"eleaticus" <eleaticus@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in news:ESqLg.3387$Ca4.2792
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Otis Bricker" <obricker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:Xns9835D31EAFBF9obrickermydejanewsco@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "eleaticus" <eleaticus@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>> news:nBoLg.3364$Ca4.390@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> > "Susan" <sdbratt48@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> > news:%AhLg.591$vb1.9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> If you fill out a convention card, why is this a problem?
>> >
>> > Couple things.
>> >
>> > You can't fill out the ramifications, which in WELOS are many (and
>> > obvious once you 'get' the simple structure).
>> >
>> > But no matter what you see, or hear, during alerts, some people just
>> > can't get it that sequences that sound standard to them aren't:
>> >
>> > Me: 1C (Alert! Promises four clubs but could be as little as 8
TOTAL
>> > points.)
>> > pass.
>> > Ted; 1H (Alert! Denies four card or better sup****t and is
>> > non-forcing.) pass.
>> > ME: pass.
>> > HUNH?!
>> >
>> > Ted could have two queens and a singleton diamond, and I could have a
>> > king, a queen, a jack, and a singleton spade (or diamond!)
>> >
>> > Third hand may have passed, with the idea of puni****ng us when we got
>> > too high.
>> >
>> > Second hand/balancer might not be able to connect the 8 total points
>> > to the opener she thinks she heard me bid.
>> >
>> > However, the damn ACBL lawyers decided to protect the little ol'
>> > ladies of Wichita, and elsewhere.
>> >
>>
>> Sadly, this post seems to suggest that you think at least one foe the
>> success you have is that they opponents are unfamiliar with your style.
>>
>> That does not sound s****ting to me.
>
> Once again, when after three months of frequent play so-called experts
> aren't getting what can be learned in 15 minutes ...
>
First, based on the length of the notes you posted and your comment on
folks missing implications, I think you claim of 15 minutes is a bit
optimistic.
But moving past that, let us look at some numbers. Three months or weekly
games translates to 13 games with perfect attendence. Each game would have
the opponents face you for one round of 3 boards(maybe 2 if the game is of
reasonable size) assuming a perfect movement. So in three months, these
pairs will have faced all of 39 hands playing against you. Not a large
sample.
And that is just the start. Half of these have them in first seat. As a
ballpark estimate lets say that 30% of those are opened. And there are
some
hands where you will not open. Assuming that, as you stated, you open
about
66% of the time, I would guess that the average opponent will have had
<24
hands where they could see your style in action over three months. And
they
have a week between sessions each time to forget any minor new
implications
that those few hands may have taught them.
That does not include the hands where your style is only evident by its
absence. Without complete knowledge of your style/system, will opponents
realize that you would not have passed with a doubleton and 7 HCP? Will
they realize that once you show up with doubleton and an AQ elsewhere,
finessing your partner for everything is a sure bet? Ot that once you have
shown 5 HCP, a void is not possible? Does you pre-annoucement make this
sort of thing clear or do they have to experience it once to see the
implications?
I really think you underestimate both the simple value of playing a
radically different system and the ease with which an opponent will become
familiar with all the implications.
OB
|
