ArcLight

Actually, Masterpieces of Declarer play is not really about super hard hands, such as those found in Kelseys Adventures in Card Play. Its well suited for intermediate plus and advanced players. I just felt that some of the hands could have been better, or the clues on a few hands could have been better (I'd have rated the book higher than a B- (which is still worth reading). I will eventually read Pottages companion book "Masterpieces of Defense" I have only skimmed Adventures in Cardplay , it looks interesting and very tough. I wouldn't pan it because I can't solve those hands. Afterall, its an expert level book, and to pan a book because its above (or below) ones level is unfair.

I'm not saying its "losing bridge" to use a method like a very weak preempt. Just that it changes the nature of the game. Some may say "winning the game it the main thing". To me, the game has to be interesting, and I find it less so with the super weak preempts (or other destructive bids) Also, I'm not saying that those who enjoy this stuff should stop using it. They have every right to enoy the game as they like to play it. It does lessen my enjoyment, so I would like to have a venue to play with those who have similar views. This post was orginally in response to hrothgars complain about restrictions on systems/methods. >In december I played against the "Säffle spade" for the first time, a system where 1♣=8+hcp, 4+♥'s | pass=8+hcp, 4+♠'s | 1♦=0-7. We used just a minute to decide defence. Doesn't sound like fun to me :blink: I'd rather play against experts, using 2/1, so I could attempt to draw inferences, rather than against weaker players using some system that I'd be unfamiliar with. I just find taht less enjoyable.

I assumed it was penalty. I was holding 2 hearts, and thought pard might have 5, with declarer holding 6. Guess I was wrong! :lol: Pard was something like 2=2=5-4 2♥ making 4! Ugh :blink: I don't care about the result, I just want to make sure I understand this sequence for the future. What's interesting is not everyone here sees it the same way. Thank you all for your input.

What an amusing post, it sounds like teh 13 year old I was sitting next to on the plane. ;) I think I have enough experience, and have read enough bridge books that I can recognize the good ones. Its funny that you troll for a fight when I rate a book B-. My god, what if I had rated it a C? Maybe you would kill me? :lol: >1- a lot of the time you give judgments quite biased - which is something that a world class player can afford to, but in my opinion not an intermediate like me and you How am I biased? I don't rate all books A+? Sorry, but there are quite a few mediocre bridge books. Just because it takes a lot of work to write a book, doesn't mean its worth buying or reading. The problem with those who only give favorable reviews of mediocre works is the readers get burned , wasting time and money. >In any case don't ask me more about this (such as which posts I am referring to and why) because I won't follow up a flame war. No, you just try and start one. :blink: Try reading the books before you criticize my reviews. No one will agree 100% with everyone. I review the books as I see them. Feel free to disagree, Just don't tell me I don't "try and understand them". I wouldn't read a book cover to cover if I wasn't "trying". I an not an expert, but I have read many bridge books. I enjoy reading them. So I think I am able to appreciate a good one, and recognize a poor one.

A preempt based on a 6 card suit holding 3 of the top 5 honors is constructive as well as obstructive. (in 1st or 2nds seat, in 3rd preempts can be wild) A 5 card suit to the jack is more like a random carp shoot. It might be effective, it might not. But I think that type of bidding makes the game random and I don't enjoy it as much. Same for opening 1 Spade with 8 HCP. It may "work" but I think it changes the nature of the game and makes it less interesting. It becomes more random. Maybe Sabine Auken likes that, I don't.

>Hence, when evaluating the issues related to the bidding that are raised by an author, it would be crucial to *try* to understand the different background, I think. Of course I "try" to understand the different backgrounds. Not all books I read use 5 card majors, 15-17 NT. I never slam a book because the system is a bit different, like the author uses 4 card majors or 12-14 NT (instead of 15-17). I found a number of hands from Kelseys classic "Killing Defense" hard to solve (I got them wrong) because I wasn't expecting the inferences from the bidding the author derived (like opening 1 Club with 5 spades and 5 Clubs). I still think kelseys book is very good. You seem very fast to criticize my review when you have not read the book. The author could have done a better job on some of the sleected hands, since the inferences were poor. The same goes for his other book "Clues from the Bidding". To imply I didn't "try" is just insulting. Of course I try to be aware of the bididng system and convention. You should "try" to not put words in other people mouths.

. - . - . p p 1♥ p 1♠ p 2♥ X p ? Is the X a take out double or penalty. Why?

>Players aren't allowed to use any of the constructive response structures that are necessary to support a 9 - 14 HCP opening range. Good. :P I don't enoy "poker" bridge where the emphasis is on destructive bididng. It detracts from the deductive reasoning and card play. Many of you are really into bidding systems, yet you are not competent card players (neither am I yet :( ) Many of you can't draw inferences. I would much rather play with/against great players where we all use a simpler system that is not destructive/obstructive. Playing "your idea" of bridge doesn't appeal to me. I don't enjoy playing against "junk" bids where sometimes we get screwed (missing out on a game) and sometimes we set the opps for 1400. I play a game that I find interesting (as do you). Your idea of interesting is not necessarily the same as others (and neither is mine everyones cup of tea)

agreed Those who criticize 2♠ are way off the mark. Just what do they suggest instead? Its not that I like 2♠, but I'm not sure whats better? 3♥ would show 4, because 2♥ earlier is a reverse. 2NT with Jx in ♦ doesnt thrill me. The choices are 3♣ or 2♠. 3♣ implies more clubs than 6 as the 2♣ bid implied that. A question for the 2♠ bidders: How do you bid 3=(1/3)=6 hands or 3=2=3=6 hands? 1♣ 1♠ - ? Bid 2♠? Rather than 2♣? You frequently raise spades with just 3. When would you rebid clubs, planning on showing spades later? What if your clubs are AKJTxx, and spades are x x x? Would you bid 2♠ or 2♣?

>But anybody who actually follows any published book to the letter is at a huge disadvantage compared to the Meckwells of the world. And all along I thought Meckwell have an advantage over me because they are better players, not because of their system. :) At their level system can add a few IMPS here and there. Taking an extra 15 Imps in the Bermuda Bowl against world class opponents is important. Theya re all that good. Against lesser players, they would collect scores of IMPS. Meckwell using SAYC would probably destroy most players here. When you start placing in the top 10 in national tournaments, then start worrying more about system and concentions. Till then, worry about basics. (you still need a reasonable system, but donn't go over board. Concentrate on agreements, carding, and knowing your fundamental system thoroughly. Know all follow ups of your conventions, and how they are impacted by interference) > An expert can sell books about 2/1, claim they're playing 2/1, but actually play something that doesn't have stupid black-and-white rules like 'don't open light'. Or the expert can follow the book they sell, and take a big handicap against their opponents, who aren't limited to what a beginner can understand. They still might win, but it's going to be a lot tougher. Try reading some of Mike Lawrences books on 2/1 and especially the CD. Its almost all about the core system, rather than the conventions ( the CD does have a section on some conventions).

It comes down to what your partnership has agreed as its minimum values for a accepting a help suit game try. Is it : xx (2 lsoers) Qx (something better than 2 losers) A/K x (one of the top 2 or 3 honors)? If its xx, then responder can bid game. With the counter suit game try of 3♦, I assume opener feared 1 club loser, and 2 heart losers, so the next question is: What is the partnership agreement on counter suit game tries? AKxx AQJxx KQJ (1 loser, no losers if a finesse is working) Rather than blame anyone, Id suggest the partnership look at 2 issues: 1 - what is the miniumum accept for a game try 2- what does a counter suit try show Once you reach an agreement, you are ready for future problems. Don't worry about missing a game if your agreements are not firm. Fix the basic problem (uncertainty) instead.

The one thing about Mike Lawrnces books and CD (dont forget the CD, its good and more modern) on 2/1 is that he focuses on teh core system, not the conventions. Under his version how are these different? 1♠ - 2♦ 2♥ - 3♠ 1♠ - 2♦ 2♥ - 2♠ The former shows excellent 3 card support (2 honors) and more than a min opener 1♠ - 2♦ 3♦ - 4♠ 1♠ - 2♦ 3♦ - 3♠ The former shows good ♠ (3) and good ♦ and no outside feature 1X - 1NT 2NT = 18-19 1X - 1NT 2Y - 2Z 2NT = 16-17 1M – 1NT – 2NT – 3M = weak hand, 3 spades 1M – 1NT – 2NT – 4M = 3 card limit raise. What I'm getting at is he focuses on core 2/1, rather than conventions. Many people below expert level thing 2/1 consists sole of: - forcing NT - 2/1 = GF There is a lot more to it, if you want the benefits

I'll play for clubs 4-3 1 Win heart Ace. 2 Dime to Ace 3,4,5 3 rounds of clubs, discarding 2 hearts 6 Dime to Q (if east has the K and plays another Im in hand, if dimes 2-2 win any return) 7 - win somewhere, or lose to Easts Kxx if the Q won, then win the return 8 Spade Ace 9 Spade ruff 10 last 2 clubs good for 2 spade discards

The Lightner Double calls for an unusual lead, typically the first bid suit of dummy. But it also requires that you use your brain. Its not a bling command. In this case, its likely that declarer has at least 5 diamonds. So there are 2 outstanding diamonds, and its reasonable to assume that pard is void. Lead a diamond.

I like this problem and its solution, didnt solve it myself, if this is the kind of problems in this book then its a good book. This problem was one of the best, thats why I selected it. Many are not as good. Overall I rate it a B-.

If total points = HCP + Length (2 points for a 6 card suit) And If 3♣ shows 16-18 total points and 6+ clubs, Then 3♣ shows 14-16 hcp with 6 clubs, and less with longer clubs. I don't know anybody who plays that. It's an entertaining thought, because it means that the upper limit for a 3♣ bid is just below the lower limit for a reverse. However, it puts you at the 3 level without a fit and about half the points in the deck if partner was a normal minimum response. Not one of my favorite places to be. You find it "entertaining"? Thats what Fred Gitelmans software says. (on the ACBL web page) A Medium Opener (16-18 total points) = jump rebid of the same suit It guarantees 6 cards. Total points = HCP + length points This is from his example: 1♣ - 1♥ 3♣ ♠ A x ♥ x x ♦A 9 8 ♣A Q J T 8 x 15 HCP + 2 length = 17 >"I don't know anybody who plays that." Then Fred must be wrong. Good thing I have you to set me straight. :rolleyes: I suggest you tell Fred he doesn't understand fundamental bidding. I'm sure he will find your opinion "entertaining" :)

I've never seen somebody include two points for a singleton in partner's suit and no fit as yet. So what do you do with, say Axx x AJx AKJxxx That's too strong, apparently, to bid 3♣ with. Keep in mind, since you're required to have at least 2 points of distribution to bid 3♣, you're saying that 3♣ shows basically 13-16 hcp. Its not 2 HCP for a singleton, its 2 for the extra Club length 6 card suit. 6-4 = 2. Total points = HCP + length Axx x AJx AKJxxx This is a Reverse to 2♦. If the J was stiff I'd treat it as 0 and just bid 3♣ >>Keep in mind, since you're required to have at least 2 points of distribution to bid 3♣, you're saying that 3♣ shows basically 13-16 hcp. No I'm not. You are misunderstanding. 3♣ shows 16-18 total points, just as I said. Thats probably in the range of 14/15 - 17

After looking at the link Josh provided, and reading Kens comment I think transfers over a reverse make sense. The 10-12 isnt needed over a reverse becaus eunless pard has 21 and you have 12 you arent making slam. Offsetting those rare missed slams, you have a way to handle weak hands opposite a reverse which are fairly common. So after the reverse, 2NT is a transfer to Clubs. (But now what does Opener do? Break the transfer and bid 3♥ with extra length and responder passes? Ok. Because 4♥ was down 1) Thank you all for showing me this :rolleyes:

Josh, I'm not familiar with the transfers you suggest. Please show me the bidding you would use with your preferred system.

Is this a trick question? You don't have 16 hcp. I'd argue that if partner responds 1 spade, you don't even have 15 hcp. Maybe 14. I would not bid 2♦ if partner responded 1♥, unless we had agreed that it's not forcing across a sub-minimum response. Way too likely to end up in an impossible game. But I can understand why that's a minority position. Its not a trick question, I said total points (includes distribution) not HCP.

What would you suggest? 2NT after 1NT shows 10+ - 12+. Is that what you don't like? That it should be a bail out? Perhaps the 3NT response was not correct? Maybe its better for the responder to bid Clubs after the 1NT response, as this shows a weak hand with no fit. >Haven't you shown a strong 56 major hand ? All 2♠ promises is 4=5, not 5=6

Question on Standard bidding: What does this aution show: 1m - something, 3m 6+ cards and 16-18 total points? (this is from Freds software on the ACBL website) Doesn't this mean 1♣ followed by 3♣ is generally the correct bid? (or 2♦ reverse over pards 1♥ since the Q may be useful) Why bid only 2♣?

IMPS, white on white you deal, holding ♠ A J x x x ♥ A K x x x x ♦ x ♣ A You open 1 heart 1♥ - 1NT (forcing) 2♠ - 3NT (2NT shows 10+ - 12-) so 3NT is more of a sign off Pards hand hidden below

Test your Percentages by Hugh Kelsey 36 problems revolving around how to combine chances, such as playing for the drop with AKJx opposite xxxx, before taking a finesse with AQx opposite xx. In a way its a companion book to his excellent Bridge Odds for Practical Players The problems go beyond just percentages (though thats teh main emphasis) and also focus on entry management and timing. These problems are maybe a little easier than some of those in his other books, provided you can do the math. You need to be able to figure out that one line of play is 36% + 8% + 6% + 3% and therefor better than the finesse by 3%. A solid A for intermediates and above. Note - *Very hard to find!* Carl Ritner has one for sale for $10.

Masterpieces of Declarer Play by Julian Pottage 72 single dummy problems, broken into 3 groups: NT, suit, and bonus The problems are on the advanced side (its got some advanced squeezes like triple and compound). Some of the inferences I don't agree with and therefore the hands are not really solvable by the clues given. For example - many would make a weak 2♥ jump overcall with 6 hearts headed by the AJxxxx non-vulnerable against vulnerable opponents opening a minor. And many would not open a hand containing 10 HCP consisting of 1 Ace and 2 Kings and not great shape like 5-5-3-0. Even so, I found the problems mosly interesting, with subtle uses of spot cards and end plays, and playing for certain shapes. For advanced players I give it a B-. Here is problem 31 [hv=d=n&v=e&n=sakjhq964dak73ca5&s=sq63hj8753dqt62c7]133|200|(opponents silent) pard opens 2NT - 3♦, 3♠ super accept- 4 ♥[/hv] West leads the ♣4 to your ace, east plays the 2, showing an odd # of clubs. How do you play to make 4♥? solution hidden below