Rossoneri Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 Any good books/websites on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 How to read opponent's cards (Mike Lawrence) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcLight Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 Hand Reading in Bridge - Roth, DannyCountdown to Winning Bridge - Bourke, Tim & Marc SmithDormer on Deduction - Dormer, AlbertCard reading; the art of guessing right at the bridge table - Jannersten, EricCard Placing for you - Kambites, AndrewLogical Bridge Play - Kelsey, HughHow to Read your opponents cards - Lawrence, MikeInferences at Bridge - Miles,MarshallAll 52 Cards - Miles, Marshall Better bridge for the advancing player - Stewart, Frankalso Frank Stewarts Winning defense for the Advancing Player Mike Lawrence also has 2 EXCELLENT CDSCounting at Bridge vol 1 & 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 http://www.facade.com/ An excellent source. And, maybe even better in practice than the other suggestions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcvetkov Posted May 5, 2007 Report Share Posted May 5, 2007 Countdown to better bridgeGreat book by Hugh Kelsey Clearly explained concepts, forcing you to think and count, count, and then count some more. I got it from library , probably its a rare find Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossoneri Posted May 5, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2007 http://www.facade.com/ An excellent source. And, maybe even better in practice than the other suggestions. Are you kidding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted May 5, 2007 Report Share Posted May 5, 2007 http://www.facade.com/ An excellent source. And, maybe even better in practice than the other suggestions. Are you kidding? I'm going to go out on a limb and say yes :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted May 5, 2007 Report Share Posted May 5, 2007 I don't know Justin, you are taking quite a position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted May 5, 2007 Report Share Posted May 5, 2007 http://www.facade.com/ An excellent source. And, maybe even better in practice than the other suggestions. Are you kidding? I'm going to go out on a limb and say yes :) No, really. I've found that it is much more useful to actually read the messages from the cards that I have rather than using some esoteric mathematical analysis by some supposed pseudo-expert. An example. http://www.metasymbology.com/Templates/car...neofspades.html According to this site, the nine of spades is "Nervous, romantic, unconventional - the 9 of Spades people can turn all these qualities into working assets and they do when they use their talents for service and concern themselves with the world at large." The other day, I held a number of hands with the nine of spades as a feature. I loved each of my hands, despite the obvious flaws (romantic). I had reason for concern as to the bid I was about to make (nervous). I had, amazingly, an unorthodox approach to the bidding up to the decision point (unconventional). So, I used allo of these qualities into "working assets" to plat the hands well (talents for service), two times on a complicated squeeze "concerning my thoughts with the woruld at the table, hence "at large.") Had I used Losing Trick Count, Work's point count, Goren, or whatever, I would not have valued my hand as high, because I would have given the nine of spades any value. Had I used standard bidding, same problem. Obviously, we all need to remember that we are playing not just with numerical designations, but with CARDS. Read them for the messages they send. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossoneri Posted May 6, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2007 LOL. Methinks my thread title was too vague for ken :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.