[ArcLight]

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

6 Spades.
Opponents silent,
King of ♦ lead

---

How do you play the hand?

Solution below (Hidden)

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Spoiler

---

The author first says that West is slightly more likely to have longer diamonds you might play him for spade shortness. Then the author suggests winning the Diamond K, and continuing the suit. If East ruffs, you over ruff and have a count of the trumps after playing the Ace. If not, percentage dictates playing East for the Qxx in trumps.


My thought is:
What if diamonds are 4-3 or 3-4? Didn't the author create a somewhat less likely hand to prove his point?

The author says a 3-1 break is more likely than 2-2. But A then K is the theorectically correct way to play the suit (holding 9 cards, missing the Q), unless you have additional information. If East shows out, then East is more likely to have the Q, because of the 3 vacant places, but in the example West has it, and if East doesnt ruff, then the authors initial advice is wrong. I think they could have used a discovery play along with a somewhat different lie of the cards, to make for a better problem. Another reason I don't like the problem is we are quibbling about 1-2%, and it takes away from the good point about the discovery play.

I just don't think this is all that good a problem. Its typical of the 50 problems.

[ArcLight]

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!

[han]

It seems to me that this is a very good hand, I don't understand the critique. Everything that you have quoted from the book seems correct. I also don't understand why a book gets a low rating because it is for advanced players. I think that there are many more good books for beginners and intermediate players than for advanced players.

[han]

I found two books in the library that I didn't know yet:

Play BRIDGE with OMAR SHARIF

and

OMAR SHARIF'S LIFE IN BRIDGE

Two easy reads, I rate them both B.

I'm surprised that I was actually interested to read about Sharif himself, perhaps because he talks a lot about Garozzo, Belladonna, Forquet and Delmouly, as well as some American bridge players. The bridge hands are fun, and his views on scientific bidding are entertaining. I don't think I learned much from these books, but I enjoyed reading them.

[ArcLight]

>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).

[Chamaco]

ArcLight, on Dec 12 2005, 02:10 PM, said:

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).

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 ?

[han]

Arclight

The author first says that West is slightly more likely to have longer diamonds you might play him for spade shortness.

These were your words in the original post. Notice the "slightly more likely" and "might", this is very different from your "implies" and "should" in a later post. If this is the wording in the book then it is correct and you seem to miss the subtlety.

Then the author suggests winning the Diamond K, and continuing the suit. If East ruffs, you over ruff and have a count of the trumps after playing the Ace. If not, percentage dictates playing East for the Qxx in trumps.


We agree that the line suggested by the book is best. You now argue that you will go down if west holds Qx of trumps and east doesn't ruff. That's the problem with percentage plays isn't it, that you can always get it wrong even if you play it the best way possible?

I haven't read the book and you may very well be right that many of the hands are not good. However, your comments about this hand seem to indicate that you didn't get it, and perhaps that was true for other hands too.

[ArcLight]

>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.)

[ArcLight]

> 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.

[Flame]

ArcLight, your bridge reviews are excelent, I trasnt them and because you didnt like the book i didnt put it on my list, but lets say that this example alone wasnt convincing enough that the book isnt good, the right play missing 4 cards is going for the drop (9 never) but knowing the numbers you know its not nearly as strong as other "rules" like finnesing K with 10 cards, so even a small change of the odds matter, one common known odds changer is the non trump lead, you cant say exactly how much it change the odds, but you should know it does.
Im not sure about this case, i tend to agree with you that the author ment that even 4 diamonds changes the odds in the direction that support trump finnese, which is not right according to the restricted choice thory.
Keep up the good work.

[inquiry]

I agree with Hannie and Justin. Reading this, Arc, it looks like you lost something in the reading.

The point about WEST being more likely than EAST to be long in diamonds, makes the discover play POSSIBLE... (read this it is SAFER to play for the discovery play). If WEST was likely to be short in diamonds, you could not risk a discovery play after losing a diamond.

The fact that EAST has two diamonds only (if EAST shows out on third round) increases both the likelyhood he has three spades, and the liklelyhood if he had Qx or xx instead of three, he would ruff in.. .(in one case with the queen to get a hoped for trump promotion).

If EAST has xx in spades and xx in diamonds, and he is good enough not to ruff it, you are playing against opponents that are very good (but not impossibly so).... it happens. It is not that big of a stretch for a reasonable EAST to ask himself, why declerer who has lost a diamnod trick is not pulling trumps before trying to get a discard on the good diamond. The answer will come to mind very quickly if he does (I suspect this defense would at least higher than "advanced" ).

So this hand has several lessons. Discovery, discussion of if the discovery play is "safe", percentages, and an important "anti-discovery" defensive manuever. What more do you want for your money?

But so what... Buy BBO CD-ROM based books.. they are better anyway, and a great Christmas (ok, ok, holiday) present.

[Flame]

Ben what you say could be right, but since Arclight is the only one who actually read the book, he has the right to say that this is not what the book say.

[inquiry]

Flame, on Dec 13 2005, 03:13 PM, said:

Ben what you say could be right, but since Arclight is the only one who actually read the book, he has the right to say that this is not what the book say.

Well. I find the hand interesting without reading a word of what is written. Having said that, Arc pointed out...

Quote

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?

You know why the line loses? That is, why the author put the queen offside!!! It was a major point of the excercise. That is, to illustrate the point about the very discovery play the author presented and took. So that even when spades don't split 5-2 you have a chance with the discover play to also pick up Qx off side if East is tempted by the trojan horse.

[ArcLight]

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.

[Chamaco]

Hi Arc ,
keep up the good review work.

I think it is a good thing that you selected some concrete examples to explain your liking/disliking/rating of books, because, by doing so, you give the forum readers the chance to agree/disagree with you, and this is always extremely useful, even in the cases where the readers' opinion will differ from yours

[ArcLight]

Card Reading by Eric Jannersten 1972

Very good intermediate level book on deductive reasoning, and it also soem good play problems. The book presents around 75-85 non double dummy declarer problems, with bidding. Based on the first few tricks, the reader is expected to figure out distributions and HCP placement. Then make the hand using proper technique.

The deductive reasoning part is well done, and the inferences are reasonable (though not always obvious!). There are sections on topics like clues from the bidding, leads, discovery plays, putting yourself in your opponents position, assuming the only distribution that will let you make the contract, etc.
I enjoyed it, and it reminded me a lot of Mike Lawrences Counting at Bridge vol 1&2 software (available from Bridge Base)

The play part involves a number of squeezes (most are not too hard, though some I missed), plus a few other techniques. Nothing extremely hard, and overall good declarer play problems.

Overall I think its a great book, and I enjoyed reading it, though it takes a while to read because of all the thinking you need to do. Because its an older book (1972) it may be available in Libraries (that tend to have older Bridge books as opposed to newer ones).

(Funniest quip in the book "If wishes were horses beggars would ride, and you're not riding this one")

I also read about a third of Julian Pottages new Clues from the Bidding and didn't much care for it. I think other books on the subject are better, and more worthy of your hard earned money. I felt the problems were of two types:

1. Bidding clues were obvious, but the play of the hand was difficult (and hence it was more of a declarer play puzzle book which is not what I was looking for)

2. Bidding clues were skimpier, and might only slightly increase the odds of a certain break. (Maybe that means its a more advanced book, but I found it inferior to any others on the subject. Kelsey has a book on deductive reasoning called Logical Bridge Play which is better, and he is an advanced writer)

I no longer have the book so I can't list some examples of what I consider skimpier clues).

Here is a simpler problem, based on the bidding alone, no play skill involved.

Bidding
W N E S
1♠ X
- 2♥ 2♠ 3♦
3♠ 4♦ - 4♥
- 5♦ - -
-

---

West leads 3♠, taken by Easts J, followed by his K.
Then East leads the ♥Q.

Plan the play.

Hidden card play:

Spoiler

Win the Ace of hearts, lead to the ♦ King , both following.
Play for the finesse or drop?

Solution:

Spoiler

West couldn't even dredge up a raise even with an enemy take out double, but all of a sudden he's able to bid 3♠? It must be on distribution, namely diamond shortness. Play for the finesse.

A more difficult problem:

Bidding
W N E S
1♠ X
- 2♥ 2♠ 3♦
3♠ 4♦ - 4♥
- 5♦ - -
-

---

West leads the ♦3, East playing the K and you win the A.

Plan the play: (hidden cards next)

Spoiler

You have a Club loser and maybe a trump loser.
You play the K♥, everyone follows, then lead to the Ace♥ and West shows out!
Ouch. A trump loser and a Club loser! What do you do?

A few more cards are played: (hidden)

Spoiler

If the Clubs are split, an elimination end play (trump) may work.
You lead to the ♠Ace, ruff the last diamond, then play 2 more rounds of Spades, everyone following!
You now know what to do!

Solution:

Spoiler

You know from the lead of the diamond 3 that West has at least 3 diamonds, though it could be 4 or 5. In any case that means East must have at least 5 diamond. Along with 3 Spades and 3 Hearts, and 2 clubs.
Cash the AK of Clubs and throw in East with a trump for a ruff and discard.

[mike777]

Win the Big Match, Julian Pottage, 2004, 160p, 16.95$
Grade=B+

64 Imp match where you bid and play the hands.

Mainly a play book. Very entertaining with good tough hands for intermediate level players. Good practice in counting and visualizing the hands. For the newer players I find reading these play books, Reese, Pottage and of course Fred's a quick way to improve one's play level from the beginner level.

[luke warm]

ArcLight, on Nov 25 2005, 06:46 PM, said:

"Improve your bridge- fast!" by Sontag- Steinberg, 1982

On Chamacos suggestion I bought this book. I wonder if its the same book?
It has the same title, authors, and publication date.

Buts its geared entirely towards beginner players with 3 months experience or less. I mean its so basic that I'd say its about as tough as Bridge Master Level 1 problems.

Not only are all the "problems" double dummy, they only involve 4-6 cards (the other 7 to 9 have already been played). The "problems" consist of elementary finesses (sometimes repeated) or simple end plays (with 4 hands exposed).

I found the book to be a complete waste of time and money.

I will send my copy for free to anyone who wants it, for the cost of shipping by US Media mail (probably around $2).

Rating: F

ok, i just finished the book (thanks arc, email me your info and how much to credit your paypal account)

my impression is, it can't be a book for beginners... i would think one would need to be intermediate to intemediate+ to understand most of the plays in the book, and advanced to have actually heard of some of the plays (surround plays, uppercut, etc)

i didn't find a lot the plays especially difficult (difficult would be counting/infering the position needed to make the plays), but i would definitely recommend this book for anyone from inter to advanced...

again, thanks for this book arc, i enjoyed it

[Chamaco]

luke warm, on Dec 31 2005, 04:00 PM, said:

my impression is, it can't be a book for beginners... i would think one would need to be intermediate to intemediate+ to understand most of the plays in the book, and advanced to have actually heard of some of the plays (surround plays, uppercut, etc)

i didn't find a lot the plays especially difficult (difficult would be counting/infering the position needed to make the plays), but i would definitely recommend this book for anyone from inter to advanced...

Yes, the idea is not so much that the plays are difficult, but rather typical.
Basically you get to build an internal database of "goal positions" to aim to when you tackle a hand that has some specific features.

The idea is that one should be at a point of not even have to think of them, if he has to execute at the table an ending based on these positions.

====

I got this concept of studying typical endgames from playing and teaching chess (2 of my kids became national junior champions): studying and memorizing several simpe positions, until it becomes a second nature to have them right is the way to learn solving more complex problems.

This is even more so in bridge, IMO, where the available time for thinking is less than in chess.