ArcLight

>I think the whole good 6-4/ bad 6-4 thing is becoming a little outdated. How do todays experts bid? Do they bid both hands the same way? (rebid the major?) Too bad Marty Bergen never wrote his book "Is it Forcing" (advertised as a future release in 2003).

Where are our tricks coming from? 1 Club 1 Spade, 2 if we risk the finesse 3 Diamonds - A K and one more we need 4 hearts A big problem is entries to dummy to lead hearts through east (ducking if the Q is played) and also making 3 dimes if west doesnt cover or east does have the Q Leading a Dime to the Jack doesnt help either. Cashing the AK of Dimes will not drop the Q (9%?) Cashing the AK of hearts may get us 4, either dropping the doubleton Q or allowing East to be given his trick and the suit established. I'll take the Spade finesse. The problem with first testing Diamonds is if west has Qxx♦ and east wins a heart and leads a ♦. Spade finesse. Cash Dime Ace Cash AK hearts and put in East entry to our hand in Spades (Ace) for the rest of the hearts, and the dime J for the K

>I think you just got too defensive and instead of listening and trying to learn something you desided to fight which is sad cause i always thought seeing how many books you read that you are a learner. I see why your name is Flame. Very appropriate :lol:

>If you are disappointed not all is lost. I am sure someone would be willing to pay used book price to take it off you hands if the book rate mailing is not too expensive. All I said was I ws disappointed with the book. (I would be happy to trade it or sell it, unfortunately the next after costs of a used book like this is around $8, probably not worth selling) > And since you have slammed it, they can't expect their money back should they also not like it. I don't think I slammed it. Contract my review to that of the Jassem book where that person said "The book sucks". >BTW, on your quote to mikeh QUOTE >I didnt read the book but i admire Ken for being so brave writing such a book. It generally helps to read a book before offering comments on it. I myself tend to dislike offering opinions without knowing what I'm talking about Ben, If you would look more closely, that was in response to Flame, not MikeH. Flame was putting words in my mouth. MikeH did not. I made 2 separate replies, one to Flame and one to Mike H.

>As such, it is unrealistic to expect his book to be a treatise on expert practice. Why? Thats what I was looking for? And what I think others are also. >I also recognize that Ken has pointed out that he was working within space constraints and that the book was primarily written as a form of self-exploration: of codifying and assessing methods that interested him. If I had known that up front I would never have paid money for the book. This is a book review forum. I see many here defending Ken. I am not personally attacking him. I see him attacked plenty on other forums, which is sad. I am very disappointed with the book. I read A LOT of bridge books, and I like to think I recognize good ones. I think this book may be of "interest" to a few, but not of value to the vast majority. Save your money and buy Ron Klingers Cue Bidding to Slam (Intermediate) and Alan Moulds Step by Step Slam Bidding (more advanced than Klingers) (I didn't really care for Hugh Kelseys book on Slam Bidding)

>Do you really want another book on slams explaining conventions such as RCKB, deniel cue bid, asking bids, byzintine etc ? No. As I wrote I wanted a book on standard / common expert cue bidding, other than traditional Ace first. >I didnt read the book but i admire Ken for being so brave writing such a book. It generally helps to read a book before offering comments on it. I myself tend to dislike offering opinions without knowing what I'm talking about :huh: >Im also sure it was very hard to do alot of work needed for such a book. So what? Does that mean one should pay money, because it was hard work for someone else? I didn't say the book sucks or Ken was lazy or stupid. I said I was very disappointed with it. Its not the standard cue bidding systems widely used by experts. Its someones own pet theories, who is not an expert. If someone wrote a book on their own invented bidding system, I wouldn't read it, even if it was a good system, and they invested a lot of time. >I agree with you on one thing, i would like to know that this system really work and for that the only way is to know that a real world class successful partnership is using it succesfully. I never said that either. What I want is the system(s) many experts use today.

>heh, I just finished Ken's book last night. So do you use many of the methods described? How about opponents that you face in high level competition?

Ken should not be bashed. I see plenty of that on other folders :angry: I was just disappointed with the book. Maybe I was just mislead by the title. maybe it should be "Kens prefered cue bidding system". I would not have bout it but experts like Hannie might. I was hoping for "Cue bidding commonly used by many experts, other than ace first". >Those players that do not realise that you can have (and bid!) slam with 22 HCP should not be reading a book like Ken's, they should learn the basics first. Agreed. This also has nothing to do with my criticism of the book. It was a comment Flame made. While 22 HCP can make a slam, its not that common. Even with shape, you tend to need some kind of a minimum, else the opps can sac too cheeply, or compete and make it hard to find. I have bid (and made) 24 HCP slams on occasion, recently missing a 23 HCP slam. >I didn't read the book, only the first 16 pages that are available for free on the web. The impression I got is similar to what I thought when reading this quote. You are offering an opinion before reading the book? >I don't know if there is anything worth reading in the later part of the book, there might very well be some gems there, just waiting to be discovered by the expert community. I suspect that most real experts are familiar with much of this. Maybe not. Maybe they will find an idea they like.

>A simple example. Few realize that 1♥-P-2♥ is the start of an auction where slam is very possible. Most think "less than 21 opposite at most 9 means slam will not make." If an example fo a 22 HCP slam is provided, and understood, and if a tool is described to competently explore that slam, then one might gain judgment by realizing that the impossible is actually very possible. Even fewer realize that to investiage slam on every hand will led to more lost part scores and games as you bid too high. ;) In some of the examples of the book you fault Meckwell for missing a slam. I wonder if its possible that in their judgement it wasn't worth continuing. They were wrong on that one. Maybe they are right on 2 others? And its not like Meckwell are afraid of science or complexity. This is a big point in Alan Moulds book. He shows tons of bad slams, and talks a lot about judgment. >Arclight, i may be wrong but i think your problem begin at the same spot as some of my student (the good ones) and many many other players i know, you think cue bids are intended to show something in a specific suit. This is wrong. :) Ok - I guess I'm deluded then. >Yes cue bids do show something in a suit, but this is only thier side job, their main one is to show slam interest and discuess slam with partner. Thats part of it, sure. It also has NOTHING to do with why I was disappointed with the book. >You better forget what cue bid show in a suit then forget its main goal, many times it might even pay to cue bid with nothing in the suit as opponents wont lead the suit. I don't think so, even if you are Zia. Yoor pard will not enjoy playing with you. > When you fully understand this and accept this main goal of cue bidding, and i know its not easy since i see player who were tought that cue show ace and cant accept not to know what exactly in the suit, I dont know what you are talking about. I was looking for a book on cue bidding other than the traditional Ace first. That why I got the book in the first place. I went out of my way to look for this extra knowledge. > then you can get into the least important thing of what exactly the cue bid better show which as i said is far less important. :lol: Opp to pard = what does 3♦ mean ? pard = Who the hell knows. :rolleyes:

>Justin's statement that forgiving errors penalizes him is true: and it does benefit everyone else sitting his way, but he seems to have overlooked its effect on the rest of the field. I also think there is an element of pride. The top players want you to know they BEAT you, and were not handed a victory by a lucky non-play related mistake. Alan Sontag mentions this is his book - the Bridge Bum. He was playing against the Blue team for sports cars back in the early 70's. Pietro Forquet (I think) lead out of turn. Sontag let him take it back. He was called a sportsman. But he said he wanted to show everyone that he was the best by skill, and not have any lingering doubts.

Because I don't know any foreign languages I assume I am missing out on some great Bridge books. I very much liked the Berthe / Lebely book on No Trump play. I understand they have a few others. What are some other excellent bridge books taht have not been translated into English? Im guessing many Italian, Polish, French, and German books. Maybe Swedish too.

The book does not explain how to use cue bidding of first and second round controls at the same time (mixed cue bidding). It shows the authors system, where you are required to use all his methods, such as Serious 3NT, and 2NT as not natural but instead showing weak trumps. If you don't, there are ambiguous sequences, and there is no suggestion in the book on how to deal with them. I don't agree that the Belladonna article is not of use in a 2/1 system. Theer may be some connection between system and cue bidding methods, but I'm not convinced its a major problem (I could be wrong!) >Indeed, why is there a reasion to show poor trumps if one could later use, for instance, RKCB and the Grand Slam try ? So you dont end up in 5 of a major, and instead try for 3NT. >I will try to get a copy of Ken's book, especially after reading his reply, from which I suspect he really did a job more comprehensive than the average book on slam investigation :-) Without question, there is some interesting material. I don't think it will be useful to me, just as reading ROMEX may be interesting, but of no use to me. The "average book on slam investigation" focuses more on judgment. Thats what I REALLY LIKED about Alan Moulds Step by Step Slam Bidding. All you experts wont need it, your judgment is already excellent. For the rest of us, its a great book. Klingers book on Cue Bidding to Slams is also a very good one on cue bidding. I just wish he had more on th mixed cue bidding. He also had some interesting ideas on using: -Denial Cue bidding (3NT = inability to cue bid the lower suit, but still slam interest) I guess this is not used by many pairs - relay ques - where skipping suits can imply both suits. Sounds confusing. He does not cover the problem of the Bidding Squeeze as Belladonna calls it, when using mixed cue bidding a cue bid shows control in partners skipped over suit, but not the suit bid. I'd like to know what system of cue bidding Fred uses with Brad. Hamway, Meckwell, and Cohen/Berkowitz too.

I was told that experts in the USA now tend to use Italian style cue bidding rather than traditional ace first. Is this true, when did that stat, and how amny (percentage wise) use the older Ace first method. Of those who use Italian style cue bidding, how many use Serious 3NT? Of those who use Italian style cue bidding, how many use 2NT to always mean weak trumps ina sgame forcong auction, once trumps are agreed?

>I am disappointed that you did not finish reading throught he book, and that I apparently used a writing technique that left you not following the material, Arclight. I did skim the other sections. As this is an assortment of various methods one can use, I didn't think it was necessary to read them in detail all at once. I read the main part in detail. It was not the case of skimming 1/3 of the book and saying "I don't like it". I did read the section on Inferential Cue bids, in detail. I think it's one of the most important aspects of Italian style cue bidding. I did not see the answer to my examples, thats why I posted them. There are no Limit Raise examples, only 2/1 examples. That ok, but I found some of the examples from the Belladonna article absent in the book. Since screwing up cue bidding and slam bidding is very bad, I think its critical for an author to make everything clear, and not leave it for the reader to pick up on one key aspect - the further cue bidding after one pard has skipped a suit(s) implies coverage of those suits, but not the suit bid. How do you handle continuations? This is a common occurence and a lot more useful to prospective users than some of the material in the later sections. To put it inperspective, after reading the Klinger and Mould books, I felt comfortable using cue bidding. After reading this book I think there is potential, but too many gaps in the teaching material to feel comfortable using it. It doesn't strike me as complete, too many unanswered questions left to the user. Maybe thats the point - you can make whatever agreements you like. Well that doesn't appeal to me - I want a guide. Like "this is the suggested basic system many pairs use". When I first read the Belladonna article, there were some things that weren't clear to me. But some of the Inferential sequences did help more than those in the book. My gut feeling is using this in a bidding room could be interesting, but I'd have to spend a lot of time fleshing out misunderstanding and gaps/holes that were not covered. Thats frustrating, because with more examples of basic sequences the time wsted would be cut down. I would not be happy using a system where strange systems arrise from time to tme, leading to bad results, and these offset some of the gains. I'm not talking about a slam off 2 aces, or the AK, a sthat can happen accoring to the original users. If you use a more complex system and it overall gives better results even taking account the mixups, it still may not be worth using if its complex or memory intensive or yields just slightly better results. One doesn't win by using slightly better conventions than the opponents*, you win by playing better bridge. [one can win by using methods the opponents are not familiar with - you are winning not becaus eyou are any good, but becaus eof surprise. You can think you are good, even though you are not] * - unless you are both world class. When I'm ready to face Meckwell and Hamway and Fred then I'll think about more complex methods.

>How did you get the book ? did you by it directly from steve ? how much did you pay for it ? While Baron Barclay may be excellent, I have found that the #1 place to go for books is first http://www.carlritner.com/ Carl Ritner has a ton of used or new books in various conditions. I have probably spent several hundred dollars buying dozens books from him over the years. In fact, I believe there is an unexplainable law of nature, which I call "Ritners Law". It works like this: EVERY used / older Bridge book you buy else where will soon be ofered by Carl for less money. Its happened to me repeatedly :blink: ;)

Thank you for the link to Belladonna's very nice article on cue bidding. Its much better than the book. Look at this excerpt from Belladonnas article: 3a) Two No-trumps a1) with a fit in a MAJOR - if bid immediately after partner’s raise, it shows minimum strength and/or a bad trump suit and says nothing about side controls, even those bypassed - if bid after cue-bids it’s a counter-cue-bid At least Belladonna is giving a rule when 2NT is showing the poor trumps. In teh Cuebidding at Bridge book the author says "the players will ahev to decide for themselves". I would prefer the advice and experience of experts (such as Belladonna) to present their rules rather than leave it to me. Here is another good example, thats not in the Rexford book 1H-2C-2D-2H-3D-3H cue-bid in S and C (at least one 1st-round, else S and C Aces are missing) (S Kx H Qxxx D Kx C AKxxx) And another - this is what I mentioned in my first post 1C-2H-3H-4C-4D 1st- or 2nd-round control in S. Bidding squeeze in D, control of which is not guaranteed. (S AKx H Axxx D xx C QJxx) 1S-3S-4D-4H 1st- or 2nd-round C control. Bidding squeeze in H, control of which is not guaranteed. (S QJxx H xx D Qxx C Axxx) Who "invented" Italian cue bidding? The Blue team? Did it evlove slowly? With iterative refinements?

Cuebidding at Bridge by Ken Rexford I was eagerly looking forward to this, but just didn't get around to reading it for a few months. After reading the first section I am quite disappointed :( There are some interesting ideas, but also lots of basics left out, plus ambiguous sequences. What I wanted was a clear self contained system hand book on using Italian Style cuebidding. Bells and whistles can be included in later chapters. Maybe I am mistaken, but what is presented includes some of the authors favorite conventions on top, such as serious 3NT. I don't know what is "standard" and what are the authors pet treatments. Do all top experts use Serious 3NT? Did Garozzo and Belladonna use it along when they used Italian style cue bidding? (I doubt it) I want the opinions of a true expert, not someone who has just been playing for a long time and has ACBL attendence points (i.e. Master Points). I want to learn the cue bididng systems used by strong players, without esoteric treatments that can lead to confusion or bad results. Those can be introduced in later chapters, but don't include them as part of the base system. A non expert can still explain a method, but when he starts venturing his own opinion, he is doing an injustice to his readers. Here is an auction that he does not cover 1♥ - 3♥ [4+ hearts, 10-12 support points, a Limit Raise] 4♣ - 4♦ what does 4♦ mean? 4♣ bypassed spades, opener does not have a spade control. What does 4♦ mean? Does it show the spade control, and deny the diamond control? This is not explained in his book. Will this come up? Its very likely. An example is given of a 2/1 bidding sequence where 2NT comes up and the author says the partners will have to agree when its natural and when its part of his system. (2NT in his system is a special bid that denies 2 of the top 3 honors in the trump suit) Doh! :) If these methods are going to add confusion to basic, common sequences, then you are really asking for some morale damaging disasters. Have fun explaining your bad results to your team mates. "we made 2 extra slams" you can say. "Yes, and you had 2 other disasters to offset them". Contrast this with Ron Klingers Classic Cue Bidding to Slam. It has lots of examples, and covers some of the variations, such as cue bidding 1st and 2nd round controls. The only problem is it doesn't have more than a few pages on this, and more coverage is needed. In Alan Moulds excellent Step by Step Slam Bidding, he covers judgment, which is not covered in this book. In the Rexford book, the author seems to try for slams that are a bit thin. Maybe his declarer skills are equal to those of Belladonna and Garozzo, mine are not. I don't know who this book is aimed at. Its certainly not for beginners or intermediates. Is it for Advanced players, or experts? The advertisement on the back says "Advanced". I don't see how it will help them. Its not a complete system. Its got gaps and ambiguous sequences. It will give some spectacular results, and also some disasters. Is it worth using if its marginally better than the traditional aces first method? If the book was more complete, and covered many more meat and potato sequences I could consider it of some use. I have read almost 200 Bridge books. This is one of the least useful I've read, in the bottom 10% (I also really dislike Julian Pottages books). I don't even want it on my book shelf. I will trade it along with my 2nd copy of Alan Moulds excellent book Step by Step Preempts (unused), and Kantar on Kontract (unused) for books I have not read such as: - Hand Reading in Bridge by Danny Roth - Find the Mistake by Eric Jannersten - Bridge Odds for Practical Players by Hugh Kelsey - Over Hoffmans Shoulder by Martin Hoffman - Inspired Card Play by Martin Hoffman - Washington Standard by Steve Robinson [read but don't own] [slightly curious about the Rubens books] - Useful Space Principals & Transfer Advantages of Overcalls by Jeff Rubens - Journalist Leads by Jeff Rubens

Washington Standard by Steve Robinson A well organized, well presented book on 2/1 using Steve Robinsons methods. They may not be the best, and they may not be "standard" but the book is well presented. The reader can find many problem areas and reach agreements on many common problems and sequences. Things like what does it mean if the opponents bid over our Jacoby 2NT response. That alone is worth far more than using "the best" methos and conventions. The author presents his suggested signaling methods (he likes Smith Echo - and gives some good examples). I enjoyed the book, just because it was well layed out and nicely presented. I probably won't use his methods, but if a person I wanted to play with did, this book would be invaluable in helping me get up to speed and agree on common problem areas. This is not just a 2/1 book, its a complete system, with the authors suggested conventions. Its worth reading for anyone above Beginner level that is interested in playing 2/1

Three books by Martin Hoffman Hoffman on Pairs Play - 60 interesting hands, where the reader must use clues or correct technique to make the contract. Some hands are presented double dummy and the reader must find the mistake. 2 summary points after each hand. Excellent book, one of the best I've read. Most of the hands are solvable of for an Intermediate plus level player. They require drawing inferences. The card play is not especially complex, so don't worry about missing the Backwash squeeze. More tales of Hoffman - the Sequel to Hoffman on Pairs Play. 60 hands, same format. I was disappointed as the hands / clues were in general not as good. Theer were still some good hands, but also some "less good" ones and some complex ones. The book is still worth reading, but not the classic the first one is. Defense in Depth - pretty good book. 60 hands, you are on defense. It seemed like the theme of the book was "how can I break up the squeeze" as taht must have come up in at least a quarter of the hands. Solid Intermediate Plus / Advanced book. Worth reading Martin Hoffman also has 2 other books - Inspired Cardplay - Over Hoffmans Shoulder Has anyone read them? What are the hands like? Are they like Pairs game and More Takes of Hoffman?

Ben, I appreciate the fact that you post so large so those of us who are legally blind can read your posts. :)

I think for Limit Raises most pards are going to expect 4 (not 3 to an honor). Unless you discuss this upfront, many (?most?) pick up pards will not expect only 3. In addition your opponents will assume you have 4, so you might want to pre-alert. (otherwise be ready for very very slow games as the opponents play 20 questions about the meaning of your future bids and inferences about what a bid that was not made would mean) Having that 4th trump is valuable, playing a 5-4 fit is much more comfortable than a 5-3 fit, especially if trumps are not strong. One statistic I saw is that 4th trump is worth 0.75 tricks in a 4M contract 1H - 1S 2D - 3H = delayed Limit Raise In the 2nd case, you can use Fourth Suit Forcing, if you want to consider 3NT. Since you have no spots, 3NT is probably not a good idea. You can bid 4 hearts, showing a GF hand with 3 card support.

Fred wrote: >I play "2-way splinters" in my regular 2/1 partnerships, but I use the 2 types of splinters to distinguish between ranges (roughly 10-12 and roughly 13-15) instead of distinguishing between singletons and voids. Fred, What bidding sequences do you use to distingish these 2 ranges? 1♠ - ? to show the little splinter? ? = the big splinter 1♥- ? to show the little splinter? ? = the big splinter The Klinger method that P_Marlowe posted? Responding 3NT to 1M? >1S 3H = 10-12 unspecified splinter This gives up the invitational jump shift, maybe thats not such a big loss? (I don't know, just pointing out that this method has a cost) Also, may I assume that 10-12 = HCP, and not support points? With 10-12 support points (7-9 HCP + 3 for stiff) you can bid a Limit Raise. I don't see why it would be desirable to overlap teh support point value (10-12) with the support point value of the little splinter) 10-12 HCP evaluates to 13-15 support points, more than a Limit Raise 13-15 HCP evaluates to 16-18 support points

I agree

>Old textbooks tend to overestimate the importance of right-siding. >I like one of the chapters in Points Schmoints: >Heading: "Who should declare? Who cares!" Mike Lawrence gives many examples of what he considers bad bids because they wrong side a contract. Or don't have stoppers in a suit the opps are likely to bid. The examples seem to make sense, though maybe they are specific to just thos eexamples and can't be extrapolated. What are some of the "old textbooks"? Are tehy from the 60's? Or maybe general advice given to newer players?

I found this, from my notes from 3.5 years ago when I was learning SA. Its eitehr from Root & Pavliceks Commonsense Bidding, or Fred Gitelmans "How to bid" program available on the ACBL website. Opener’s rebid with a sound opening bid With a sound opening bid (16-18 points) opener must choose from one of the following rebids. Again listed in order of priority. ... With no support for partner’s suit, no reverse bid to make, no extra length in your original suit, make a non-jump rebid in a new 4-card suit. So I guess 1♦ 1♥, 2♣ can indeed show 16-18 total points (HCP + length) I now assume that opener has the 18 and is paterning out. Something like 3-1-5-4 or 3-0-6-4 or 3-0-5-5 I dont think opener has a good spade stopper, and maybe not any spade stopper. I don't think we have enough for a minor suit game, and pard is trying for 3NT