[kenrexford]

I feel like I must have had someone (maybe myself) tape a bullseye to my back.

For those who are contemplating obtaining the book, Arclight hits on some truths about the focus of the book. If you read the sample provided by Masterpoint Press, and the Table of Contexts, you will see that I am offering "a modern approach" to cuebidding that blends the modern "expert" approach (Italian cuebidding, plus Serious 3NT and Last Train to Clarksville) with some new ideas (more defined picture jumps and new follow-up auctions after PJ's, a revision and re-inclusion of the Belladonna 2NT for poor trumps cuebid, Golady, Empathetic Splinters, Flag Bids, unusual "serious 3NT" tools by traditionally weak hands, etc.).

The book was never intended to be Fred's Improving 2/1 GF (one major source for my research) expanded from novellette into a novel. Rather, it was an attempt to expand into undiscussed auctions and to offer suggestions of further improvements to the basic structure of cuebidding.

Actually, I wrote this for myself, in exploring what I thought would work better than what existed, and I note that in the introduction. After I completed this work for myself, I sent it to Ray Lee to see if others might be interested, as I was really excited about what I had worked out. Ray and his wife agreed and were equally excited. Some very notable people also encouraged me to do this. I received encouragement and assistance in this idea from some big names (Eddie Kantar and Larry Cohen, for example).

A large amount of my personal investigation involved developing a complete theory and then testing it against hands bid by the experts who were apparently using conventional wisdom techniques. When I was able to bid more hands to slam competently, or stop at the last making level more often, and others were not (per vugraph records), it seemed that I had developed some good tools. The auctions seemed very clean and easy, with amazing detail discovered.

Experience in actual play, with a very good partner using similar techniques, also convinced me that I had something good put together.

This book is admittedly too advanced for a beginner, and for many intermediates. The introductory material is too simple for those who already understand Belladonna and Gitelman's works, but was added for the brave intermediates who want to give it a try. The meat comes later, in the latter sections.

[inquiry]

One need not be an expert/world class bridge player to write a great bridge book. Clyde love's book on squeezes come to mind. I don't know if Ken is a expert or just advanced player, but much of what is being discussed here is indeed standard. Mixed control cuebidding, serious (or friviolous) 3NT, Last train to clarksville. I happen to be a huge fan of picture bids and my second round splinters by opener or responder are also picture bids (and would require a write up to explain).

I have read many of ken's ideas here on the BBO, Some I disagree with seriously, other I think are on the right track, just a little to strident. Still others seem to 100% correct to me. I have not read Ken's book. I plan to read it because, how often do you get a chance to discuss at legnth with an aouthor of a book his views and reasoning as we have here on the BBF with Ken? HAving said that, I am in no great hurry to buy it, since I don't plan on changing my own cue-bidding preferences. I will say this, however. A lot of the topics are clear... take the example auction mentioned above

1H - 2C
2D - 2H
3D - 3H

Assuming 2C is GF, assuming 2H sets trumps, assuming 3D is cue bid (first or second round control), then 3H must show controls in both black suits, and one must be a first round control (but not necessarily the ace as ken said, a spade void is possible). I cue-bid that way.. I ahve additional clue here as well. Opener does not have the club Queen the way I bid, or I would have cue-bid 3C over 2H.

Responder without black controls (one has to be first round) would bid 4H over 3D to avoid getting opener too excited. The fact that ken's book discusses such auctions suggest it might clearly be worth a read.

But many play 2H as waiting, and 3D as promisng five and not a cue-bid, so these interpretation are, as others pointed out, system/agreement specific.

[ArcLight]

>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?

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Feb 27 2007, 12:18 PM, said:

heh, I just finished Ken's book last night.

Uh oh. Let me sit down first.

[Flame]

ArcLight, on Feb 27 2007, 08:56 AM, said:

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".

Do you really want another book on slams explaining conventions such as RCKB, deniel cue bid, asking bids, byzintine etc ?
Trust me writing such a book is million times easier then writing a real full slam tool as Ken did.
I dont see any better way, this is exactly what i would want, a full system which i can play rather then bunch of tools which i need to implement.
I didnt read the book but i admire Ken for being so brave writing such a book.
Im also sure it was very hard to do alot of work needed for such a book.
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.

[mikeh]

inquiry, on Feb 27 2007, 12:09 PM, said:

A lot of the topics are clear... take the example auction mentioned above

1H - 2C
2D - 2H
3D - 3H

Assuming 2C is GF, assuming 2H sets trumps, assuming 3D is cue bid (first or second round control), then 3H must show controls in both black suits, and one must be a first round control (but not necessarily the ace as ken said, a spade void is possible). I cue-bid that way.. I ahve additional clue here as well. Opener does not have the club Queen the way I bid, or I would have cue-bid 3C over 2H.

Responder without black controls (one has to be first round) would bid 4H over 3D to avoid getting opener too excited. The fact that ken's book discusses such auctions suggest it might clearly be worth a read.

But many play 2H as waiting, and 3D as promisng five and not a cue-bid, so these interpretation are, as others pointed out, system/agreement specific.

Still others play 2♥ as agreeing ♥s and 3♦ as indicating a 5 card suit, usually with substance, so that responder can start seeing slam potential... cue bids are fine, and I have often posted that most advancing players would be better off learning to cooperate in descriptive slam investigations rather than resort early and often to keycard. But there are ways to describe important playing strength features of the hand without everything being a cue bid, especially at low levels when shape is being sorted out. Cue-bids tell us whether we are in danger of losing top tricks, but shapae bids help us count winners.... and slams don't make just because we have all the controls: we still need long suit winners (which can be ruffs, of course).

I don't mean, by this post, to denigrate either Ben or Ken... and I would never (I hope) criticize someone's book without reading it. From what I have gleaned from the posts here and from Ken's other posts (in which he sometimes refers to his theories) he seems to have some interesting ideas.


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. As such, it is unrealistic to expect his book to be a treatise on expert practice. Also, the title does not suggest that it is such a treatise... even tho I can understand why a prospective purchaser, with no opportunity to browse more than a few pages might hope/expect that it were.

I suspect that any advancing player interested in exploring alternative slam bidding approaches would benefit from Ken's book even if and perhaps especially if the reader ended up disagreeing with most of his ideas. One cannot disagree with a detailed exposition of a subject without thinking about alternatives, and so the very process of saying to oneself: 'I don't like that approach compared to....(fill in the blank) requires that one evaluate both possibilites and make a conscious choice.

Having said that, I am not going to buy the book.... not because I disagree with Ken's ideas.. but because I already have my own ideas that are quite detailed and mesh well with the habits of the stronger players with whom I play. For me to adopt Ken's ideas, I'd not only have to adopt his system in part but also force my partners to change as well.

If you are not in that situation, or if your partners are as avid as you to explore new possibilities, then the cost of reading the book is modest compared to the value of thinking about a different approach than that which you currently use: even if you end up rejecting the new approach.

[ArcLight]

>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


>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.

[ArcLight]

>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)

[inquiry]

ArcLight, on Feb 27 2007, 03:36 PM, said:

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)

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. And since you have slammed it, they can't expect their money back should they also not like it.

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

Mike admired the EFFORT to write the book. He offered no opinion about the quality or content of the book, having not read it himself.

And to mike, the auction I gave was for people who start wtih cue-bidding. I gave but one example where people do not start cue-bidding, using an example where 2♥ did not even agree fully in hearts. I obviously didn't run the entire gambit of them.

[kenrexford]

ArcLight, on Feb 27 2007, 03:32 PM, said:

I said I was very disappointed with it. Its someones own pet theories, who is not an expert.

This one gets me going a tad. For a few reasons.

For one thing, I'm not sure what expectations were disappointed, as you knew who I was when you bought the book. If you "knew then" that I was "not an expert," how were your expectations shattered?

Second, what defines an expert? If you mean by "an expert" someone who is a professional bridge player, I cannot meet that requirement, nor did I ever claim to have that credential, anywhere.

Third, the ideas are not solely pet conventions that I came up with. Most of this material is relatively standard, or is minority but recognized as a legitimate convention used by some recognized experts by any standard. Further, my treatise is based upon works of people like Belladonna and Gitelman, with gaps filled in with thoughts of friends of mine who are professional bridge players who have published books of their own.

I just do not get one one your comments. You would not be interested in a book if it was well written and a good idea if the author was not an expert by your standards. And yet you knew this going in.

If an idea is good, why do a lack of titles negate the value?

[Flame]

ArcLight, on Feb 27 2007, 03:32 PM, said:

>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


>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.

What make you think this isnt standard? what do you think here isnt standard ?
LTTC ? serious NT ? AK together.
Almopst every adv partnership play those. its super standard.
And then he give some of his own ideas which is a big bonus.
I really dont understand your problem with it, i think for some strange resson you think he made this all up and all experts never heard of it or play it.
I can say i admire his bravness to write it without reading it because i had my thoughts of writing books, and i know what it mean.
And yes when someone is doing a work that takes more resourses then its only make sense that you will pay more for it.
but even if not paying i still have lots of respct for such writing as opposite to all those 25 conventions you must know books that are so much easier to write.

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Feb 27 2007, 04:26 PM, said:

[read above]

Justin,

I almost fell off my chair.

Honestly, I cannot express how wonderful your assessment makes me feel. I had no doubt that you would give an honest opinion, despite our heated exchanges. And, although you may not believe this from my own penchant for heated argument for love of the battle, even if my position is irrational (which I would never admit until cornered, maybe), my respect for your game is high, and this analysis that you provided tickles me.

[ArcLight]

>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.

[Flame]

ArcLight, on Feb 28 2007, 08:41 AM, said:

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.

I think if anyone then you were the one to put words in my mouth.
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.

[ArcLight]

>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

[inquiry]

ArcLight, on Mar 1 2007, 08:52 AM, said:

>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.,,.

I nominate ArcLight for the best comeback line of the year.

No offense meant to flame in my response, this just was a great one liner.

[Flame]

ArcLight, on Mar 1 2007, 08:52 AM, said:

>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

If you're intrested, i decided to call myself Flame (many years ago in an age of empries clan) after a small baby who got killed by a palastinian sniper her name was "shalhevet" which i translated to Flame. Im not sure my translation was best maybe ember is closer but that name goes with me for many years. I felt the name will be the Flame of her momry.
As i tried to tell you in private i really dont want to fight with you, but for some resson you feel you must, this is my last post here, so feel free to say the last word.

[Vilgan]

sort of a bump cause this was a cool thread till it got off task with a debate about a specific book.

Sooooo... books I have read recently (lot of books rather than an in depth review of 1):

Matchpoints, by Kit Woolsey: A. Very very useful book, and was especially helpful to me as I have started moving from being an imps player to also being able to play matchpoints well. It is well written, interesting, and had a lot of valuable information for the right target audience (prob about intermediatish). Worth buying/reading imo.

I Fought the Law by somebody: One of the most useless books I have ever read. It spends a lot of time attacking the LoTT, acts like this is revolutionary, but really doesn't actually have much to say as a book. The law is not perfect!! oh my god. I think everyone in today's world knows that the LoTT is a guideline only, to assist in judging competitive auctions. Maybe its just because I read this book in 2007 rather than back when it was first published, but imo this book was a complete waste of time and I would not recommend it to any bridge player.

How the Experts Win at Bridge: A very fun and interesting read. Probably (again) best for intermediates, but I think people at all skill levels can appreciate it and get something out of it. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who has not read it, regardless of skill level.

Competitive Bidding in the 21st Century: Fairly useless. I made it 3/4 of the way through the book and didn't find much new. This book could be summed up with about one sentence: "Bid more aggressively". Other than pages and pages of examples suggesting you bid more (although it does caution against bidding more on certain types of auctions), this book didn't have much to it.

The Weak NoTrump: How to Play it, How to Play Against it: As mentioned in a different thread, I found this book to be fairly useless for a serious player interested in playing a weak NT. It is good for a novice who wants to try out a weak NT and has no real idea how to start, but it lacks on useful information.. and also makes some (imo) very bad suggestions. The hardest (again, imo) of weak NTs... bidding after you open 1m with a strong NT and there is competition is completely ignored in the book.

The Modern Losing Trick Count: VERY useful book. I'd consider this book to be an essential part of any bridge library. It outlined the entire concept of losing trick count, how to use it, how not to use it, and it also had some other cool stuff to improve your bidding. Its not easy to read cover to cover, but it is extremely useful and should be read by all bridge players at some point as they start to cross from novice to intermediate or beyond.

Bridge Squeezes for Everyone: VERY good squeeze book. Was the main tool I used to learn what squeezes were, how to pull them off, etc etc. Its a book I will go back and periodically reread, as it is very well written and a VERY good book on squeezes. I would recommend this to anyone who wants to learn about squeezes or improve their knowledge on recognition and execution of squeeze opportunities.

Anyways, might not be the most in depth of reviews.. but thought I'd add to the voice of books to read. This thread was pretty helpful when I was looking for books to read and figured it deserved a bump.

Eric