a****s
发帖数: 524 | | f*****x
发帖数: 545 | 2 precision? not particluarly like. And havent fully appreciate the power of its
scientific method. The reason I like natural sys is that most of bid are
natural, easier to follow and understand, hence less chance for pd and myself
to misunderstand【 在 arrows (和绝张) 的大作中提到: 】 | l*********r
发帖数: 65 | 3 Actually you can hardly call today's standard system "most bids are natural".
For example, talking about science as simple as major raises, today we have
3-cd constructive, 4-cd constructive, 3-cd limited, 4-cd limited, limited
forcing (or forcing limited, whatever), forcing raises, good preemptive, bad
preemptive......In the contrast, witho no agreements precision can be
extremely natural and simple too, because most openings are limited.
The real advantage for a strong club system such as prec
【在 f*****x 的大作中提到】
: precision? not particluarly like. And havent fully appreciate the power of its
: scientific method. The reason I like natural sys is that most of bid are
: natural, easier to follow and understand, hence less chance for pd and myself
: to misunderstand【 在 arrows (和绝张) 的大作中提到: 】
| a*******s
发帖数: 295 | 4 Simple precision is really good for a random partnership.
If you play at "lianzhong", you will know most of players
there play precision. :) Since it seems cause much less
confusion than any "natural" system.
Use C.C.Wei's own word in his book, "precision is a 'natural'
system. :-)
Of course, It can also be highly complex and "scientific". And
it can be more easily engineered to be so than natural systems.
can. Since when the opening bid is limited,you can dig out a lot
sequences for constructi
【在 f*****x 的大作中提到】
: precision? not particluarly like. And havent fully appreciate the power of its
: scientific method. The reason I like natural sys is that most of bid are
: natural, easier to follow and understand, hence less chance for pd and myself
: to misunderstand【 在 arrows (和绝张) 的大作中提到: 】
|
|
