I have absolutely no idea what he said, as it is in Swedish. But, maybe someone can translate it for me? (If the translation is something like, "It sucks," feel free to NOT translate this. LOL)
I de flesta system bjuder man sin längsta färg först, både som öppnare och svarare. De framgångsrika italienarna började på 1950-talet använda system som byggde på den franska canapé-principen, då man i stället öppnade med sin näst längsta färg och nästa gång visade den längsta.
De italienska systemen slog aldrig igenom på bred front, eftersom de var ganska krångliga, ibland rentav ologiskt uppbyggda. Det är det Ken Rexford hoppas rätta till med hjälp av en förenklad version av ett system uppbyggt på stark klöver och canapé-öppningar i ruter, hjärter och spader.
Författaren börjar med att beskriva hur ett canapé-system fungerar. Det lyckas han bra med. Men när han går över till att beskriva specifika sekvenser i sitt eget favoritsystem, saknar jag ett kritiskt öga. Det är lätt att göra exempel, som visar hur utmärkt systemet
är, men om en beskrivning ska göra anspråk på objektivitet måste de knepiga situationerna också tas med. Det saknar jag.
Trots denna reservation, är det en bok som den systemintresserade säkert kan ha glädje av.
2 comments:
Google translate says:
In most systems offer you their longest color first, as both opener and answering machines. The success of the Italians began in the 1950s, using systems based on the French canapes-law, when instead opened its second longest color and the next time was the longest.
The Italian system never worked on a broad front, as they were quite complicated, and sometimes even illogical construction. That's what Ken Rexford hope to correct by using a simplified version of a system built on strong club and canapes-openings in diamonds, hearts and spades.
The author begins by describing how a system works canapes. The success he played with. But when he goes on to describe specific sequences in their own favorite systems, I miss a critical eye. It is easy to make examples, showing how well the system
is, but if a description should claim objectivity, the tricky situations are also included. I miss that.
Despite this reservation, it is a book that the system interested can safely enjoy.
Sounds fair.
One of the tricks to describing system, of course, is the problem of finding hands that fit together well enough to explain the concept without getting too complicated, while avoiding the appearance of finding too many "ideal" deals.
If you tried to explain Flannery, for example, you would not start out with a set of hands for Responder where the call is tough. You start with the easy ones, because you want the reader to understand the methods. With an unlimited size to a book, it would be easier to also add a lot more problem hands.
Of course, that's what an advanced book would be about, I suppose. Kind of like "The Law of Total Tricks" was more of the easy stuff but "Following the Law" perhaps the more difficult ones?
Post a Comment