[vuroth]

I'm getting mixed reviews on both Hardy and Lawrence. Anyone know of a decent text that describes common modern usage of 2/1 (assuming such a thing even exists).

V

[matmat]

how do people feel about Washington Standard by Steve Robinson?

[dicklont]

I like Paul Thurston's 25 steps to learning 2/1.
It's a good read before Lawrence or Hardy.

You can also start with the articles on betterbridge.com.

[kenberg]

I bought the Lawrence disks on 2/1 and on Conventions that BBO sells. I like them a lot. I also like Washington Standard very much. I don't have Paul Thurston's book but I have heard good things about it. Hardy's style is not my style but that's hardly a criticism.

I hope that the following is suitably within the intent of the original topic. For the vast majority of us, the essential objective is not that we must have the very best system but rather that we must have a good system that is extensively documented, that we learn and feel comfortable with, and we need to find a partner who will buy into it. This last is frustratingly difficult. I have only had a couple of times in my life a partner who will take me up on a suggestion such as "Let's play 2/1 as it is written on Lawrence's disk. Exactly and fully". Actually Lawrence offers options in some cases so a little choosing is necessary but it seems to me a pair could very efficiently put together a pretty damn good system doing exactly that. Doesn't have to be Lawrence.

[blackshoe]

Most people don't want to leave their "comfort zone". The farther they get from it, the less they like it.

That said, I agree that there are good books (or software) out there on which to base a system. I haven't looked at Washington Standard in some time, but iirc, it qualifies. As do Hardy's last two books. Thurston's book is a good guide to getting to 2/1 from SA.

[jillybean]

dicklont, on Dec 28 2008, 01:33 PM, said:

I like Paul Thurston's 25 steps to learning 2/1.
It's a good read before Lawrence or Hardy.

You can also start with the articles on betterbridge.com.

btw the link from 'betterbridge' to BBO is defunct.

[qwery_hi]

vuroth, on Dec 28 2008, 02:40 PM, said:

I'm getting mixed reviews on both Hardy and Lawrence. Anyone know of a decent text that describes common modern usage of 2/1 (assuming such a thing even exists).

V

I strongly recommend Standard bridge bidding for the 21st century by Hardy. If you have $$ to spare, the Advanced bridge bidding for the 21st century by the same author is also worth studying

[rogerclee]

qwery_hi, on Dec 29 2008, 04:18 AM, said:

I strongly recommend Standard bridge bidding for the 21st century by Hardy. If you have $$ to spare, the Advanced bridge bidding for the 21st century by the same author is also worth studying

That is funny, I think these books are absolutely terrible, along with the main Hardy text. They are just a random mash of conventions that Hardy likes, with cherry-picked example hands to demonstrate their merits. Every example hand or problem in the book is chosen to be painfully obvious, there are no interesting judgment calls of any kind. Also, the tradeoffs involving each convention are not even addressed. Furthermore, many ideas he has are outdated, and newer developments (like two-way NMF or XYZ for example) are not even covered in his yellow book.

Most importantly, though they are marketed as 2/1 books, the majority of all of these books has nothing to do with a basic 2/1 framework. In fact, very little detail goes into 2/1 fundamentals, and like I said, it is just a random collection of conventions with mediocre explanations. The books are also just very dry and boring to read. These are the kinds of books that can hold an aspiring bridge player back for years, and I feel bad for anyone who has made the mistake of studying these books with any level of seriousness. There is a reason Hardy never achieved any meaningful level of distinction as a player.

[Rossoneri]

rogerclee, on Dec 29 2008, 11:26 AM, said:

That is funny, I think these books are absolutely terrible, along with the main Hardy text. They are just a random mash of conventions that Hardy likes, with cherry-picked example hands to demonstrate their merits. Every example hand or problem in the book is chosen to be painfully obvious, there are no interesting judgment calls of any kind. Also, the tradeoffs involving each convention are not even addressed. Furthermore, many ideas he has are outdated, and newer developments (like two-way NMF or XYZ for example) are not even covered in his yellow book.

Most importantly, though they are marketed as 2/1 books, the majority of all of these books has nothing to do with a basic 2/1 framework. In fact, very little detail goes into 2/1 fundamentals, and like I said, it is just a random collection of conventions with mediocre explanations. The books are also just very dry and boring to read. These are the kinds of books that can hold an aspiring bridge player back for years, and I feel bad for anyone who has made the mistake of studying these books with any level of seriousness. There is a reason Hardy never achieved any meaningful level of distinction as a player.

Exactly.

I have learnt more about 2/1 from reading the forums/other online sources than from reading any of these 2/1 books.

[vang]

agree with rogerclee about Hardy's books. imo, Lawrence does a better job describing 2/1. another option is Marshall Miles with "Modern constructive bidding".

[qwery_hi]

rogerclee, on Dec 29 2008, 06:26 AM, said:

qwery_hi, on Dec 29 2008, 04:18 AM, said:

I strongly recommend Standard bridge bidding for the 21st century by Hardy. If you have $$ to spare, the Advanced bridge bidding for the 21st century by the same author is also worth studying

That is funny, I think these books are absolutely terrible, along with the main Hardy text. They are just a random mash of conventions that Hardy likes, with cherry-picked example hands to demonstrate their merits. Every example hand or problem in the book is chosen to be painfully obvious, there are no interesting judgment calls of any kind. Also, the tradeoffs involving each convention are not even addressed. Furthermore, many ideas he has are outdated, and newer developments (like two-way NMF or XYZ for example) are not even covered in his yellow book.

Most importantly, though they are marketed as 2/1 books, the majority of all of these books has nothing to do with a basic 2/1 framework. In fact, very little detail goes into 2/1 fundamentals, and like I said, it is just a random collection of conventions with mediocre explanations. The books are also just very dry and boring to read. These are the kinds of books that can hold an aspiring bridge player back for years, and I feel bad for anyone who has made the mistake of studying these books with any level of seriousness. There is a reason Hardy never achieved any meaningful level of distinction as a player.

Edit - Disclaimer: I read these books 2 years after I stared playing bridge. Prior to that, my main source of bidding knowledge were the SAYC links on annam.co.uk
I am not an expert, perhaps not even advanced.

Wow! Are we talking about the same two books?

I read

http://www.amazon.com/Standard-Bridge-Bidd...y/dp/1587760495

and

http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Bridge-Bidd...5466638-1193451

I think the first book did a mighty fine job explaining what 2/1 is. The second book has all the bells and whistles modern experts might like to add including splendid contributions by

XYZ - written by Fred Hamilton

2 w NMF - written by Grant Baze

BART - by Mike Passel

Meckstroth Adjunct - by Meckstroth

LoTT - by Marty Bergen

serious 3NT - by Eddie Wold

The hands are cherry picked, but I think that is a as it should be. The beginners should know what to do in the standard situations before they can bend the rules in the non-standard ones.

Perhaps you are talking about some other book?

This post has been edited by qwery_hi: 2008-December-29, 07:48

[vuroth]

rogerclee, on Dec 29 2008, 06:26 AM, said:

I think these books are absolutely terrible, along with the main Hardy text. They are just a random mash of conventions that Hardy likes, with cherry-picked example hands to demonstrate their merits.

I've heard this too, which is why I was asking.

Turns out carl ritner's site had Hardy's book for cheap, so I've bought it anyways, but it will probably start at the bottom of my pile.

V

[blackshoe]

Hardy's "yellow book" was written, iirc, in the early 1980s. That's nearly thirty years ago. Of course it doesn't have the more modern bells and whistles. But I don't think anyone was recommending that book anyway.

Hardy's writing style frankly sucks. That doesn't mean the information he was trying to convey is wrong.

[keylime]

I like Steve's writeup on 2/1 that is common around here (Washington Standard). There are a few minor things I'd change but conceptually, I feel it's has been ahead of the curve.

[qwery_hi]

qwery_hi, on Dec 29 2008, 06:18 AM, said:

vuroth, on Dec 28 2008, 02:40 PM, said:

I'm getting mixed reviews on both Hardy and Lawrence.  Anyone know of a decent text that describes common modern usage of 2/1 (assuming such a thing even exists).

V

I strongly recommend Standard bridge bidding for the 21st century by Hardy. If you have $$ to spare, the Advanced bridge bidding for the 21st century by the same author is also worth studying

From the introduction to the first book

"Really, a broad and comprehensive book that will turn a lot of not so accurate bidders into players who know how to get the maximum out of their cards.

Well done, Max Hardy!"

written by Mike Lawrence

[y66]

imo, there’s no such thing as “common” modern practice, much less a text that provides a satisfying, coherent discussion of core 2/1 problems and solutions from the point of view of modern experts.

I agree with kenberg re: “the essential objective” and how difficult it is to achieve this. And with rogerclee’s warning about the majority of 2/1 books.

Mike Lawrence’s stuff (software -- not 2/1 Workbook) is the only stuff I've seen that focuses on core 2/1 problems and solutions. His stuff is clear and well defined, but I don’t know anyone who plays it as is or who would say that it is “modern”.

Steve Robinson’s book provides clear examples of many specific agreements that you and p can use to create a coherent bidding system with a 2/1 GF base, but it doesn’t really discuss core 2/1 problems and solutions.

If you know a local pro who knows his stuff and who also knows how to explain things, you may do well to discuss this topic with him or her and also with your partner.

2/1 can be a tar pit. Beware!

[whereagles]

The 2/1 game force scheme has been around for a while, but wasn't yet theorized coherently. Many players have noticed the shortcomings of "standard" versions of 2/1, but a new standard hasn't yet been agreed upon by all.

[kenberg]

Already you can see that there are strong opinions on what is or is not a good 2/1 book!

Let me approach it in a slightly different way:

Lawrence, to my mind, honors the complexity of the game and acknowledges the limitations of any system You find a lot of stuff along th lines of "here is what I recommend but you will get other opinions". My experience with Hardy is from many years ago with his early books, but I saw it much more as "Here is the system, do it" and then he has hands showing that, with these hands the system works great. Some people like that approach, I am not enthusiastic.

Imo, Lawrence is inclined to rely on a fundamental structure implemented through judgment. He explains, for example, about 1H-1N-2C-2S being a maximal club raise, but it's clear that his interests lie more in the judgment line. Hardy likes, revels in perhaps, various sequences that I sometimes find (or found, when I read them) odd. Besides the fact that I just prefer the Lawrence approach, it seems it is easier to implement in the many games I play when the agreement is "Let's play 2/1" "OK".

Mastering a system that will crash and burn when you play it with others who are unfamiliar with its fine points is obviously bad. SAYC would be better than that. If you are anything like me, you also want to avoid the long, long negotiations about what conventions to play. So a long term partner for this venture seems critical, and hopefully you can find some efficient route to agreements.

My guess is that when it comes to actual hands, Mike Lawrence and Steve Robinson would agree on how they should be bid in a very large percentage of the cases. It's my view that these guys know what they are doing. How wrong can it be to take their advice?

[babalu1997]

kenberg, on Dec 29 2008, 12:06 PM, said:

Ken says:
Lawrence, to my mind, honors the complexity of the game and acknowledges the limitations of any system You find a lot of stuff along th lines of "here is what I recommend but you will get other opinions".
*****
Yes, Mike`s books are written that way, the reason why his book on balancing auctions is so good.
But he could have done a better job on contersted auctions.

Ken also says?

My experience with Hardy is from many years ago with his early books, but I saw it much more as "Here is the system, do it" and then he has hands showing that, with these hands the system works great. Some people like that approach, I am not enthusiastic.

****

That is so true.

However the main advantage of Hardy is that he introduces shifting hand valuation early, and explains splinters as a shape/declaere play advantage like no one.
Ever get a pick up partner screaming because **You had 13 points** and did not open? It likely takes 5 years before start balancing distribution and hcp.

Ever read on people`s profiles that they have been learning splinters for the past 5 years or so? Hardy solves their problems in three paragraphs.


****

As to Paul Thurston, his book is too formulaic, and it is no wonder there was no second volume.

i never learned SAYC, I tried these 2/1 books, but ended up reading kaplan-shienwold from 1958/60. No one has made me understand the game better than them.

[TimG]

I think it would be a good project for an enterprising young author to put together an "expert standard" book describing a coherent system with detailed discussions of the methods -- sort of a Bridge World Standard book rather than summary -- that would be sufficient for pick-up partnerships and would serve as a good base for those wishing to establish more detailed partnership agreements.