[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

[mike777]

Ok just got 4 new bridge books in the mail. Will let you all know my thoughts over the coming months.

Just did my annual reread of Mike Lawrence's book on reading the Opp cards. Still the best bridge book I have ever read.

[ArcLight]

I have begun rereading books I read.
While How to Read Your Opponents CArds is excellent, Mike Lawrence has another less well known book - How to Play Card Combinations.
It covers a number of common situations like KJx in Dummy, or Ax opposite Qx.
Its similar to HTRYOC in that you have to use the opps bidding and play to place the cards to make your decision.
I consider it a sequel to HTRYOC.

I thought I Fought the Law by Mike Lawrence and Anders Wirgren was certainly worth reading. They spent a bit too much time up front showing how the LAW doesn't work that well at high levens in a number of situations. Their suggested method is generally easy to use and seems to work well.



I recently read 2 books by Jim Priebe.
- Thinking on Defense
- Matchpoint Defense

I had high expectations for Thinking on Defense, but was disappointed.
The premise is excellent - generate a few hands declarer might have and see if they fit in with the bidding and play. Also, don't just make the "obvious" book defensive play. Think deeper about whats going on. Can that play REALLY work, given what you know about the hands?

While some hands were quite good, and most were not easy, I found that the inferences the author drew from the bididng didn't always make sense.
I would love to read a good advanced book on defense. Too bad this wasn't that good. Cou;d have been a lot better.
I give it a C.

[I don't rate a book 'bad' if its not at my level, or it was too hard. I rate it bad because its not all that good ]


I liked Matchpoint Defense much more. Some good problems and points. There is a quiz of 50 problems at the end. The problem is the later half have bididng that is either bad, or not what you would expect. The author says you have to expect bad bidding and deal with it. I guess thats true, but it makes it hard to defend.

For example, there is a hand from 1971 where the opps open 2 Spades
It turns out to be a 7 card suit A J 9 x x x x
Not what you would expect today for a 2 spades bid.

On another hand, declarer makes a strong jump bid and turnsof with 15 HCP. It was a crappy bid, and teh author says you have to expect that.

I think of Eddie Kantars quip (from his excellent Modern and Advanced Bridge Defens ebooks)
Its hard to defend against a madman, becaus etheir bidding will throw you off. But they will ultimately give it back by ending up in more bad contracts.

Decent Book, I give it a B- or B



Eddie Kantars "Kantar for the Defense" is a great Intermediate level book.
100 problems, wioth card by card play and questiosn. You are not told what the key play is, but at some point you are asked the critical questions. The problems are not very hard (though I missed a number) and test your signaling and signal reading. 2-3 key points are summarized after each hand.
For intermediates its an A.

[rusty]

This thread is fantastic!! I thoroughly enjoyed reading all of it! Keep up the incredible work!

[effervesce]

Did anybody mention Oliver Segal's "Partnership bidding at bridge" ? I found it to be a very informative book on evaluating the 'offensiveness', 'defensiveness' of hands, how vulnerability and which seat in the bidding affects probabilities. Its geared towards the advanced player aiming to do better at bridge.

An electronic book can be found at
http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2000...ingAtBridge.ZIP
made available free by the authors so there's no reason not to read it! =)

[helene_t]

Precision Today (Berkowitz/Manley)

The book introduces basic Precision for beginner/intermediates with a bagground in standard bidding. It will also be useful for players of a traditional Precision style who want to upgrade their style to a contemporary one (2♣ showing 6+, loose requirements for 1NT-openings). The last half of the book covers some treatments of interest for more advanced readers (transfer responses after 1♣, baby 1NT etc.).

Plusses: The book makes a clear distinction between what is universal and what is the authors' personal preferences. For example, when making inference after a 1♦ opening they qualify their statement with "if you play a 14-16 1NT opening" and in some cases mention consequences of alternative notrump ranges. The introductory part about the history of Precision is very funny. It's new to me that CC Wei learned bridge while sitting in a bomb shelter covering for Japanese air strikes and that he financed his Precision crucade by bying an old warship and turning it into an oil tanker. Apparenty WW II was good for something.

Minusses: Like most other Precision players (such as myself, lol), the authors are very arrogant on behalf on their bidding system and never miss an oportunity of mentioning how great the treatment under discussion is and how ineffectively the hands would be bid with standard methods. I sometimes found myself wondering when they were being serious and when they were just being sarcastic.

[helene_t]

I love this game (Sabine Auken)

Auken discusses the last 16 boards of the Venice Cup final 2001, in which Germany made a great come-back against France. From each of the 16 boards a point is distiled, which is subsequently discussed using examples from other events.

Some examples of topics she discusses:
- Team building and cohesion
- Why she wears fashionable clothes at bridge events.
- Her pet peve: The abuse of the word "standard" to distinguish some arbitrary treatments (standard carding, standard bidding)
- When to show count and when to show attitude
- Advantages of the weak 1NT openig
- etc.

The book is suitable for good intermediates and advanced players.

Auken is a non-conformist in many (most) of those areas, and as such the points she makes are interesting. But overall, I didn't like the book. She covers too many topics. And the style of writing is annoying. I was left with a feeling (I might be wrong) that the book would have made a better read if she'd written it in German.