<henrysun909@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:286ca030-42c4-4591-ae72-319cf5074c6c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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.
Are you quite sure? I thought I knew one or two people who are even
more ignoraant than I am...
>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?
I forgot to take into account that you might consider your
system to be better than the system that Meckwell play.
Needless to say, I don't know whether this is the case.
One reason why Precision and other artificial Club
systems succeeded is that they are sound; another,
that they were new and defenses were not well developed.
>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.
I called it "more like roulette", meaning that it increases the element
of chance and, consequently, decreases the relative significance
of skill. That this is the case is not a matter of opinion.
>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.
This is right and the reason is simple: You do not in fact
know your opponents' trump fit; hence you know neither the 'Total
Trumps' nor the 'Total Tricks', and and the approach Lawrence
describes will make your guess wrong when they have only a
7-card fit and nevertheless compete.
>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
|
