[pclayton]

Well?

[whereagles]

I'd vote for one of Robson/Segal. Their competitive bidding book is the best bidding book out there, by a very, VERY large margin.

[mike777]

If Roth is not number one...he is close.

Great list to have to choose from. Many great theorists on this one.

[hrothgar]

Few quick comments:

1. When I think of (recent) bidding theorists, I think of Poles and Scandinavians. Hard to take any poll seriously that doens't include some of the Poles who did the ground breaking work on weak opening systems or any of the folks who did so much nice work on the Scanian and Carrot structures.

2. Marston has done some interesting work over the years. Even so, I think that I'd place Roy Kerr ahead of him. Kerr was the guy who originally developed the Symmetric Relay structures that Marston applied.

3. I suspect that I'd still vote for Al Roth...

[Al_U_Card]

Kokish for theorist and Lawrence for practical application. Better edit that list...

[matmat]

hrothgar, on Nov 28 2007, 03:16 PM, said:

Few quick comments:

1. When I think of (recent) bidding theorists, I think of Poles and Scandinavians. Hard to take any poll seriously that doens't include some of the Poles who did the ground breaking work on weak opening systems or any of the folks who did so much nice work on the Scanian and Carrot structures.

2. Marston has done some interesting work over the years. Even so, I think that I'd place Roy Kerr ahead of him. Kerr was the guy who originally developed the Symmetric Relay structures that Marston applied.

3. I suspect that I'd still vote for Al Roth...

isn't krzysztow jassem polish? isn't he on the list?

[hrothgar]

matmat, on Nov 28 2007, 11:46 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 28 2007, 03:16 PM, said:

Few quick comments:

1.  When I think of (recent) bidding theorists, I think of Poles and Scandinavians.  Hard to take any poll seriously that doens't include some of the Poles who did the ground breaking work on weak opening systems or any of the folks who did so much nice work on the Scanian and Carrot structures.

2.  Marston has done some interesting work over the years.  Even so, I think that I'd place Roy Kerr ahead of him.  Kerr was the guy who originally developed the Symmetric Relay structures that Marston applied.

3.  I suspect that I'd still vote for Al Roth...

isn't krzysztow jassem polish? isn't he on the list?

Jassem is a fine player and has done a lot of great work synthesizing WJ2005 and the like.

My comments were directed towards an earlier generation of players. Most specifically, Lukasz Slawinski.

I can't comprehend a poll on bidding theorists that would exclude Slawinski in favor of C.C. Wei....

[awm]

My vote goes to Benito. For some reason we tend to discount the Italians as bidding theorists, despite the facts that:

(1) The Italian Blue Team was absolutely dominant, the most dominant force in the history of international bridge. And a great part of this was their methods which (while they may be old fashioned by modern standards) were way ahead of their time.

(2) In the present day, people tend to discount the Italians as "system theorists" because their methods tend to be based on natural "2/1-style" opening bids. But a system is not just a set of openings and first round responses, it encompasses third and fourth round auctions and competitive sequences as well. The Italians are way ahead of most pairs in the development of these kinds of structures. Obviously this is the result of a lot of different theorists and conventions (some of which are almost unheard of in the US) but Benito Garrozzo was at the forefront.

I do find it amusing that bridge players seem to divide into people who "like weird systems" and people who "aren't interested in complicated bidding." The first set of people will ignore the Italians because their methods are too natural and adopt methods based on what's used by the Poles (Polish Club) or Australians (Relay Club) or a few American pairs (Meckwell or Ultimate Club). The second set of people will ignore the Italians because their methods are too complicated. Yet the Italians keep winning championships, perhaps more than any other team... and it's not all based on superior card play.

[mike777]

No doubt Garozzo is a great theorist. Many are just not sure who invented what parts out of what they played.

[csdenmark]

I wonder the reason why these are missing on the proposed list:

- Harold S. Vanderbilt, creator of club systems
- Eugenio Chiaradia, chief theorist behind Blue Team, which was the most successful team ever
- Bobby Goldman, creator of Scientific Aces which is the basis for the most popular system approach today 2o1
- Lukasz Slawinskii, creator of 8-12/pass systems

Most of the persons on the list I see most as moderators of others inventions but not as theorists.

Claus Sønderkøge

[the hog]

As Richard says, Lukasz Slawinski or Idzdebksi would have to rate highly. The latter is not even mentioned amazingly!

[mikeh]

It depends on how you measure.

In terms of greatest impact on the greatest number, then Culbertson, by a landslide. It is not clear the extent to which his ideas were uniquely his, as opposed to a collaborative effort, but there is no doubt but that he played an immense role in the (in hindsight, astounding) popularity of bridge starting in the early 30's. His books sold millions of copies... imagine any current author selling millions of bridge texts!

In terms of greatest impact on the way the game is played today, by players like us...Roth, by a landslide

Goren was, in a sense, the successor to Culbertson, but I don't think that Goren was a real theorist, as opposed to a teacher and popularizer. He didn't invent the point count, and he was far from the first to try to sell it to the masses... he just happened to be the best popularizer.

I have left out the Europeans mostly out of ignorance, and partly because, while influential in their own spheres, as a matter of sheer numbers, few non-Poles play any form of Polish Club, and I am unaware of any great ideas that have migrated from Polish Club into the mainstream, and the same is true, to a lesser extent, for the Italians.

While Roth's ideas, which included 5 card majors, the forcing 1N response, the negative double (albeit these days used in far different ways than he envisaged), the responsive double, the unusual notrump and so on are everyday tools for the vast majority of duplicate players the world over.

In fairness to more modern theorists, part of their problem, in terms of recognition, is that it is very difficult to completely revolutionize a game that has reached a certain level of maturity. Roth, after all, was theorizing at a time when the game was no more than 20 years old! The leading experts of his day probably played auction bridge before they played contract. Now, the game is almost 80 years old, and there are few large areas of bidding theory that have not been explored in detail. Thus the Kokishs, Bergens and Rodwells of the world, brilliant tho they are, can hardly come up with a treatment as revolutionary as suggesting that we stop using honour tricks as our primary valuation tool, or that we stop opening 4 card majors in 1st seat, etc.

[MikeRJ]

I suggest adding Norman Squire to the list - in the UK generally recognised as developing 4th suit forcing and making bidding a bit more disciplined.

Mike

[pclayton]

Look, I had to trim the list to 20. I had Anders Morath on there but took him off although maybe I shouldnt have. Robson / Segal I didn't think of, but its not like they exactly invented fit jumps did they? It seemed their book just codified a lot of good ideas.

[whereagles]

Being a theorist isn't just to invent stuff. It is also to be able to look at what's known and systematize it all in a coherent bundle. That's what Robson/Segal did, and they did it far better than anyone else. Their book makes sense. Other books are just too random. (I'm talking competitive bidding here. There is good systemic stuff in solo bidding.)

[P_Marlowe]

Since you listed Skid Simon, you should also list Jack Marx.

The invention of Neg. Dbls was mentioned, the invention of the
4th suit forcing, Jack Marx was involved as the Stayman Convention
was developed, and was invloved in the development of Acol.

I have got the impression from articles by Harrison-Gray that Marx
was the bidding theorist in the partnership Simon-Marx, but I may be
wrong.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: My vote goes for Simon, I like his book, and I like his approach
to bidding.

[jikl]

Personally I think you need a "None of the above"

Sean

[beatrix45]

Have to pick Eli Culberson, who first popularized approach forcing as number one. Charles Goren, a close second imo., codified a comprehnsive system that allowed players to bid with one another - after all, it takes two partners using the same system to be effective. Al Roth was, imo, by far the best theorist of his generation of players - he invented the negative double. Oswald Jacoby also invented some important conventions (one of these, the Jacoby 2NT, required my help - until Jake and I talked, it was called the Jacoby 3NT convention). Jeff Rubens is probably the leading student of bridge history alive - ask Jeff to get the best answer to this question.

[skjaeran]

csdenmark, on Nov 29 2007, 12:59 AM, said:

I wonder the reason why these are missing on the proposed list:

- Harold S. Vanderbilt, creator of club systems
- Eugenio Chiaradia, chief theorist behind Blue Team, which was the most successful team ever
- Bobby Goldman, creator of Scientific Aces which is the basis for the most popular system approach today 2o1
- Lukasz Slawinskii, creator of 8-12/pass systems

Most of the persons on the list I see most as moderators of others inventions but not as theorists.

Claus Sønderkøge

Agree with this. Anders Morath and Mats Nilsland of Sweden both belong to such a list. And I'm sure a couple of french bidding theorists need to be included (I've got no idea who though).

Anyway, I think it's impossible to agree on who is the BEST bidding theorist of all time. Surely Culbertson had a great impact on later development, but I don't think he was such a great theroretican - he had some half sound ideas ( ), but mainly he was great on publicity and commerce. Surely Roth has been far more of a bidding theoretican. I don't know if he was the best though. That's really hard to tell.

[MickyB]

Wow...two votes apiece for Klinger, Bergen and Rosencranz. Surely not?

In the absence of Rexford, Collier, Meyerson et al I voted for Kokish - He may not have been as revolutionary as someone like Roth, but his ability to make reasonable players into exceptional partnerships is impressive. Roth, on the other hand, appeared to have some bizarre ideas to go along with his good ones!