henrysun909@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On May 5, 6:00 am, Jürgen 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?
[Snip]
The common thread of your examples is that the teams played a system
which they hoped would work *better*, while you proposed playing a
different system specifically to do well in sessions where the hands
favour being anti-field.
I think people are being negative because the thread started out with a
question about stone-age Acol, so it looks as if you are suggesting
playing something objectively *worse*, so you can increase the variance
of your scores even if you lower the average.
(You fanned the flames with your example, with the vile natural 2NT
response, a bid that most players would like to see buried at a
crossroads with a stake through its heart).
Whereas I suspect even if you changed your basic system, you'd still be
a scientist at heart and adopt umpteen million extra agreements to try
to bid more accurately.
Anyway, it doesn't matter, play what you like for whatever reason you
like. But people don't see attempts to swing the occasional good
session as very noble.
|
