Too much information not enough
What I'm slowly piecing together is that many people play systems they have no idea how to play. I am one of these people. Months ago I decided not to try to learn any more conventions until I had a better understanding of basic bidding. I think over all a good decision. What I didn't realize was how many of the conventions and treatments I thought I knew how to play I only half knew. As I read about the things I play in theory (for example Better Bidding with Bergen) I'm faced with learning tons of stuff I thought I knew but don't. So, do I decide to play nothing and not read any books on bidding? Do I read only books written by people writing about non-systematic bidding? Do I decide that I'm going to have to learn these conventions?
Ultimately, I think I'd rather play 2/1 than standard american. But if I'm playing 2/1 the way most players of my level are playing 2/1 then does the reading help? I'm not sure that most intermediates are necessarily in a better boat than mine. I think the best solution is to find partners who are much better than I am. The only problem there is, it works for me better than it works for them.
Also, at the risk of sounding truculent, the other problem with intermediate players is that we're very critical. I hate being criticized every hand. It may be deserved, but it's damn disheartening. Shade is an excellent partner, but he's not playing often enough. Will is also one of my favorite partner's but he's not playing at all. I wonder if it's my fault. Last time we played together I believe we did terribly. I wonder if I broke him. I also like to play with Anna, but our times don't always hook up. Hopefully that will change fairly soon. Last night Han suggested that I find a regular p. I think he's right, but I'm also finding the suggestion daunting. Of course Marty Bergen doesn't have a regular partner these days, and he really knows all the systematic stuff. I think I have his email too. Maybe...
Ultimately, I think I'd rather play 2/1 than standard american. But if I'm playing 2/1 the way most players of my level are playing 2/1 then does the reading help? I'm not sure that most intermediates are necessarily in a better boat than mine. I think the best solution is to find partners who are much better than I am. The only problem there is, it works for me better than it works for them.
Also, at the risk of sounding truculent, the other problem with intermediate players is that we're very critical. I hate being criticized every hand. It may be deserved, but it's damn disheartening. Shade is an excellent partner, but he's not playing often enough. Will is also one of my favorite partner's but he's not playing at all. I wonder if it's my fault. Last time we played together I believe we did terribly. I wonder if I broke him. I also like to play with Anna, but our times don't always hook up. Hopefully that will change fairly soon. Last night Han suggested that I find a regular p. I think he's right, but I'm also finding the suggestion daunting. Of course Marty Bergen doesn't have a regular partner these days, and he really knows all the systematic stuff. I think I have his email too. Maybe...
posted by Deborah at 3:45 PM
2 Comments:
Marty would be a good choice for a partner, I hope I won't have to play against you two.
When you told me that you were reading better bidding with Bergen I said you should find a regular partner to have these agreements with. That doesn't mean that reading about these gadgets is useless if you can't play them. For one thing, reading Marty's writing is always nice, but it will also give you a better understanding of the problems that exist in 2/1 or SAYC.
I will keep reading. And I will keep looking for someone to play with regularly.
But I'm still frustrated. I don't want to play Standard American. I was happier three days ago when I thought I was playing 2/1 with a degree of greater degree accuracy.
I guess I should read the whole book, then decide what's missing and what to add first.
Post a Comment
<< Home