ArcLight

"Help!" by the Beatles when pard puts you in a complex high level contract you doubt is going to make and the opps would clearly not have made their contract. "We are the Champions" by Queen, when the opps double your save and it makes! "Take me Out to the Ball Game" when pard mistakes your high level take out double for a penalty double and leaves it in, opps making. >"Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" convention: Any convention forgotten in the heat of battle. ;) >Relax, don't do it" when partner invites slam and you don't have the values :lol:

I think I should have selected a different problem! ;) I don't want to restate again why I don't like it, and I do understand Bens point. So I will let it rest. There was another problem involving card combinations (I'm sure Fred would have gotten it) that increased the chance of success by a small amount, perhaps 1-2%. I don't think thats all that great a problem. I'm not saying it's of no value, but I think there are so many better problems that Reese has presented. Not just technique, but deception, and discovery plays. One could argue than ANY problem has value, and thats true on an absolute basis, but not on a relative one. Reese has done so much better in other books, and thats why I buy his books. I would never ever say a book is bad because it's too advanced for me. Last year, after playing Bridge for all of 5 months, I tried Kelseys "Killing Defense" and found it too hard, so I put it aside for later. I find many of Kelsey's problems intricate and something I'd never find at the table (and not even in my armchair). I don't say those books are bad, just too advanced for me that I don't find them useful. But I stand by my original post, I was very disappointed with the problems in Reese book. Many were marginal, and as I have read about 10 of his books (and many other very good bridge books so as to be able to make a meaningful comparison), I've seen him come up with better, mor evaluable problems. If it was a case of "gosh these problems are too hard for me" then that would not cause me to rate the book poorly. I would not have posted a review at all! I have read many more bridge books than I post reviews on. I try and post on books that made an impression on me, rather than just list all the books I've read. PS I just started Freds "Master Class: Lessons from the Bridge Table". I very much like the problems and the presentation.

> However, your comments about this hand seem to indicate that you didn't get it, and perhaps that was true for other hands too. Hannie, Perhaps it is you who doesn't get it. Maybe because English is not your native Language? With 9 cards, holding the AK the proper play is AK, rejecting the finesse. If RHO has shortness in Diamonds, then he has space for more trumps. That may change the odds so that its best to play for the finesse. Thats what the book says. Guess What! In the example in the book, that line loses!! So why did they pick that lie of the cards? The only beneficial part of teh lesson was the discovery play, tempting East to over ruff. That part was fine. But the other part (about taking the finesse) was not. Following the authors reasoning you should take the LOSING finesse if East doesnt ruff. Bad layout of the cards. Since you think this is a good problem, then you should buy the book. You will enjoy plenty more like it. PS You thought that I said that advanced books were no good, which I never wrote. Therefore I think your grasp of English may not be as good as you may think.

>It is common opinion that many of the newest books that include Reese as coauthor (Rees + Bird, Reese + Pottage, etc etc) were not really written by him. >Perhaps this might be the case for this book I don't know, but it could very well be. I've read a few of Pottages books (his most recent Clues from the Bidding) and I don't care for them. I don't like the problem selection and analysis, in general. One thing about some of Reese's GOOD books, is that the problem selection seems very good. They are interesting problems, that come up, rather than some kind of very unusual or very hard problem. Favorite technique books by Reese - The most puzzling situations in bridge play - How the Experts Do it - Improving your Bridge skill - Squeeze play made easy These are good too, though not as good as those above - Snares And Swindles In Bridge - Those Extra Chances In Bridge He has a bunch with Roger Trezel as a co-writer that I like. I also liked - Play Bridge with Reese There were ok, nothing special - The Mistakes you make at Bridge - Bridge tips from the Masters This was above my level - The hidden side of bridge One general comment about Reeses books: to me he comes across as a nasty person. refering to weak players as the "villiage idiot", etc. While amusing at times, it turned me off at the beginning and for a while I didn't bother reading his books. His books are worth reading. (There are probably many good bridge books that have never been translated to English, and thagt I'm not even aware of.)

>I also don't understand why a book gets a low rating because it is for advanced players. I never said that. You are imagining that. Try reading what I actually wrote. I said its a book for advannced players. And I said I didn't like the selection of hands. Some were good. But quite a few relied on what I considered marginal inferences, or involved some slighlt higher card combination. I've seen Reese produce far better books. This is easily the worst of them. For a much better book, try Reese "The Most Puzzling Situations in Bridge". >I think that there are many more good books for beginners and intermediate players than for advanced players. So what? That has nothing to do with my post. You are not reading what I wrote, you are inventing things. My post was clear, it is you who are making the assumption that I dislike books for advanced players. My post didn't say anything about a book that is for advanced players being bad. Discovery plays are fine. But playing for some lie of the cards in the trump suit based on the lead of the King of diamonds is pretty weak IMHO. The authors wrote that becausse of the lead of the King of diamonds, you can assume that LHO has diamond length and thus trump shortness and thus the finesse is worth trying. I don't think the lead of teh Diamond K has to imply diamond length, and even if it does, it doesnt affect the trump distrubution all that much. If the odds go from 52% to 50% (because of an extra vacant place, and the somewhat greater chance RHO will have an extyra trump), then I don't consider that all that good a problem. In fact, in the problem LHO has the Qx of trumps, along with 5 diamonds, so if East doesn't ruff, you will go down following the authors line of reasoning, because you will finesse the Spade J allowing LHOs Q to win. In addition, the "correct" play of 9 cards, holding the A and K, is to play them off. So you need some evidence to the contrary to not do that. Not a lot of evidence, but some, and it's not given in this problem. In summary, the Discovery play, tempting East to ruff is fine. But the rest of teh analysis I don't think is very good. Contrast that with some of Reeses better problems, where if a finesse is working there is no need to take it. This is easily the worst of the Reese books I've read (that are aimed at intermediates and above, and excluding his bidding books).

I have a fundamental question: Opener makes a suit bid of 1, responder bids a different suit. Opener makes a bid of a different suit, responder rebids his suit. What do you expect responder to have? Would responder rebid his suit with just 5 cards? If so, is it a good 5 card suit, or J9764. What is pard telling you with the rebid, are you getting any negative inferences, beyond the obvious "I dont have support for you". With a bad 5 card suit, is it worth it for responder to rebid his suit?

Justin, I don't disagree with what you said. I do like the idea of the discovery play, as it doesnt cost anything. That part is good. But the book said that the K♦ lead implied length in ♦, and therefore to play for 3-1 and finesse. I don't think the initial premise they presented, playing for a 3-1 split because of the assumed diamond length in West was all that great for a problem. I think that there isn't enough information to make that assumption. Again, the discovery play was a good idea, and if that was all they wrote it would be fine. I actually think your analysis is better that that provided in the book!

The Extra Edge in Play by Terence Reese and Julian Pottage I'm a big fan of most of Reeses non bididng books (his bidding books tend to be very out dated in general, like How to Bid a Bridge Hand). This is probably the worst Reese book I've read. I wonder how many of the hands were selected by him, and how many by Pottage? I've read a few of Pottages books and don't care for them at all. I wonder if Pottage wrote this book, and got Reese to affix his name, for a fee. The book has 50 non-double dummy declarer problems. Perhas a third of them are good problems. Many require some obscure inference, or slightly higher percentage play. This is an advanced book in the sense that I think few players would solve these problems. They aren't hard problems like some of Kelseys, most don't require very advanced technique, instaed they require playing for some specific lie of the cards or finesse based on small inference. I just don't think the problems are anywhere near as good as in other books. I rate it a C- [contrast this with Reeses "The Most Puzzling Situations in Bridge Play" which I rate an A] [Note: don't confuse this with Reeses book "Those Extra Chances in Bridge" which is a good book] Here is a typical problem [hv=d=s&v=n&n=s9764h8dajt6cak83&s=sakjt8haj5d92c654]133|200| 6 Spades. Opponents silent, King of ♦ lead [/hv] How do you play the hand? Solution below (Hidden) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I've been playing for almost 2 years, and I enjoy/work on doing non-double dummy play problems. Like the Mike Lawrence software or his BridgeClues column. (or the tons of good non double dummy problem books out there like those by Terence Reese). Even though I KNOW how important counting is, its like a fog instantly clouds my brain when the hand starts. In my arm chair I can sometimes count out a hand (or solve a Hugh Kelsey problem), but never at the table. But I'm getting better at it. At least now I make a point of estimating HCP around the table, and perhaps distribution, and tricks. But I lose track after a few cads. I'm not too woried about bidding right now. I just want to concentrate on becoming a decent card player.

>I plan to have my lesson Saturday at 4pm Wisconsin time (2 pm West coast, 5 pm East coast, 23:00 Netherlands Where? In BIL?

East rebid Spades at the 4 level. That implies a self suffiecient spade suit (except for your King). Perhaps AQJxxxx or AQJTxx . Its unlikely North has a Spade trick, unless its a ruff. You only have 3 diamonds, so I dont think North is void. North may be void in Hearts. Say 2-3 Clubs 2-3 Diamonds. The penalty double implies North has a nice diamond holding behind West. I hope its not based on holding the Ace of Hearts, because you may not get any heart tricks, or maybe just 1. I hope pard has something like AQ diamonds and the Ace of clubs. Could he have a void or shortness in a suit other than Spades? I don't think so. I would lead a diamond. Which one? Leading the 10 is ok. (assuming top of sequence, no interest in the suit) What about the 2 as a suit preference signal to return the lower suit, Clubs? Normally a low card implies interest in having the suit returned. In this case pard can hopefully see you don't have anything in diamonds and think about what to return. If this may cause a problem, then just lead the 10. >Axx, xxxx, x, A10xxx Would this be a hand that you would bid a penalty double with? I can see 4 Spades going down, but would you make a penalty double? I see 2 tricks, pard overcalled hearts, but didnt open, so they may have 5 or 6, but maybe without the ace. I think there is a good chance declarer has no heart losers. Also, if holding this: >QJ109xxx, x, KJxx, x Would it be worth bidding 4♠ as opposed to passing or bidding just 3♠? Opps have distribution, you have defense. Where will they get 9 tricks? Pass and let them have a minus score. Maybe they make, probably they dont.

>I can show you how to repair a hernia, but you wouldn't be able to fix one on your own. I can guide you through how to repair a hernia yourself and you will be much more equipped to do it yourself. Call me crazy, but something makes me think you are a doctor! In any case I volunteered to do this with Jillybean and 3 of her friends. I'll post feed back.

>Keep in mind in Hardy my understanding is the 2 club rebid could be on 2 little clubs...I think rebid of 2 clubs not 2D is standard with..5=3=3=2 shape. Doh! :P Well that makes a difference! If pard is likely to have only 2 or 3 clubs, this hand isn't going anywhere. Maybe 3NT if pard has a ton. 3♣

Hannie, Good man for volunteering! What time? >I do not think that there is any need for screening for this format to work, students of different levels can participate. The only problem, is some BIL players are very weak. Playing defense there is really not fun when pard is very weak. Players don't make correct leads, or they switch suits all the time, giving declarer all kinds of free finesses. Its also very hard to draw inferences or count with bad players playing. You expect the Ace to be with East because West lead the suit in a Spade contract. Turns out West lead the 2 from A J 2. Pard leads the club 4 from 9 7 4 2. "I had no other lead". Well that certainly caused me to misplace cards. I think its not fun to play with "much weaker" players, just as it wouldn't be fun for you or Justin to play with me. Also, playing against weak players does not benfit tou in the long run. You learn bad habits, or get used to getting away with things taht strong players will nail you for.

Theer are many many books on declarer play. There are a some good books in the "over my shoulder style" (2 by Reese, 2 by Lawrence, Meckstroth, Brian Senior, Fred Giteman) There are many books on the play of famous hands. What can an "Advanced Intermediate Lounge" do better? ideas? 1) We can watch as experts play, all talking to the kibitzers. If they don't do a lot of talking, like commenting on inferences, I'm not sure how useful it will be. Explaining what their bid shows is good, but also commenting on why opps did/didn't compete, and what they are worried about is better. Will the experts talk about their concern during the play of the hand? That might distract them too! 2) Experts can lecture on the play of a hand. Since there are so many declarer play books, to me, this doesn't add much value. 3) Play prepared hands that have some trap. To be honest, I think 4 intermediate can look at most hands double dummy and see a way to make it or set it. It just takes some time to review the hands. You don't need the experts time for this. 4) Experts can rotate partners. They can comment on the play afterwards and review the hand. 5) *** To me most important *** The expert can watch as 4 players play, asking them private questions to focus their thoughts. If they make a bad lead, he can ask them about it. He can ask players to stop and explain their thoughts on the hand so far. Maybe you don't even need an expert for this, just an intermediate, who can ask some routine questions to help focus the players attention. I think getting direct feed back is very useful, and next to impossible to get.

Am I too pessimistic a bidder? With 4 clubs are you not commited to game or slam? If pard is 5-4-2-2 I can see 2 easy heart losers. There can be one more too? If pard holds: AKQxx Qx Kx Qxxx 5 clubs wont make, provided opps cash the hearts. AKQxx Qx xx AQxx goes down if the diamond finesse is off. Also, in 2/1 pard may not even have 3 clubs. 5-2-3-3 is possible. OR 5-3-2-3. It may not be possible to set up your diamonds. If pard has a big hand, we have room to explore over 3 clubs. Or should my thinking be "This is IMPS, I bid game if its 38% or better"?

Obviously you must win the Spade. Play the Q so opps know you have the A and may play another suit when they get in later. It seems likely Spades are 5-3 (or 6-2) beacuse West doesnt have the A K Q T. J 9 x x or J 9 x x x. What do you know of their agreements? Can you infer anything from the Spade 6? Can I assume its from K 6 ?. It seems unlikely its from K 6 ? ?. If Spades are 4-4 you are in good shape as they only have 2 winners. 5-3 is more problematic. You have a large number of guaranteed winners, but no time to develop them. 2 Diamonds. 3 Hearts. 3 Clubs. And 2 easy Spades. What you would like to do is force West to use up his entries, and have him continue Spades, exhausting East in Spades. Then East wont be able to hurt you when he gets in. However, the only way to do this is finesse in diamonds against Easts Queen. It would be nice to end play West but how? I lead the 3 of hearts top the Ace, then run the Jack. If its taken, I get to hand by my last Spade when they continue the suit. If they hold up I lead a club from dummy to the 10 in my hand.

3♣ Pard is probably 5-4 in Spades-Clubs. Lots of distribution, opps are silent, probably a spade stack sitting over him. Does pard have a big hand? Where is this hand going? I think 3NT is unlikely. Will pard be able to ruff the diamonds good?

Communications problems back to hand. That 9 of diamonds may be important later on. I duck, in case West has 5 spades. Can't make any more plans, need East to lead, then plan from there.

>Maybe, with FG's aprroval BM can be used for the basis of lessons. To participate you will need a copy, extra value for BM owners and more sales. I would not suggest requiring anyone to own Bridge Master as a requirement for joining. But people may be interested in buying it as a self assessment. I see nothing wrong with "beginners" attending lessons either. But I would not "dumb down" the lessons too much, else you will lose the interest of the primary audience. If you use very simple problems, the more advanced people will be bored. If you use harder ones, the less experienced players may miss many of them and not get that much out of them. And beginners asking many beginner questions will caus ethe others to lose interest. Let who ever want to attend. But don't dumb down the lessons. HOWEVER, if you have mentoring groups of 4, where a mentor discusses the play of the hand as the 4 players play, or afterwards, there is a good case not to have a begiiner play with advanced intermediates. If one player is much weaker tahn the others it will make it less fun for their pard, and make it harder to play using inferences (because the begiiner will make some fundamental errors taht others would be less likely to make). Ex: Pard leads the 2 of clubs, my king is taken by declarers ace. Later I get in and return clubs. Turns out pard lead 2 from 32. I made a takeout double, pard bid 1 Spade. Turns out he had AKxx in Spades and Axx in another suit. (that was an "advanced" player by his profile) Plays like that cause everyone to misjudge things, and the emphasis here is (should be) to learn to count and draw inferences. You will have a chance to play with bad players outside of the class.

>Bridgemaster is a great "tool" for self-evaluation. If you can pass level 3 hands then you should be "advanced". Is that really true? Somehow I think a player who is advanced should be solving most of the level 4 hands. The level 3 hands are for intermedaites. The level 4 hands have squeezes and some trickier hands. > I would not suggest this format for your group as it would steal from Fred (we owe him way too much). It would be great for Fred because the implication is you should buy Bridge Master to evaluate your level to see if you should join the club! :)

Inferences: West did not lead a spade. Perhaps Spades are only 3 cards long or less. West has a reasonable lead in clubs, probably 4, QJ??. Assume 4, meaning East has 2. No overcalls, so probably no voids or extreme distribution. Clubs are guaranteed for 3 tricks, assuming West made a standard lead of Q from QJ?. I don't think you can assume West has QJ9x. It may be QJ32, with East holding 9 5. Win the Club Q with the K. You need an extra trick from hearts and the Spade Ace to be with West. If hearts are 3-3, you have the trick. But if they are 4-2 there is one way to deal with the short hand holding 2 honors. Play off Ace and King of hearts. You may go down an extra trick, but if hearts are not yielding an extra trick , you are going down anyway. When the time comes (after the 3 hearts are played off), you lead the Club 10 and cover Wests J with the A. Cash your heart winner. Then play the Club 8 and 7, with someone winning the 9 (unless East has it). Lead a diamond to South, take the Spade finesse. Save the spades for last in case the opps lead them for you. Summary: Win Club Q with K. Set up hearts (A K 7) Set up Clubs Spade finesse This needs the Spade finesse to work, or for the opps to lead spades. And it needs Hearts to be 3-3 or 4-2 with the 2 having 2 honors. I estimate you have around a 25- 30% chance. 36% for hearts being 3-3 + ?10% (1/5 * 48%) times 50% for spade finesse [actually higher if opps led the suit). 24-30%

My preference would be to not teach conventions because: 1) even if you know 100 conventions, if you don't count out the hand and you don't know fundamentals, you will never be better than fair. (in other words there mor eimportant things to learn) 2) unless you have an established partnership, it's frequently the case that a pick up pard doesn't know the entire convention, and all the continuation sequences. How many people know Jacoby 2NT? Do they know ALL the responses? Mike Lawrence presents a slightly different version on his CD than is played at the club in New Jersey. 3) You can read conventions in an article at your leisure and easily learn them. You dont need a teacher for that. 4) Which conventions will be taught? Will most players really benefit from knowing Baron, Exclusion Blackwood, Snap Dragon Double, etc. The one thing thats harder to learn is "what did I do wrong" such as: Cashing your winners early and revealing the hand Grabbing your aces on defense too soon and losing control Making bad leads Not counting and thus not realizing that a player cant have something

>I also think players that want to participate should be screened by a moderator before they are 'accepted' into the program. Sort of like having a mandatory pre-requisite before the upper-level coursework. Sort of like an entrance exam? I have an idea, how about a self-assesment test. Here are (for example) 10 questions, if you don't get 8 right, you are not ready for this class. I'd have a common problem on each of: - loser on loser - dummy reversal - elimination-end play - setting up a long suit rather than taking 1 or more finesses - avoidance play - safety play I rate myself as intermediate, and I make plenty of mistakes. Most self rated intermediates I've met are weak. Most self rated Advanced players are perhaps intermediate. I've not played with many experts so I can't judge. Thes eproblems wouldn't have to be very hard, they just wouldn't be obvious. I volunteer to help with this if you like. I have quite a few bridge books and quiz books. I can find some good questions. [hv=d=n&v=n&n=sakxxxhaxxdxxcxxx&s=sxxhkxdakqjtxcaxx]133|200|Contract is 6♦. West leads a diamond.[/hv] How do you play? [this is not a hard problem, but if you can't see right away what to do, you belong in BIL not IAL.] [hv=d=n&v=n&n=sakxxxhaxxdxxcxxx&s=sxxhkxdakqjtxcaxx]133|200|Contract is 6♦. West leads a diamond.[/hv] [this is harder, but not too hard if you think a moment]

I think its a great idea. There is tremendous potential. Could you describe in more detail what would be taught? >1. Specific lessons – ie Reverses, Openers rebids with 18-19, 1nt openings Wouldn't that depend on the system? If so, then you may have few people at one time for any system specific lessons. I prefer Lawrence style 2/1 to Hardy style. SAYC has its own methods. Etc. My preference is to not go heavy on conventions or system, but to focus on card play. >2. Short tournaments with review of hands. Pair up with an ‘expert’ This would be fine. It would be nice to see a selection of interesting but not very difficult hands. Is it allowed to use "pre dealt" hands from books? Not reproducing the authors words (i.e. analysis), just using the hand? >3. Think with ‘____’ sessions. Sort of like "over my shoulder" a la Terence Reese? That would be fun. >4. Play of the hand squeezes, end plays, finesse, counting I think most of this is presented very well in books. What I ask myself is "what is hard to teach in books, and easier at the table"? Counting! What I think would be extremely valuable from a mentor with 4 students would be for the mentor to ask questions at various points in the play, such as: "East, how many Spades have been played, which is the high Spade and who has it" "West, how many HCP can pard have left, why?" "South, what do you estimate declarers distribution" "North, for you to set this contract, what has to happen" (they would answer privately, so as not to tip off teh others and ruin the hand) What this will do if force the players to pay closer attention. After they miss a few questions they will realize they need to pay more attention, and being aware of this will greatly help them. I KNOW I need to count, etc. But during the card play I invariably get caught up in thinking about some play and forget. I think if I were "forced" to pay more attention (by a mentor saying "you lost track of the HCP played again") that I would become better a lot faster. The mentor won't insult/ridicule a player, but they will gently chide them each time they forget. The mentor can start simply, with asking the players to count HCP in the 4 hands. Then move onto distribution, and high cards outstanding. (Or vice versa) Competitive bidding. When NOT to make penalty doubles (based on high cards at the 3 level, and the opps with fewer HCP but lots of distribution are doubled into game).