Re: I've been wondering

"Tim" <thg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:9b0b4ed0-db1b-4b80-85f6-7a77d30b302d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 May 4, 5:42 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 .

>Are you suggesting old fa****oned Acol is not bridge?

Of course Acol is bridge. In fact, every one of the 37 different
variants of Acol is bridge.

What I meant is that I don't understand that one can take
much pleasure in the fact that the dice sometimes
fall one way and sometimes another.

If the two sides play radically different systems there will be
fixes in both directions, variance is increased, and a victory
in a short match may mean little or nothing.

>If two teams must play the same system in order to have it be a
>contest of "bridge" then why is the onus on me to play Nickel's system
>rather than on them to play mine?  Further, why haven't Meckstroth and
>Rodwell made their system notes available to the public so that we can
>play on an even playing field?

Is that the case? In a meaningful tournament (as distinct
from a club game or something like a Sectional in the U.S.)
nobody should play a system that isn't publicly
available. But that is only my insignificant opinion. Undoubtedly
the ACBL and David Stevenson know better what is
good for the players.