On May 5, 6:00 am, J=FCrgen R. <jurg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
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.
****************
Sorry to disagree, but that's one of the most ignorant comments about
bridge that I've ever read.
When the US teams in the 1950's were winning champion****ps based on
Goren and then the Italians started winning champion****ps based on
artificial club systems, were they playing roulette?
When in 1970 and 1971, the Taiwanese teams in the Bermuda Bowl
actually got to the semi-finals twice using Precision, at the time an
unheard of combination of strong club, 5 card majors, weak 1nt, and
some simple asking bids, was that playing roulette?
How about the run of the sponsored Precision team in the US, which won
Spingolds in 1970 and 1971 and the Vanderbilt in 1972? Were they
playing Roulette by using a non-standard system?
You are certainly entitled to your view that playing something non
mainstream introduces a non-controllable variable into the game. You
might even want to call it roulette because it makes you feel better.
But that is far from making it the only viable view. Even someone as
middle of the road as Lawrence has written that the best way to throw
off a partner****p that is heavily invested in the Law of Total Tricks
is to play 4-card majors and raise freely on 3. His view is that what
the 4 card majors approach loses in scientific accuracy is wins back
in the competitive trenches.
To my way of thinking, Lawrence is certainly right. All I've done is
put his comment into a weak 1nt context instead of a strong 1nt
context. Hell, Irving Litvack and Joe Silver once played a strong
club with a weak 1nt and 4 card majors - which has to be the most most
anti-field allowable system ever, excepting those of the weak opening
bid variety.
Henrysun909
|
