"eleaticus" <eleaticus@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:XNnLg.3327$Ca4.1369@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Otis Bricker" <obricker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:Xns9835508CBA1BDobrickermydejanewsco@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "****sche_Dan" <****sche.Dan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>> news:1157448217.694930.10510@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> > Translation: Look how smart I am!
>> >
>>
>> Some people don't see reality that well.
>>
>>
>> That the small number of club players did not choose to invest the
>> time needed to create and learn effective countermeasures for a
>> system they would only see for 2-3 hands in that one game is not
>> surprising. This does not mean the system is superior. Just that it
>> is not obvious how to defend against it.
>
> First requirement is a good system of overcalls. Roth-Stone would do
> best against the one bids.
>
Assuing this is true, do you share this knowledge with the opponents
before the round? And how much is learning a second system of defensive
bidding really worth when you factoring in the added memory load and the
loss it imposes on your other system elements. You now have to keep them
simpler since there is only so much you can keep straight.
> (Does anyone still play RS? It was the only fund (super)nit system I
> ever played.
>
Not sure what a "fund (super)nit" system is but I have wanted to give
Modern Roth a try for a while. Just to say I've done it.
>> Also, without detailed knowledge of the WHOLE system, it hard to draw
>> inferences on defense. Even if he worked hard to provide complete
>> explanations of all his bids and the inferences from the non-bids,
>> opponents may have had less inforamtion that he did about the meaning
>> of the auction and were handicapped by this. The same applies in
>> competitive auctions.
>
> That might apply if in just one game, but when time and again it is
> WELOS that kicks your butt (overall and on individual hands, delivery
> cold bottoms), and decreases your win percentage drastically - even
> though the WELOS originator is not as good a card player as you -
> after how many months does it make sense that something that takes
> fifteen minutes to learn is not worth looking into?
>
Wins in club games are not that im****tant to many of us. I knew a pair
around 1980 that started playing a home-grown FP system and did very well
for a very long time, months in fact. A couple folks got tired of the
preening and developed an effective counter, shared it with the club and
the gloating stopped. If we, I mean, if they, had not been so smug, they
might have gone on indefinitely. ( I confess, I was a bit of a jerk back
then )
And the fact that the system is easy to learn the basics of is not the
same as understanding the implications. I might know that you get in and
out of auctions quickly without realizing that balancing is dangerous
since you are often not in the right suit and we are giving you another
chance. This just an example since I know nothing about your system, but
that kind of thing does come up.
>>
>> This is not at all uncommon when playing against unfamiliar systems.
>> We
> can
>> try for full disclosure but it is hard to achieve.
>
> The system being all-natural (exept a relay over two-bids being very
> helpful) damn near everything but the MIDI (weak) NT requires
> alerting, but only because the bid (A) definitely has a different
> count range and (B) probably isn't forcing where standard would be
> (even rebids by opener)..
>
That only suggests that the inferences are even less obvious since the
system is so different.
>
>> If he really likes his system so much, he should post it somewhere.
>> And provide his opponents with system notes in advance.
>
> Coming up. It was jubilation that fetched my initial post. All I have
> is on paper and I need to type it in.
>
Glad to hear it.
OB
|
