Bear with me on this rambling musing. Last night the lovely Mrs. Jib and I attended a bi-weekly social gathering of our friends. After dinner, we began to play Uecker. Most of the people there did not know how to play Uecker, so it was a bit of a training session that evolved into a game. At one point, two of us were advising Mrs. Jib, and we had her partner pick up the trump, as Mrs. Jib had both of the jacks. Problem was, she did not have any other trump, but she did have an off suit ace. She took the first trick with her jack, and then I advised her to play her ace instead of the other jack. The logic behind this was that she'd likely give up control of the table, but she wouldn't "steal" the trump card she had her partner pick up if it turned out to be his only trump, allowing him the opportunity to take the third trick. Everything worked out right, and she and her partner took 4 tricks. One of the players on the other team then jumped all over me for the advice, saying that she should have played the second jack right away, because "it is better to maintain control of the table".
Now, if you don't know how to play Uecker, I already lost you, but here's the point. I began to think about the strategy disagreement. The opponent was thinking the thing through from an individualistic, always moving forward type vantage point. I was thinking from more of a team, who's cards do what to who vantage point. Both of those points are kind of like military strategies. Given that, are military strategists and planners outstanding card players? After all, they are well versed in strategy and looking at how certain actions work better in certain scenarios, and how all of the actions interelate. It would seem that they would be able to translate this expertise to card games very easily. Has anyone ever heard anything to this effect?
No comments:
Post a Comment