[ArcLight]

Test your Percentages by Hugh Kelsey

36 problems revolving around how to combine chances, such as playing for the drop with AKJx opposite xxxx, before taking a finesse with AQx opposite xx.
In a way its a companion book to his excellent Bridge Odds for Practical Players The problems go beyond just percentages (though thats teh main emphasis) and also focus on entry management and timing.

These problems are maybe a little easier than some of those in his other books, provided you can do the math. You need to be able to figure out that one line of play is 36% + 8% + 6% + 3% and therefor better than the finesse by 3%.

A solid A for intermediates and above.
Note - *Very hard to find!* Carl Ritner has one for sale for $10.

[mike777]

2006 World Bridge Championships, Verona.320pp.
Level=General Interest/All
Grade=A+

Another superb effort by editor Brian Senior. Covers the Rosenblum Cup, McConnell Cup, World Open and IMP pairs and Senior Events. Wonderful book that will provide weeks of reading enjoyment.

AQ65....QJT93...KT53...VOID
KJ........AK7......AQ764..A85

2C=2D
2NT=3C
3D=5C!
5H=6D

Fred and Brad had an exclusion blackwood mixup on this one. Brad meant 5clubs as exclusion and Fred took 5c as a splinter. They still won 12 imps as the other table also had a mixup and played in 4NT.

[Flame]

ArcLight, on Jun 12 2007, 07:43 AM, said:

Here is problem 31

I like this problem and its solution, didnt solve it myself, if this is the kind of problems in this book then its a good book.

[ArcLight]

Flame, on Jun 18 2007, 11:36 AM, said:

ArcLight, on Jun 12 2007, 07:43 AM, said:

Here is problem 31

I like this problem and its solution, didnt solve it myself, if this is the kind of problems in this book then its a good book.

This problem was one of the best, thats why I selected it.
Many are not as good.
Overall I rate it a B-.

[Chamaco]

ArcLight, on Jun 12 2007, 12:43 PM, said:

Masterpieces of Declarer Play by Julian Pottage

Some of the inferences I don't agree with and therefore the hands are not really solvable by the clues given.  For example - many would make a weak 2♥ jump overcall with 6 hearts headed by the AJxxxx non-vulnerable against vulnerable opponents opening a minor.  And many would not open a hand containing 10 HCP  consisting of 1 Ace and 2 Kings and not great shape like 5-5-3-0.

Hi Arc,
when reading books by foreign authors (e.g. British, Australian, French, Polish, Italian), one needs to take into acount that what is "common" in ACBL-land might not be common abroad.

A book by a Norwegian could base the inferences of weak to on almost any Hxxxx 5 card suit.
Other authors might draw different inferences o the use (or lack of use) of the jump overcall because they usually jumpovercall 2M with a intermediate or goodish hand. Similarly, many-a-players shall routinely open a 10 count at level 1, but many players would routinely open at the 2 level

And so forth: for instance, many inferences from the bidding that are claimed in Terence Reese's books are not matching with common practice in the US (or Italy for that matter)

Hence, when evaluating the issues related to the bidding that are raised by an author, it would be crucial to *try* to understand the different background, I think.

If we stick to the simplistic reasoning "In my country we play that way and I am not interested in what the rest of the world plays" we are not making ourselves a favour, in terms of bridge culture, of understanding, and open-mindedness

[ArcLight]

>Hence, when evaluating the issues related to the bidding that are raised by an author, it would be crucial to *try* to understand the different background, I think.

Of course I "try" to understand the different backgrounds. Not all books I read use 5 card majors, 15-17 NT. I never slam a book because the system is a bit different, like the author uses 4 card majors or 12-14 NT (instead of 15-17). I found a number of hands from Kelseys classic "Killing Defense" hard to solve (I got them wrong) because I wasn't expecting the inferences from the bidding the author derived (like opening 1 Club with 5 spades and 5 Clubs). I still think kelseys book is very good.

You seem very fast to criticize my review when you have not read the book. The author could have done a better job on some of the sleected hands, since the inferences were poor. The same goes for his other book "Clues from the Bidding".

To imply I didn't "try" is just insulting. Of course I try to be aware of the bididng system and convention.

You should "try" to not put words in other people mouths.

[Chamaco]

Arclight

you decided on your own that you have the bridge proficiency to be able to judge the work of great bridge authors, sometimes beating on them quite harshly.

My personal view is that I like the informative content of some of your posts, but:

1- a lot of the time you give judgments quite biased - which is something that a world class player can afford to, but in my opinion not an intermediate like me and you

2- in quite a few of these reviews, these judgements distort even what should be the pure objective description about the books

Of course the above is only my opinion - no better nor worse than yours or some else's, and I do not expect that everyone agrees with me.
In any case don't ask me more about this (such as which posts I am referring to and why) because I won't follow up a flame war.

The only real message from this post of mine is:
"If you want to be able to review, judge and beat harshly other writers' books, the least you can do is accept that someone else does the same with your posts (especially in a forum, where basically every post is under the gun) .
Even if you disagree with his contents or tones"

Sorry if you found yourself insulted, that was not my intention

[ArcLight]

What an amusing post, it sounds like teh 13 year old I was sitting next to on the plane.


I think I have enough experience, and have read enough bridge books that I can recognize the good ones.
Its funny that you troll for a fight when I rate a book B-. My god, what if I had rated it a C? Maybe you would kill me?


>1- a lot of the time you give judgments quite biased - which is something that a world class player can afford to, but in my opinion not an intermediate like me and you


How am I biased? I don't rate all books A+? Sorry, but there are quite a few mediocre bridge books. Just because it takes a lot of work to write a book, doesn't mean its worth buying or reading. The problem with those who only give favorable reviews of mediocre works is the readers get burned , wasting time and money.

>In any case don't ask me more about this (such as which posts I am referring to and why) because I won't follow up a flame war.

No, you just try and start one.

Try reading the books before you criticize my reviews.

No one will agree 100% with everyone. I review the books as I see them. Feel free to disagree, Just don't tell me I don't "try and understand them". I wouldn't read a book cover to cover if I wasn't "trying". I an not an expert, but I have read many bridge books. I enjoy reading them. So I think I am able to appreciate a good one, and recognize a poor one.

[SoTired]

So in order to review a Steve Spielberg flick, the reviewer must be a world class director?

Or a sports writer can't criticize a ball player's bad play because the sports writer can't play pro ball?

Or a sportswriter can't criticize a pro coach because the writer has never even been a coach?

Of course not! You don't have to be an expert bridge player to effectively review a bridge book. As a matter of fact, an intermediate player may be a better judge of the writing because if the intermediate player can't understand the bridge, then the book is not well written.

The only concern about the review by an intermediate player is if the reviewer states bridge opinions about the usefulness of a convention or system. And even then, the old "buyer beware" rule applies.

[kenrexford]

No one should feel like they should refrain from reviewing a book because of their level or credentials.

I can understand intimately the frustration with reviews, however, having experienced mixed reviews myself of a work I generated. It has been interesting that reviews by people who are very well known and by organizations (ABF, ACBL, Bridge Today, etc.) have been good but that a few poor reviews have been given, in informal media (like forums or on Amazon), by people I have never heard of.

That being said, "buyer beware" should apply, as mentioned. A review by anyone, assuming they read the book, is free speech and should be welcomed. If you know the reviewer, like so many movie critics, you either value their opinion or not. If you do not know them, why place much faith in their assessment?

I'll agree that public posting of opinion as to a "book review" should have some degree of self-audit, like actually reading the book and acknowledging regional differences and the like, but most people try to do that, whether they are successful at it or not.

[Chamaco]

Sorry, I do not want to be unpleasant so I'll leave this thread alone after this.

But I feel from the latest replies that I did not explain well my ideas about the reviews of books by better authors.

Indeed anyone can make a review of a credited author: however in my opinion, one should be VERY careful before being harsh towards a good author, for many reasons.
Criticizing a book is one thing: but I think that beating hard on it is a different matter than a simple critique, and it requires a background at least comparable to the one of the author.
(By beating hard I refer to a plethora of Arc's posts, mostly coming from author that do not use the bidding systems or styles more common in ACBL)

One reason why I believe we should be careful in those critiques to well known authors is that a lot of the time we criticize things written by a better player it simply means we do not understand them.
And I think in this case we should think twice or thrice before slaughtering a book (are we really sure we understood it well ?)

However, that is only my opinion and I do not expect it to be shared by everybody

What I think is clear, though, is that IF ONE gives a bad review (not just a so and so) of a book by a "good" author ("good" = having a good credit), he cannot complain if the same (same = being judged with the same severity) happens to him (by someone reading his review).
(Of course there exist bad books and/or books that for instance have a bad layout or something like that - but this is outside the scope of my point. I refer to issues of bridge technique here)

A final point: I have read the book, as most that were reviewed by Arc.

I do not want to enter the details of the discussion (which points I think were the key of my critique to Arc's reviews) because that would only make the discussion more bitter, and indeed it is not my will.

I have replied a bit hard only because I received a personal message by Arc, that one really explicitly insulting.

However, it is not my will to be annoying, neither to Arc nor to others.

[ochinko]

Ok, put yourself in ArcLight's shoes. He likes to read, and he likes to comment on it. Who would be interested to read his comments if they knew beforehand that the comment would always be positive?

It became clear that he's not an expert. I, for one, think that's great, because he doesn't have to constrain himself. If he was a well known expert then a bad review could bury a book or an author.

I am not less interested to hear your opinion than his as long as it has some substance. Tell me why ArcLight isn't right, what did he miss, don't tell me he should say only good things about a book.

Nothing is more precious than an honest opinion by a peer of yours. No one expects those opinions to always be right, that would be silly. If you say that he's biased, don't expect to surprise me, everyone is biased. Let those biased opinions clash, and let the readers decide for themselves.

[Trumpace]

SoTired, on Jul 5 2007, 01:36 PM, said:

So in order to review a Steve Spielberg flick, the reviewer must be a world class director?

Or a sports writer can't criticize a ball player's bad play because the sports writer can't play pro ball?

Or a sportswriter can't criticize a pro coach because the writer has never even been a coach?

Of course not! You don't have to be an expert bridge player to effectively review a bridge book. As a matter of fact, an intermediate player may be a better judge of the writing because if the intermediate player can't understand the bridge, then the book is not well written.

The only concern about the review by an intermediate player is if the reviewer states bridge opinions about the usefulness of a convention or system. And even then, the old "buyer beware" rule applies.

Not really, especially if the book is titled: "Masterpieces in Declarer Play" which might require a certain level of expertise to even understand (Note: I am not saying that ArcLight does not have that expertise).

How do you think an intermediate would rate "Adventures in Card Play" by Ottlik and Kelsey?

Really, if you have to find flaws, in say, the analysis of the play of some hand, you must be pretty capable yourself.

Understanding what the author says, versus claiming that the author is wrong (and you being correct) really require different levels of expertise in most cases.

[ArcLight]

Actually, Masterpieces of Declarer play is not really about super hard hands, such as those found in Kelseys Adventures in Card Play. Its well suited for intermediate plus and advanced players. I just felt that some of the hands could have been better, or the clues on a few hands could have been better (I'd have rated the book higher than a B- (which is still worth reading).

I will eventually read Pottages companion book "Masterpieces of Defense"


I have only skimmed Adventures in Cardplay , it looks interesting and very tough. I wouldn't pan it because I can't solve those hands. Afterall, its an expert level book, and to pan a book because its above (or below) ones level is unfair.

[ArcLight]

Killing Defense at Bridge by Hugh Kelsey


When I started playing bridge I also started reading many bridge books. I tried reading this one when I had 5 months experience. No surprise that I found the book way too hard and put it down. I made a note in my log of books read "Too advanced. Requires reader to make assumptions as to what declarer has to set the contract."" I found that interesting as a measure of my thinking as a beginner.

Counting shape, HCP, and tricks is the beginning. Here the emphasis is on more than just counting, its on visualization. Declarer or pard may have some high spot that makes such and such a play dangerous or safe. Why didn't declarer or pard attack some suit, or switch suits? What is someones shape? How will the play go? Will entries be a problem? The first several hands were easier, then they got harder. There is a tough chpater on Squeeze defense (not simple ones either!) though Kelsey says its not that important as far as your game is concerned, mainly just for experts. Many of the hands are solvable if you think them through. Even if you don't get them, just the thinking and reading the clear solution will help.

On a few of the hands I didn't agree with the bidding and wasn't able to solve the problem. For example: with 5=1=2=5 which suit (both good suits) would you open? Back then Kelsey said ♣, today wouldn't many open Spades?
Also, with using 4 card majors, there were a few hands I wasn't sure of the shapes.

The book is geared towards Advanced or Intermediate Plus level players.
Perhaps some of its fame as a classic is it came out 40 years ago and was probably the first Excellent and non trivial book on defense. I rate it an A-, though others may rate it an A or A+. In any case its certainly worth reading (and rereading every couple of years).


On to More Killing Defense in a month...

[helene_t]

"Human Bridge Errors" collected and analyzed by Chthonic (pronounce "thonic")

Readers of Bridge World think that Chthonic is a pseudonym for Kleinman and/or Straguzzi while readers of BBF may think that it's a pseudonym for The_hog. Anyway, the robot that was developed to insult humans in general and bridge players in particular has written a modern version of "Why you lose at bridge". As such, it's a much-needed book, emphazising what matters (basic understanding of the game), rather than memorizing thousands of marginal conventions. If you are looking for a birthday present for an intermediate player and consider "Why you lose at bridge" but are worried about confusing the recipient with obsolete methods (lots of penalty doubles) and statistical superstition (mirrored shapes, wave of luck), then you should probably chose "Human bridge errors".

The endless stream of insults (".... machines with limited processing power, such as waffle irons and humans, .....") becomes tiresome at some point but otherwise it's a very good book. Most of the topics are what low-intermediates refuse to know while high-intermediates know but refuse to apply. There are a few controversial ideas also, for example a proposal of a radical non-standard treatment of protecting doubles. But the authors are quite explicit that this is just their opinion.

[cherdano]

ArcLight, on Jul 9 2007, 07:30 AM, said:

Killing Defense at Bridge by Hugh Kelsey

(...)

The book is geared towards Advanced or Intermediate Plus level players.
Perhaps some of its fame as a classic is it came out 40 years ago and was probably the first Excellent and non trivial book on defense. I rate it an A-, though others may rate it an A or A+. In any case its certainly worth reading (and rereading every couple of years).

I am one of those who would give it an A+. I think the selection of hands is excellent, they all feel like everyday hands that you have seen or should have seen. I haven't read many books but this one is definitely my favorite so far.

[cjames]

This is an excellent topic, but maybe many misses it. Could it be an idea to pin it to the first page?

[ArcLight]

More Killing Defense by Hugh Kelsey

I think I liked this even more than the first one. Its still has some outdated bidding (such as 1NT - 2D being natural) that will cause you to miss a few problems, but other than that is excellent.

- A few chapters of discarding (a very important subject)

- A few chapters on removing declarers options (i.e. forcing him to commit to one like of play before being able to first try another)

- anticipating partners problems

Like all advanced books on defense the emphasis is on more than just counting HCP, its on visualization and figuring out how the play will go.

I think there were more problems (especially in the later chapters) where you had to break up potential squeezes, or if you play in such a way you will allow declarer to squeze someone. In Killing Defense Kelsey thought defending against squeezes was not just advanced but of less importance to study, compared to all the other defense related topics.

The book has "Intermediate" listed on the cover but I think thats rather ambitious. Not that an Intermediate wouldn't get any of the problems, rather they should work their way up to this level first.

I rate it an A, though probably Arend will rate it an A+

[ArcLight]

The Extra Edge in PLay by Terence Reese & Julian Pottage

I read and reviewed this book about 2 years ago. I didn't think it was anything special (I think I rated it a C or C-). I may have been disappointed because I had
just read some excellent books by Reese and this wasn't as good. In other words my expectations were too high. Perhaps as I've read more books and gained experience I have come to appreciate some of the techniques more.

I just reread the book and liked it more the second time. Some of the hands were not so good, but there were a number of interesting hands / techniques. Things like how to play 2 suits that both offer finesses, or partial eliminations, or unusual ducking plays.

I am upping my rating to B-