On May 4, 6:08 pm, Bob Lipton <boblip...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> henrysun...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > 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.
>
> 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
hahahahahahahah =3D taking Meckwell over me and Steven "even at slight
odds."
Good heavens Bob, stop it or people will think you have a sense of
humor.
Obviously there are two ways to play this game: for fun and for
real. I'm one of those guys who buy books, read them, then really
read the ones I find fascinating (whether fiction or not) in an
attempt to find things that will improve my at the table responses.
But while there is undoubtedly room for improvement - I still don't
understand guard squeezes and I probably can't pull off an entry-
****fting squeeze at the table under time constraints - I have no
illusion that on my best days I'm still quite a bit shy of Meckwell on
their worst days.
It's that gap between 'my best and their worst' that I would seek to
bridge using an anti-field system. Of the natural ones, Acol strikes
me as being the best.
It is certainly not optimal if one's idea of good bidding is to get to
the right theoretical contract on every board.
On the other hand, when 1h p 2h p p can be made on hands like
QTxx
Kxx
Jxxx
xx
Kx
AQxx
K9x
KJxx
then at the very least, this very common sequence poses a threat to
those who MP mantra is 'never let them play at the 2 level
unmolested." We might easily socre +500 versus a balancing double
instead of +110 or +140. That's a swing created out of nothing
because they guessed wrong on whether or not to balance. The 2/1
auction would go 1nt p p, and balancing against a non-fit auction
would be a much dicier proposition, to say nothing of being
potentially one level lower.
Or perhaps the hands are something like this (based on a hand from the
early 1970s team trials):
JTxxx
xx
xx
KTxx
x
A
AKxxxx
AQJxx
we bid:
2d 2nt
3c 5c
6c all pass
They bid
1c (2h) p (3h)
?
Is this hand really going to force to slam when partner could be 5-4
in the reds and have no place to put the KC?
Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but even if they guess right, they
are only back to even on the board as we've already scored our +920 or
+1370.
Henrysun909
|
