henrysun909@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On May 4, 2:42 pm, Jürgen 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.
I think his point can be expressed by saying he is urging you to play
better, not to rel on random chances. Plaing well is its only reward,
sometimes and even when you are the best pair in the world -- and that's
a tough ambition to aspire to -- you don't win every time. Excellence
is its own reward and the victories will follow it.
As for what system you use, it depends on what pleases you, what allows
you to see your partner's hand most clearly and which requires the least
amount of mental strain in return for the most gain.
In the meantime, I trust you won't be insulted if I bet on Meckwell
against you and your partner? Even if I must offer slight odds?
And, by the way, Cappelletti works very nicely against a weak No Trump.
Bob
|
