On May 4, 2:42 pm, J=FCrgen R. <jurg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Since a team of four me's would stand no chance against Nickel using
> > their methods in a Swiss match (to say nothing of a long KO match), at
> > least if I'm playing Acol and they are playing Eastern scientific and
> > strong club systems I have a chance to pull off an upset if the luck
> > goes my way.
>
> > I certainly won't be beating them on the basis of my skill level
> > versus theirs.
>
> I have never understood this attitude. Why give up? Why not play
> bridge? - It is a much better game than roulette .
>
>
>
> > Henrysun909
I don't understand your response. I'm not talking about psyching on
every board or preempting 3s with the Jxxxx of spades.
But let's say the hands are these:
xxx
AKxx
AQx
KJx
Kx
Jxx
KJxx
Axxx
Our (Acol) bidding is 1h (4 card major) - 2nt (balanced 11-12), 3nt
(to play).
We get to play in the right contract from the right side since the KS
is protected on lead. With 8 top tricks, I have a ninth if the spade
ace is right or the club queen is right.
Playing standard, the bidding would go 1nt-3nt. Now, if the Ace of
spades is offside and spades are 5-3, I will be going down even if the
queen of clubs is onside.
How is achieving this kind of result by using an anti-field system not
playing bridge, or playing poker or roulette?
I have no doubt that over the long haul, the technical advantage that
Meckwell would have over, say, me and Steven, in a 64 board match
would be at least 2 imps per board. That means that to make the match
competitive, we'd have to come up with around 128 imps worth of
swings. We could do that in one of two ways.
We could do it Steven's way, by opening hands like
xxxx
xx
xx
AKxxx
with 1c, or doubling 1d for takeout with
Qxxxxx
Jxxx
x
xx
Or we could do it my way by playing a reasonably coherent system that
will get to different contracts, or the same contract by different
auctions, or from different sides, and hope that luck is on our side.
I'll take the later option.
Henrysun909
|
