Not My Very Best Watching

January 30th, 2010  ~  linda  ~  10 Comments 

Commentary on matches on BBO takes some skill to do right.  At least I think it does.  There are different approaches.  One approach is what I would call the macho man .  This person is invariably male and he is there so everyone can appreciate how very well he can see the hand.  Before a bid is made he is calling the result.  His focus is on dummy play and he expects to dominate the chat.  He speaks with disdain at almost anything anyone else has and never admits an error.

Macho man can be a good analyst or a poor one.  He is often talking double dummy.  Poor declarer doesn’t always know how the cards lie.  Macho man always has a reason why declarer should drop the stiff king offside or take an unusual finesse.

Then there is chatty Cathy.  Chatty may be male of female and just is in there to say something anything.  She will repeat exactly how you can find the scores for the match or what the weather is like or just about anything else, occasionally even talking about the game.

Then there is the lawyer.  He will argue with anybody about anything.  Some times he has favorite “opponents”, sorry I mean fellow commentators.  David Bird has one who apparently never ever agrees with anything he says.

In general I am much happier commenting when there are no more than 2 others.  Its hard to have any sort of intelligent discussion otherwise. 

All this being said, I commented on two matches today.  One just for a few deals was very pleasant and interesting.  The second was more of a struggle with just too many people.  I probably wasn’t at my best.  I do have an unfortunate habit of sometimes saying the opposite of what I mean.  He should lead a spade, no I mean heart.  I usually have a chance to correct my error, no harm done.  But not always. I made a pretty serious analytical error on one hand but was helpfully pounced on by one of the other commentators.  Fortunately the bridge was pretty interesting at times in the ten short boards. 

I thought the East-West pair in my room (the OR) clearly had the best of it and the score certainly reflected this.  Even when they made contracts I didn’t always like their approach.  Here is an example.

North had limited his hand to 7 points after his partner opened a strong club.  South showed a strong notrump 15-17.  What would you bid on this hand:

KJ76

10872

Q93

J6

Pass comes to my mind.  Even if I was playing Garbage Stayman where partner is forced to bid his better major I would pass.  Our North bid Stayman and they played in 2NT (as opposed to 1NT at the other table).  Declarer made it by guessing how to play diamonds with A10432 opposite dummy’s J6.  As it was all was very friendly.  So this one got by.

This is an opening lead problem

AKJ109

10742

10752

–

You overcall 1 with 1.  Your LHO shows a game force with clubs and checks for a spade stopper.  Your RHO bids 3NT.  RHO has Qxx of spades almost certainly.  Maybe Qxxx.  Do you lay down an honor or do you lead a small one or how about a clever red suit lead?

Actually anything but a small spade works.  The spade gives declarer nine tricks without a club finesse.  On any other lead declarer must take a club finesse to partner and the spade return picks up declarer’s Qxx. 

I would have lead the A myself and I would not have lead the J as did our South.  J is really only right if declarer has QXXX and partner has XX and partner doesn’t have two side winners.  Partner could easily have a stiff spade so I see an argument for a red card. 

This is quite a sad hand.  South was the perpetrator of a bridge crime.  I think if you wanted to pick one of the seven deadly sins it would be SLOTH.  Here is the hand.

QJ43

K

AK1085

AK8

A1087

8632

94

Q42

North opens 1 and East overcalls 1.  You double and West bids 2.  Partner doubles, you bid 2 and partner raises to 4.  The opening lead is the J.

How do you play this hand? 

You can see that you have three clubs, two diamonds, three spades in hand (at least).  If you can make a heart ruff or two in dummy there is no problem at all.  An alternative approach is to set up diamonds.  Hearts seems a bit safer.  You win the opening club lead and play a heart.  If you do this you have very little risk.  Our declarer started with trump   Winning the club in dummy to play clubs, he ran the Q and J.  This won but West showed out on the second round.  He played one round of diamonds both following love and now he changed course and belatedly played the heart.  East won and returned a trump won in hand. 

At this point South has some guessing to do.  One approach is to ruff a heart, cross back on a club, draw the last trump and take five minor suit tricks, four spades, and a heart ruff.  But East is known to be 4-5-?-? with at least one club.  This line will fail if West has only one club.  Is there any line that works on more minor suit distributions?

Let’s say you play the Q now.  If East shows out he cannot ruff.  Diamonds are 3-3 and you can’t be stopped from setting up diamonds with your clubs as an entry (or a heart ruff).  So let’s say he discards a heart.  Now you play ruff out the diamonds.  Cross to dummy on a club and let East make his trump whenever he wants.  If East shows in I would probably finesse the diamond.  If East wins and returns a trump I win and repeat the finesse.  If East plays hearts now you have to ruff in dummy and decide the distribution.

Anyway, the real mistake on the hand was at trick two.

I am tired and sleepy, time for a nap.

Cloudy with a chance of …

January 28th, 2010  ~  linda  ~  2 Comments 

Ray and I just got back from Vancouver where for once the whole family was together.  He was sick while we were out there and now it is my turn.  So my brain is not only jet lagged but also diseased. 

Ratbert finished going through the Love problems and if my brain cooperates I am going to try to work through the corrections now so the problems should be online in a few days.  The new books came into today and I love my Love.  Its really got a great cover.  If you want a look at it here is the link on Amazon

Love Revised And Beautiful

I have my own author copy to admire.

I was thinking that my next project along with fund raising for Canadian teams, ABTA teacher of the year, ebooks and marketing ,.. would be more software from our current books.  When Luise gets back I will get her to show me how to work with the LIN files.

I have been thinking about the Hall of Fame and I really believe that players should be chosen based on ability as well as results.  I know its hard to evaluate ability but that is why you have selectors.  If it was only on results you could do it with a computer and a spreadsheet.

But, the Hall of Fame I want to see would have players from all over the world.  And I like the idea of having a player category along with say a builder category for people who contributed as great writers, (Terence Reese perhaps, he may be too tainted as a player but he wrote some great books) or administrators.

I did try to play mini-bridge with my older grandsons and they really like playing cards.  I downloaded the BBO client and I am hoping that Cassidy will join me online soon.  He is 10 very bright and really eager.   His seven year old brother Malcolm loves cards too.

So if you see Cassidy99 on BBO say hi to him.

I am taking my cloudy brain to bed now.

Baseball Hall Of Fame

January 21st, 2010  ~  linda  ~  4 Comments 

Judy Wolff has been discussing the issues with what I think of as the American Bridge Hall of Fame.  I say this because the only players in it are Americans.  A few Canadian players are included in different categories but not nominated as players.   As a result the Canadian Bridge Federation will be establishing a Canadian Bridge Hall of Fame and it will be interesting to see how they set up the process.

After reading Judy’s blogs and some emails and some comments I thought I might look at the Baseball Hall of Fame.  To me it is the pinnacle of such ventures.  I have been to Cooperstown more than once and it is well worth the visit.  It goes far beyond honoring the best of baseball.  I love it.

Players can be elected by the Baseball Writer’s Association or by the Veteran’s Committee.  The Veteran’s Committee considers non-players such as managers, umpires or executives as well as players back further in time.  While the writers are focused on players who have retired more recently.

Any writers association members ( for bridge IBPA members) for at least ten years can nominate players.  The players they select must have played in the major leagues 5-20 years before the date of the election.  (For bridge players above 60 and perhaps no more than 90, alive or dead).

The next step is for nominees to go through a screening committee.  The committee consist of 6 writers appointed by the BBWAA (like the IBPA).  There screening committee votes and basically the player must get at least 2 votes.  From zero to 10 candidates are put on the ballet and their are no write-in.  The player must receive 75% of the vote of the writers association membership.

Now here are the criteria used by the screening committee: record, ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contribution to the teams he played on.

The veteran’s committee is comprised of members who are Hall of Famers.  Candidates must have been retired 21 years but otherwise the process is identical (for bridge players alive or dead above 90 perhaps). 

It is a lengthy process but players who make it to the HoF deserve it. 

So what should bridge do?  Some thing along the same lines.  By broaden t

Would this work for bridge?  I think so.  Although perhaps there are not enough reliable members of the IBPA to make it work and others might be added.  Maybe the IBPA isn’t the right body.  What do you think?

I think the idea of having a player category and a builder and administrator category is pretty good.  And hey if you don’t want to include Canadians its okay with me but maybe you should change the name.  But please add the criteria skill to the decision making and don’t make it solely on record.  It is important in baseball where you can be a good player on a bad team and vice versa.  It is important in bridge too. 

Without that criteria you might as well call it the American Bridge Hall of people who won a lot of things.   If you are going that route you don’t really need selectors.  Just get a printout of the players from the US who have won the most events and aren’t currently in the ABHPWWLT.  Its kind of a master point scheme really.  You will need to think about how to fit women and seniors into the ABHPWWLT since they can win a lot of things too in their own events. 

New Downloads Available

January 18th, 2010  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

If you are waiting for the Love problems they are delayed a bit.  Colin (alias Ratbert) is reviewing them and he has found some problems with them so we are waiting for him to finish so we can correct them.  It won’t be that long so stay posted.

Bob MacKinnon’s new book Bridge, Probability and Information is available for download now from www.ebooksbridge.com. In his book, Bob explains how information theory can provide some practical answers to bridge problems.  That is, some ideas that will make you a better bridge player.  There will also be free downloads are available to accompany Bob MacKinnon’s book shortly.  The supplemental material is free to everyone, however, it does some times go beyond the ideas in the book so it may not be for everyone.  But if you are interested in seeing how probability changes over time and how knowing vacant spaces (that is the number of cards in a particular hand still not placed in suits) you can make better decisions.  The download on virtual vacant spaces starts out with a diamond lead against declarer’s spade contract.  Can that help to decide which defender has the trump queen?  How does it change the odds?  There are six missing diamonds.  Suppose you can deduce that the diamond lead is from length.  How does that change the probabilities?  I seem to remember somebody once telling me it doesn’t change it because after all the defender had to lead something.  But not so.

I know that I have heard people talk about using a different point count scale and I know that I upgrade aces and kings and downgrade queens and jacks.  Bob shows a mathematicians view of point count.  How do you feel about 6-4-2-1?  Read about Opening Bids On A Different Scale.

Divisions of Sides?  This is a concept that is discussed in Bob’s book where he looks at how suits split between defenders and declarers.  So a 7-7-7-5 division of sides is the most balanced.  That is neither side has a fit of more than seven cards.  What does this mean?  Do you want to play or defend?  Bob talks a bit about this.  But if you read this article you will probably need to peak at the book to fully see how sides affect things and how you can use this concept.

The Clyde Love ebook is also available now.  I am not sure about the problems … so as we say in the office, “more Love to come.”

Highlights and Lowlights from our match Corrected

January 18th, 2010  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

Last night Colin and I played Sondra and Isabelle.  Colin and I were a bit foggy, me in particular and the score showed that.  But there were many interesting deals.   I have some favorites but first an opening lead problem or two.

I have updated the blog because on the last full hand I had to change the diagram around to make Colin South and when I did it I inadvertently switched Isabelle and Sondra.  I have fixed that in this corrected version.  Boy do I need an editor!

It is my belief that opening leads swing more imps than any other aspect of defense.  The first board presented Colin with an opening lead problem.

A105

J103

With nobody vulnerable Isabelle opened 1 which may not be clubs.  Sondra bid 1 which was alerted as NAT and a positive and Isabelle bid a spade.  Now we knew she was unbalanced with longer clubs than spades.  Sondra bid  2 which was game forcing, presumably fourth suit.  Isabelle bid 2  suggesting 6-5 and Sondra bid 2NT.  Isabelle bid 3 which probably just means my points are concentrated in my suits and I don’t have a heart fit at all.  Sondra bid 3NT.  What do you lead?

While you are thinking I will pass on one other piece of information which was not described in the alerts.  I believe that 1 is a negative of some sort so they will bypass diamonds even with much better diamonds than hearts. Perhaps that chances your mind?

Colin decided to lead a heart and it was game over.  That was in effect trick nine.  Any other lead but the spade ace keeps us in the game.  The whole hand was

Not that it will be a piece of cake to beat it anyway.  Lets say Colin starts with the J  and for the sake of argument I duck it.  Sondra plays a diamond which Colin wins.  Colin continues a club.  I win and shift to a heart.  And as you can see we will come to a heart, two clubs, a spade and a diamond.  It is possible to beat the hand on any lead other than then a heart (or the spade ace) on similar lines but it can get a lot tougher on other leads.

The next deal I find interesting is this one.  First do you bid on my hand?  I held

Linda

87653

We were vulnerable against not and the auction went pass by me 1 by me.  3 by Colin and double by Isabelle.  I could bid any number of diamonds.  What do you think? 6 seems to rich at this vulnerability.  I don’t have all that much to help Colin.  I suppose there is an argument for either 5 or 4.  I chose pass.  I usually find that bidding here helps the opponents more than it hurts them.  But there is a value in 4.  Sondra has no way to show extra and hearts without going past game as we will see in a second.

Sondra bid 4 and it was up to Isabelle.  Now you see why I should have bid 4.

Isabelle

QJ42

Obviously Isabelle has a huge hand on this auction.  If you play that 5 demands that partner bid slam with a club control then it is reasonable.  Otherwise I probably would just keycard.  If 5 is cooperative then what will you do over 5.  Does this really deny a club control or does it just show a minimum?  Good questions for any partnership.  Anyway, that was the auction at the table.  Sondra did sign off in    5 and Isabelle respected that.  This was Sondra’s hand and as you can see the slam was very good.

Sondra

K10This is not to say that the ladies did not get to many aggressive games and slams.  They were definitely ahead of the field on that.

There is nothing special about the next hand except that it shows that some times I can stop

Here is your next bidding challenge and I think it deals with an interesting issue.  First take my hand.

Linda

AQJ1075

Nobody vulnerable.  Sondra opens 1.  Colin doubles.  Isabelle bids 1 and I bid 4.  This is passed to Isabelle who bids 5.  Should I bid or pass to Colin.  What does a pass by me mean now.  I don’t think it can be a forcing pass.  My bid shows shape rather than points.  Or is it?  We voluntarily bid game.  By my usually rules it isn’t a forcing pass since we are not vulnerable and I haven’t shown points.  Is it clear for me to bid 5.  Looking back on it I think I might have.  I just don’t think I can double.  Do you?  Anyway I passed.  And it was over to Colin.  He held

Colin

K42

So now he had the whole thought process.  Is this a forcing auction?  Probably not.  Should I double?  What does Linda’s pass mean?  Does it mean I was preempting?  I confess I think he should move but then again thinking about it I should.  Maybe double by me in a non-forcing pass situation should just say I had values for my bid rather than a desire to penalize.

Anyway he passed to and that was not very good for our side.   They went 2 down which wouldn’t have been bad doubled. Not only is 5 cold but 6 is on a losing finesse.

This is the one deal that really stood out to me.  It showed interesting defense by Isabelle-Sondra and an interesting declarer play problem.  Here is the deal from Colin’s point of view (I have rotated it)

Colin opened 1 showing 4 or more about 11-15 HCP.  I bid 1NT semi forcing and he bid 3.  A good 6 card suit and a maximum.  I bid 4.  The opening lead is a small trump.  How do you play the hand?  One possibility is to assume (I know that assume makes an …. of u and me) that the Q is onside.  You could rise with the K, finesse the Q.  Draw trump and run the J.  If it losses you are home.  The defense can’t take more than two hearts.  If it wins then you should probably repeat the finesse if West shows in (conceding the player who ducked the Qxx offside.)  If West shows out then you are going to need to have one of the red suits onside and you are going to have to decide which one.  You might be able to run the fourth spade, run spades and come down to an ending that works as well.  But most of the time the clubs will work for you.

The problem with not drawing trump before playing clubs is that the opponents may play a second club when they win the first one.  Anyway Colin ducked the spade and won the Q.with the A.  Now he ran the club.  The finesse lost to Sondra and she did return a club.  Colin won and played a third club.  Isabelle ruffed as Colin threw a heart.  But since she sat over Colin she couldn’t cash two heart winners and she had the long spade.  So Colin could enter dummy on the second spade and win the clubs. 

I thought for a moment that if Isabelle didn’t ruff the club the third club she can beat it and it does make it harder.  But Colin can actually still make it by deciding which red card is onside.  He does have to take the diamond finesse at some point.

Once Colin won the spade in hand and finessed the club at trick two Sondra can beat the hand for certain by returning a highish heart rather than a club.  She knows her side has to take red tricks.  Can she figure out that she has to lead a red card?  Let’s see.  Colin can’t really have more than two clubs for this play so Isabelle can’t have an immediate club ruff (or if she does Colin doesn’t care).  So lets give Colin five red cards.  He is going to have to have three potential red losers to have a chance of beating it.  If Isabelle has a heart tenance she will get in and return a club.  If Colin only started with 3 red suit losers he would have not bothered with clubs.  He has to have risk in the red suits.  Since she has the K a heart looks attractive.  Anyway, you decide if it is possible to find the perfect defense or the perfect declarer play on the hand.

Once again the ladies played a great game.  These two are definitely the future of Canadian Women’s Bridge – go girls.

The Office Bridge Game

January 16th, 2010  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

We haven’t played bridge in the office recently so this Friday afternoon we decided to give it a whirl.  I played with Eric and Sally and Ray played together.  Eric is the definite novice of the group and although he has played other card games his main strategy is to cash all his winners at once.  Sally has been working hard to learn more about bridge but she still seems a little but uncertain about what to do.  (Well then, I have played bridge for a good piece of 35 years off and on and I am still uncertain about what to do).

Anyway we played four hands and it turned out that everyone got to play a hand and they were all very interesting hand.  This one was Sally’s.  I have made up the spot cards but I do remember the key cards.

Sally held

K102 AKxx QJ54 43

Ray opened 1 and I said double.  Sally bid 1 and Eric passed.  Ray bid 2 and Sally was uncertain about what to do.  She wanted to raise diamonds but she had no sensible way to do it.  In the end she just bid 3NT.  Eric led a club and this was dummy

Q7 Jx A107432 AQ

Eric led a club and as expected the finesse lost and a club was continued.  Now Sally had to play diamonds.  This led to some discussion between Sally and Ray.  Was it better to finesse or to play for the drop?  Had my double made it more or less likely the diamond finesse would work?

We had a brief chat about leading the Q from her hand.  In many games (but perhaps not the expert ones) if she led the Q from her hand her opponent might cover.  If they didn’t cover and they weren’t all that good then she should expect it to be offside a lot of the time.  But Eric had been alerted now.  He was not going to cover no matter what.  She crossed on a heart and led the Q to get into the habit.  Eric played low.  Now what?  Sally looked around the table.  She thought and she put up the A.  Low and behold the K came tumbling down.  After all there were not many highcards missing for my takeout double. 

This led us back to a discussion of the auction.  From Ray’s side the contract is almost certain.  A club led is into the tenace and now declarer can afford to give up the K.  On a neutral lead if the finesse lost there is still time to get a spade trick for the ninth trick.  It is true that on a spade lead, if the finesse losses you have to play me for the A but that is very likely.  So how do you get to play this hand from Ray’s side.  We suggested that Sally might have bid 3.  Partner should take this as a no-trump try primarily.  Partner is not very likely to hold four spades on this auction.  Ray would then have bid 3NT.

This one simple hand led to a lot of fun.

My hand was sort of neat too.  Why?  Because it had a squeeze theme.  Yes, yes it really did.  I didn’t make that up.  It was just for an overtrick but here is the situation

	10x KQx AQJxxx xx
	AJ9xx Ax x QJ1097

Sally West opened 1NT and Eric overcalled 2.  I bid  2 and over Eric’s 3 I bid 3NT.  The opening lead was the J.  Based on the bidding Ray had to have no cards higher than a ten.  There were only 16 points missing.  So Ray could have at most a jack but there were no jacks missing now.  I won in dummy and played a club.  Sally won and returned a heart.  I won and played a club and Sally returned another heart.  I won and played a spade to hand.  Here was the ending as I led the last club.

	10   AQJx
	J9x   x Q

When I ran clubs Sally had to hold on to three diamonds to the king (assuming she had at least three diamonds) and the high spade in a four card ending.  She would have to pitch her heart winner and one spade winner.  I could then take the diamond finesse and throw her in on a spade.  With nothing but diamonds left she would have to return a diamond allowing me to finesse again.  Of course I had to be sure of the ending.  She could fool me if she only had two diamonds.

As it turned out she did only started with two diamonds but since she kept both spade winners I knew that the K had to come down.  I wonder if she had thrown a top spade and kept the little heart if she would have fooled me.  Some times a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Raising Money For Canadian Teams

January 15th, 2010  ~  linda  ~  6 Comments 

Ray and I are in talks with the CBF about continuing our sponsorship.  We are happy about this but it is just a start.  We need more sponsorship.

So I am going to take a pass at thinking about the best way to get other people involved in sponsorship.  Why should we care?  I suppose that the best answer is that competing in physical sports is very important and its exciting to have teams do well in the Olympics.  But all the money should not just go to physical sports.  Its about a strong mind also.  As we age the strong mind part because even more important.  There is growing evidence that the brain is a use it or lose it “muscle” just like the rest of the body.  Obviously it is important to get lots of people playing but it is the star power of the great players in any sport that get everybody excited.

I am not talking about paying our top players money to practice (as they do in Olympic sports) I am just talking about providing them with enough money to have a very tiny amount of training and to actually play in the event.  I am not talking about being a bridge power, just being competitive.  And Master Point Press does plan to put its money where its mouth is.  But we can’t do it alone.

So my first step is to try to design a sponsorship program of some sort.  I have some ideas but I need help.  So I am asking Canadian bridge players who are willing to help me to send me an email at [email protected]

Anyone who knows me knows I am an idea person but at the moment I am a lonely one.  This is all the volunteers will need to do: help me think up an award program for people who are prepared to donate money to the Canadian Bridge Federation International fund.  Later (or if this doesn’t work) I may work on some ideas around fund raising games.

My thoughts so far: Have a tiered program where a donation as low as $25 will get you something.  (a discount off ebooks, a free ebook or some sort – tips from top player?, a letter of thanks and acknowledgment on the CBF website and magazine).  Then a range from $99-26 which gets you that and a draw for an online lesson from somebody and/or a free game with an international player.  Well you get the idea.

Even if you hate committees send me your ideas.  You can reply in the blog or by email.  Canada, I need your creativity and your help and your kind donations to the program.

More Free Downloads – Gary Brown

January 15th, 2010  ~  linda  ~  No Comments 

The pace of new technology is incredible and it is affecting the book industry at a great pace.  Some times it seems like we are running to stay even.  At home we just upgraded our big screen TV because it was 780p (new is 1080p) and didn’t have HDMI input which meant that we couldn’t watch BluRay and do all the other things we wanted.  Now we have an even bigger television with modern features and a Sony PSP3 which is a wonderful Internet and Intranet hub and DVD player and yes you can play games on it although we don’t actually have any games at this time.  We will eventually have a seven speaker system and once more and for a short time be current.  I know 3D is coming but after having seen Avatar Ray and I just don’t think it is the time for 3D yet.

In the book industry, ebooks are becoming a lot more important.  Many new readers were announced at the latest electronic show and everyone is waiting to see what Apple will do.  There is no doubt that ebooks are starting to move up the technology curve.  When I worked in that industry I used to talk about the first adapters, and then a nice Bell curve until we eventually reached what I called the beer belly middle and final the slow  pokes.  We are definitely starting up the slope.  One good thing is that Amazon Kindle can now read PDF’s which means that all of our ebooks can be read on the new Kindle reader.

And just as wonderful, we can now offer a lot of extras for readers of our ebooks (and even those who just want the extras!)  Readers of this blog will know that we are planning a free download of 20 practice squeeze problems.  It will be available for free download in about a week, (I will announce it here).  Colin is currently casting a beady eye on it.  He is very good at finding problems in bridge quizzes that we call him Ratbert.  (If you don’t understand this reference I suggest you check out Dilbert).

Also available will be chapter summaries.  These summaries outline the main principles behind each squeeze type and provide a handy reference.  I know because I was constantly referring to them myself.

Right now we have the Gary Brown teacher’s manual available as a free download from www.ebooksbridge.com or www.masteringbridge.com.  Gary Brown has a very popular beginner book and he has now provided free of charge a detailed (and very impressive) teachers manual to go with it.   Whether you are using his book or not you might still find the teacher’s manual interesting and helpful if you are teaching beginners.

In the next few days we will also be uploading some interesting stories and mathematical exercises designed by Bob McKinnon to accompany his new book Bridge Probability & Information.  So if you liked restricted choice you are going to really like the four door Monty Hall problem.  I will say more about this book at a future date but we have worked with Bob on it for a lot of years.  It was my belief that mathematical principles could be applied to bridge and provide practical answers to practical problems and Bob was just the man for that job.  I believe the extra download goes beyond the book and includes more advanced ideas so don’t expect any easy solutions.

And for our third new book, the Mysterious Multi there will be a download of the ACBL defense to multi.  There is another defense in the book which was written by Eric Kokish but you need the ACBL defense to hand out at the table if you are playing Multi (where allowed) in North America in an ACBL game.  This is also available from the ACBL website and is reproduced with their permission.

So available within a day or two: Gary Brown

Available next week: Many other freebies from our new books

Isn’t it a wonderful world we live in.

I Have A Little List

January 14th, 2010  ~  linda  ~  3 Comments 

If you are familiar with Gilbert and Sullivan (and if you live with Ray Lee you will be!) than you will know this song from the Mikado.  This song is song by Ko-Ko, the new Lord High Executioner.  He is planning his first victim and he sings a song about how he has a little list … .. All of these are such that … none of them would be missed.

Every time I have seen the play performed which is quite a lot many current references are added to the list.  I suppose for example one might add a line about Bernie Madoff or Hugo Chavez or people who hum a song in the theater as you try to listen to the real artist (Ray and I recently enjoyed that one).  So what would be some bridge references:

certainly you could start with simple ones like:

– players who abuse their partners and of course anyone who signals with a pencil, hand or foot

I know that “NONE OF THEM would be missed”

Some more that come to mind might be:

• Players who call themselves experts but have not learned how to play
• A bridge board of directors which doesn’t allow new conventions (well that would be on my list)
• People who seemed most interesting in winning in committee
• Tournaments with almost as many events as players
• A master point system that is dying under its own weight (or so I think)
• Partners who make faces
• Players who come to your table on BBO and leave after two boards

Chorus (lyrics slightly offered for gender purposes)

She’s got ’em on the list — she’s got ’em on the list;
And they’ll none of ’em be missed — they’ll none of ’em be missed

Do you have some to add?

And how did I get on to Gilbert and Sullivan.  It started when I decided to throw out Ray’s VHS tapes of G&S mainly because we don’t have a player any more.  He pulled them out of the garbage and kept then in a pile on a table for three days while he contemplated them.  Then he decided it was okay to throw them out because he would buy the DVD version.  (If I had known this I would never have started the whole thing).  So he was happily playing Yeoman of the guard as tonight’s entertainment.  Thus putting G&S in my brain. 

Canadian Master Point July 1995 .. Free Download

January 12th, 2010  ~  linda  ~  2 Comments 

It’s that time again.  There is another free download of Canadian Master Point available from www.ebooksbridge.com. 

Have you ever read the short story?

An Occurrence At Owl Creel Bridge by Ambrose Bierce

I remember reading this in high school and it left quite an impression.  I have never forgotten it.  The story starts with a man about to be hanged.  I recommend it to you and after that go write to David Silver’s excellent story based on it: An Occurrence at the Spingold.  Professor Silver demonstrates some remarkable dummy play or does he?

Marilyn White writes a fascinating article on active ethics.  This is a topic that has bothered me for some time.  What is active ethics?  What responsibilities do you have to yourself, your partner and your teammates and what responsibility do you have to being fair.  This is different than cheating.  This is how you act within the rules.  You may recall a blog I wrote about refusing to dump in the Canadian trials.  I have done this twice now and lost both times in later matches to the team I could have eliminated.  Was I right or wrong?  (These have always been team decisions, not mine alone).  Marilyn suggests that women and men approach this whole area in a different way.

Roselyn Teukolsky talks about how she and her favorite partner and husband added a few gismos to their bidding arsenal (and some results of this effort).

You will enjoy reading about Fred Gitelman’s efforts in the Canadian team trials which his team won giving them the opportunity to play in the Athens Olympiad in 1996.

There is an interesting article by Ken-Braithwaite on Sharples-Marx over partner’s 1NT opening.  It still looks quite sensible to me and 15 or so years later all of us are more prepared to use a lot of system.  (My notes always seem to have three digits worth of pages these days).

If you are a follower of Canadian Master Point you might already be familiar with Colbert’s rules.  Dave Colbert is a fine player and for years he played with Mike Cafferata.  Here Mike rights an interest corollary to one of Colbert’s rules.

John Gowdy has an update to Drury, he calls Drury 90’s style.  Looking at it I think it has lots of merit and might be worthwhile for partner’s who don’t want to play Drury, Linda style.

There are several other bidding articles.… there seem to have been lots of that this issue…including one called Baby Keycard and lots more (even some book reviews by moi).