main point when you don't, in fact you choose to not quote main point.

[rhm]

 mike777, on 2015-April-17, 02:33, said:

pls quote me in full. that may answer you

you miss main point when you don't, in fact you choose to not quote main point.

I commented on one aspect of what you wrote.
I neither quoted you out of context nor did I give a false impression of what you said.

Rainer Herrmann

[NickRW]

 rhm, on 2015-April-17, 02:45, said:

I commented on one aspect of what you wrote.
I neither quoted you out of context nor did I give a false impression of what you said.

Rainer Herrmann

Rainer, you chose to pick on the references to Chip. You did not pick up on Mike's point (arguably the more important point) about the weak NT and the (alleged) lack of theory development. That is what Mike is complaining about

[mike777]

 NickRW, on 2015-April-17, 03:08, said:

Rainer, you chose to pick on the references to Chip. You did not pick up on Mike's point (arguably the more important point) about the weak NT and the (alleged) lack of theory development. That is what Mike is complaining about

I should make clear that is Chip Martel's main point that he discusses often.

I bring this up given the 5 card major, weak nt discussion under Acol.

I also mean to bring this up in any general discussion of weak nt bidding styles.

Nick phrased it better.
------------------
-------------------


under the general topic can you win with 5 card major and wk nt, clearly the answer is yes.

can you win a wc in 2016 with this style or will it hurt you is another question.

[rhm]

 NickRW, on 2015-April-17, 03:08, said:

Rainer, you chose to pick on the references to Chip. You did not pick up on Mike's point (arguably the more important point) about the weak NT and the (alleged) lack of theory development. That is what Mike is complaining about

I do not doubt that I commented only on a single aspect of Mikes comment and arguably not the most important one.
But neither did I critic Mike, so I can not follow why there is reason for complaint.
I only made the point, that the fact that someone was very successful with a certain style does not make that style inherently superior to others.

Any style which is not mainstream, no matter what its advantages are, suffers from the problem, that only a small minority will develop new ideas from there.
40 years ago, I developed a strong club system, which was named "crazy club". I now only play it with my wife and I play rarely with her.
I still think the system is competitive and I see now many years later, that others develop similar ideas, for example the use of transfer responses to strong club etc.
Should I complain that nobody except me creates new ideas for the system?

Rainer Herrmann

[Zelandakh]

 rhm, on 2015-April-17, 04:28, said:

Should I complain that nobody except me creates new ideas for the system?

I naturally have the same issue for my system. Trying to develop a personalized system to a high level is a lot of work and most of us cannot devote enough time to updating it constantly with all of our best ideas. Things go much more quickly and easily if more are involved and developing in parallel.

 The_Badger, on 2015-April-16, 20:35, said:

To me, and to many more, 5 card major Acol ISN'T true Acol. Yes, once upon a time, Acol used a strong NT and a prepared ♣ opening, but as time went on the weak NT was adopted.

...in England. In other countries, Holland for example, the weak NT was not adopted. Why do you get to decide which set of developments are "official" and which elate to a different system?

 The_Badger, on 2015-April-16, 20:35, said:

But the abiding principle for 50 odd years was bidding 4 major card suits with idea of finding 4-4 fits instead of 5-3 fits. Not to say 5-3 fits weren't established in later rounds of bidding, but opening 1♥ or 1♠ could be done with a 4 card suit.

Maybe that is your abiding principle - others see more important fundamentals and build on those

 The_Badger, on 2015-April-16, 20:35, said:

I know, I know, lots of people play an Acol-type system with 5 card majors these days, but wouldn't it be better to call it a SAYC-like system with a weak NT?

That would be like calling Acol a Culbertson-like system with a weak NT.

 The_Badger, on 2015-April-16, 20:35, said:

I'm sure the likes of Terence Reese and many of the original contributors to the Acol system would be turning in their graves to see what it has become.

I suspect they would be very proud that their system is still being played and of the role they played in developing bidding theory.

It is surely nice for you that you have strong opinions and feel able to speak for others...but that does not make what you write any more accurate.

[blackshoe]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-April-17, 07:28, said:

..in England. In other countries, Holland for example, the weak NT was not adopted. Why do you get to decide which set of developments are "official" and which elate to a different system?

Because Acol (as opposed to Dutch Acol, which seems to be a different system) originated in England.

[mycroft]

more particularly, because the Acol club, which used to be on Acol Road, isn't in the Netherlands...

[Zelandakh]

Everyone is aware of the history. It is a little like saying that Meckwell is not a valid Precision development because it uses a 14-16 NT range or because iot was not created by Wei. Systems develop in different ways. SEF is being developed in Germany under the name Forum D - it remains part of the same family, just as Dutch Acol remains part of the Acol family. There is a difference between a system (original Acol; Baronised Acol; Modern English Acol; Dutch Acol; original Precision; Meckwell; SEF; Forum D; Forum D Plus) and a family. The thread is about the family of systems comprising Acol. That is not limited to the original system and comprises developments introduced from many places completely unrelated to the Acol Club itself.

[NickRW]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-April-21, 12:46, said:

...The thread is about the family of systems comprising...

Slightly tongue in cheek comment. I am reminded of the fact that any two random humans are, on average, something like 13th cousins. But it is not as if many of us would say "Hello Bro'" to said random individual!