----- Original Message -----
From: <henrysun909@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 1:59 AM
Subject: Re: I've been wondering
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 should have tried to express myself more clearly: Of course, it
is playing bridge, but the score is meaningless, since it could
as well have been +11 as -11.
>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 has to be an overestimate...
> 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.
Yes, of course you will play the system that you know best, and
if the difference in system produces wild swings, the score is
simply less of a measure of skill and more like playing
roulette than it would be of both played the same system.
This can't be helped, unfortunately.
>Henrysun909
|
