Good books for beginners?
John
wife has just taken up the game. We're looking for some good books to
help us get up to speed quickly.
I found "Bridge for Bright Beginners" by Terence Reese at the local
library. It is very well reviewed on Amazon.com, but with a warning that
it teaches a British bidding system which might make it not a good
choice for US players (We live near Chicago).
I also got "Bridge for Dummies" and "The Complete Idiot's Guide to
Bridge" from the library. Of the two, I think "The Complete Idiot's
Guide" is organized better.
Finally, I have a 1949 copy of "Point Count Bidding in Contract Bridge"
by Charles Goren. This was used by my parents to learn the game.
Comments on these titles and suggestions of others that we might find
more useful will be appreciated. Thanks!
Regards,
John
--
Please reply in this newsgroup. I never post my true email address to
prevent spam. Thank you.
henry...@yahoo.com
John,
I might suggest the following;
5 Weeks to Winning Bridge, by Alfred Sheinwold. In spite of being
dated, still the best single book on bridge for beginners out there,
in my opinion. The fact that you and your wife have some experience
with the game means you'll be able to run through it pretty quickly.
Bridge for Dummies, by Eddie Kantar. Kantar is one of the all time
great writers, and so this book is also worth your consideration.
Finally, you might consider joining Bridgebase Online, which is a free
site run by Internationalists Fred Gitelman and Sheri Weinstock.
There is an online section that teaches people how to play bridge.
Henrysun909
Stu G
Some of your choices should depend on what kind of bridge you want to
learn. For playing social bridge with your wife, any of these books
are probably fine. For playing competitive bridge at a bridge club or
tournament, you should avoid learning how to bid from books more than
20 years old. This is no longer your parents game that they learned
from Goren; styles have changed a lot in competitive bridge circles.
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
Andrew
> wife has just taken up the game. We're looking for some good books to
> help us get up to speed quickly.
>
> I found "Bridge for Bright Beginners" by Terence Reese at the local
> library. It is very well reviewed on Amazon.com, but with a warning that
> it teaches a British bidding system which might make it not a good
> choice for US players (We live near Chicago).
Reese is a brilliant writer, but this book is not a good choice to
learn methods you can play with other people in the Chicago area.
> I also got "Bridge for Dummies" and "The Complete Idiot's Guide to
> Bridge" from the library. Of the two, I think "The Complete Idiot's
> Guide" is organized better.
I don't know either of these books, but anything written by Eddie
Kantar will be entertaining and will teach sound principles.
> Finally, I have a 1949 copy of "Point Count Bidding in Contract Bridge"
> by Charles Goren. This was used by my parents to learn the game.
There is nothing really wrong with Goren's methods for beginners, but
they are out of date. You are better off with a more recent title.
Andrew
Bud H
"John" <no...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:uvadneDPRpEB38TV...@comcast.com...
As much as I respect the players of the '50s and '60s, books from that era
should not be your first choice from a beginner's standpoint.
Best to stick to books written in the '80s and later.
Eddie Kantar and Bill Root have excellent books on beginning and
intermediate bridge. Even Dorothy Truscott's Bid Better Play Better and
Winning Declarer Play are excellent.
It looks daunting, but the thick Watson book on the play of the hand,
although old, is excellent, also.
I am just emphasizing that when it comes to bidding, books in the '80s and
later would be better choices.
Bud H
BBO expert
> Finally, you might consider joining Bridgebase Online, which is a free
> site run by Internationalists Fred Gitelman and Sheri Weinstock.
> There is an online section that teaches people how to play bridge.
Not that it's important, but I thought I'd read on BBO that Sheri is no
longer involved. Needless to say I can't find that news now.
BBO expert
> As much as I respect the players of the '50s and '60s, books from that era
> should not be your first choice from a beginner's standpoint.
>
> Best to stick to books written in the '80s and later.
>
> Eddie Kantar and Bill Root have excellent books on beginning and
> intermediate bridge. Even Dorothy Truscott's Bid Better Play Better and
> Winning Declarer Play are excellent.
I have /Bid Better Play Better/, and it is copyright 1966. Sure it's been
rereleased as recently as 1998, but how much has it been updated? My wife
took one look at it and dismissed it as useless.
henry...@yahoo.com
Richard Pavlicek
> Finally, you might consider joining Bridgebase Online, which is a free
> site run by Internationalists Fred Gitelman and Sheri Weinstock...
Which reminds me:
Why does Fred Gitelman have a vineyard in his backyard?
Because he loves a sherry wine stock.
--
More to the subject, for complete beginners:
http://www.rpbridge.net/1a00.htm
--
Richard Pavlicek
Web site: http://www.rpbridge.net
Eric Leong
If you serious about the game I think Bill Roots books are an
excellent to start.
Eric Leong
Eric Leong
I think Sheri Weinstock gave up her shares so Bill Gates, Sharon
Osberg, and David Smith could invest and grow the enterprise larger.
David and a group of lived in the same dormitory coop at UC Berkeley
and played a lot of duplicate bridge together in the early 70's.
Sharon and David were married then, divorced but came back together in
the last few years.
Eric Leong
Stig Holmquist
>I played a lot of bridge in college, but that was a long time ago. My
>wife has just taken up the game. We're looking for some good books to
>help us get up to speed quickly.
>
>I found "Bridge for Bright Beginners" by Terence Reese at the local
>library. It is very well reviewed on Amazon.com, but with a warning that
>it teaches a British bidding system which might make it not a good
>choice for US players (We live near Chicago).
>
>I also got "Bridge for Dummies" and "The Complete Idiot's Guide to
>Bridge" from the library. Of the two, I think "The Complete Idiot's
>Guide" is organized better.
>
>Finally, I have a 1949 copy of "Point Count Bidding in Contract Bridge"
>by Charles Goren. This was used by my parents to learn the game.
>
As a bridge teacher I would recommend the latest version of Goren's
book: Goren's New Bridge Complete", in which he has adopted the 5-card
bidding style now commonly taught to beginners. Buy it used.
Another good choise would be any newer or older book by Bill Root,
such as 'The ABC of Bridge". But avoid any book by A.Grant. If
possible ask your local libray to obtain any book you would like to
read by interlibrary loan. I've a few on order and will report on them
in time.
Stig Holmquist
StevieTee
>
> There is nothing really wrong with Goren's methods for beginners, but
> they are out of date. You are better off with a more recent title.
>
> Andrew
Quick, call the paramedics!! Stig Holmquist is turning blue!!!
LOL - Steve Sun
CBFalconer
>
> I played a lot of bridge in college, but that was a long time ago.
> My wife has just taken up the game. We're looking for some good
> books to help us get up to speed quickly.
Marshall Miles has an excellent book. My copy is in storage
somewhere, so I can't be very precise. The point is that he
teaches beginners to think. Dorothy Hayden is always good also.
Likewise I recommend Bill Root and Terence Reese.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Sid
: Comments on these titles and suggestions of others that we might find
: more useful will be appreciated. Thanks!
The following two books will be advantageous in your collection:
"Bid Better, Play Better" (latest edition please!)
"Winning Declarer Play"
Both by Dorothy Hayden Truscott
Thanks me later. :)
Sid
Sid
: I have /Bid Better Play Better/, and it is copyright 1966. Sure it's been
: rereleased as recently as 1998, but how much has it been updated? My wife
: took one look at it and dismissed it as useless.
The book is excellent for the Novice turning Intermediate. SAYC
style, and new edition includes weak 2's, and a nice treatment method
of 2C openers and follow-ups.
Sid
CBFalconer
His wife has appalling taste in Bridge books. Another excellent
book by Dorothy Hayden Truscott is "Winning Declarer Play". That
is probably much less subject to the current rages for peculiar
bids.
BBO expert
> Sid wrote:
>> BBO expert <n...@test.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have /Bid Better Play Better/, and it is copyright 1966. Sure
>>> it's been rereleased as recently as 1998, but how much has it
>>> been updated? My wife took one look at it and dismissed it as
>>> useless.
>>
>> The book is excellent for the Novice turning Intermediate. SAYC
>> style, and new edition includes weak 2's, and a nice treatment
>> method of 2C openers and follow-ups.
>
> His wife has appalling taste in Bridge books.
I'm prepared to accept the new edition may be alright, but in the 80s when
we met, the 60s version was certainly too far out of date to be even
useful, let alone good.
As for her taste, when we met she owned, at least, Mollo and
Gardener's /Card Play Technique/ and Root's /Commonsense Bidding/, neither
of which could be considered appalling taste.
John
nob...@nonospam.org
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:14:45 -0500, John<no...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
>> I played a lot of bridge in college, but that was a long time ago. My
>> wife has just taken up the game. We're looking for some good books to
>> help us get up to speed quickly.
>>
>
>
I started this thread over two years ago, FWIW. Last Fall, I joined a
local bridge group which plays at our park district. One of the better
players suggested I could probably benefit from taking a bridge course,
since I had been away from the game for 40+ years.
I took an intermediate level course which was available at the Arlington
Heights, IL Senior Center, taught by a woman whose life revolves around
her love of the game. It was very worthwhile and I learned a lot!
The textbook was "Play of the Hand in the 21st Century", Volume 2 of the
ACBL Bridge Series. I also purchased Volume 1, "Bidding in the 21st
Century". These are 2006 revisions (by Betty Starzec) of books written
in 1986 by Audrey Grant. I also purchased a 32 page "Cheat Sheet"
entitled "Bridge At A Glance" by Audrey Grant which I found on Amazon.
Now I have looked back at this original thread and find your suggestion
to avoid anything by A. Grant. Please elaborate on why you dislike
Audrey Grant's books. Just curious! Thanks.
John
Player
There is not much wrong with Grant's books. Stig is just being Stig.
Ron
Bertil
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are about 100 mistakes in the book. Search Google for
"Bidding in the 21st Century-Errata Sheets-Updated 10/8.
But there is more. Such as the definition of reverse bid in the
glossary.
Also, the Rule of 20 should never have been published.
If you don't mind all of this you might find the book useful
Stig
derek
Stig just has a hate on for Audrey Grant. She does a fine job of
getting beginners playing decent bridge quickly. You quickly outgrow
what her books can teach you, but she's probably done more for bridge
in North America than anybody since Charles Goren. Stig makes a point
of all the publishing errata - that's very rarely the fault of the
author (though could certainly be a reason to stay away from books by
this publisher, if the rates are abnormally high), and I bet a random
sample of bridge books by other authors would show similar rates. As
for the rule of 20, it's about as good a method of rating an opening
hand as anything Stig has come up with. It's seriously flawed, but
simple. Stig would like to see every beginner take 10 minutes to run
a calculation in his head before deciding whether to open: and his
methods are about as reliable, anyway.
Bertil
> On Feb 14, 7:40 pm, Player <ron...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 5:54 am, nob...@nonospam.org wrote:
>
> > > Stig Holmquist wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:14:45 -0500, John<no...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> > > >> I played a lot of bridge in college, but that was a long time ago. My
> > > >> wife has just taken up the game. We're looking for some goodbooksto
> > > >> help us get up to speed quickly.
>
> > > > But avoid any book by A.Grant.
>
> > > > Stig Holmquist
>
> > > I started this thread over two years ago, FWIW. Last Fall, I joined a
> > > local bridge group which plays at our park district. One of the better
> > > players suggested I could probably benefit from taking a bridge course,
> > > since I had been away from the game for 40+ years.
>
> > > I took an intermediate level course which was available at the Arlington
> > > Heights, IL Senior Center, taught by a woman whose life revolves around
> > > her love of the game. It was very worthwhile and I learned a lot!
>
> > > The textbook was "Play of the Hand in the 21st Century", Volume 2 of the
> > > ACBL Bridge Series. I also purchased Volume 1, "Bidding in the 21st
> > > Century". These are 2006 revisions (by Betty Starzec) ofbookswritten
> > > in 1986 by Audrey Grant. I also purchased a 32 page "Cheat Sheet"
> > > entitled "Bridge At A Glance" by Audrey Grant which I found on Amazon.
>
> > > Now I have looked back at this original thread and find your suggestion
> > > to avoid anything by A. Grant. Please elaborate on why you dislike
>
> > > John
>
> > There is not much wrong with Grant'sbooks. Stig is just being Stig.
> > Ron- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> There are about 100 mistakes in the book. Search Google for
> "Bidding in the 21st Century-Errata Sheets-Updated 10/8.
> But there is more. Such as the definition of reverse bid in the
> glossary.
> Also, the Rule of 20 should never have been published.
> If you don't mind all of this you might find the book useful
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
In the past the best bridge books were written by masters of the game,
such as Culbertson,
Goren, Karpin, Kaplan, Scheinwold, Roth and Bergen just to name a
few. By contrst
Grant has no credentials as a player, none, zero, zip.
Culbetson based hand evaluation on honor tricks while goren
popularized point count plus quick tricks
similar to honor tricks. Max Hardy starts his book "Standard Bridge
Bidding for the 21st Century"
with a table of honor/quick tricks. But Grant never mentions these
concepts so fundamental to
sound hand valuation. She seems to think that a hand such as QJxx-QJxx-
QJx-QJ qualifies for
an opening bid because it meets the rule of 20. She fails to teach
sound principles of hand evaluation.
Dumbing down bridge educatiion is a disservice.
I wish Karen Walkwer's manual "Bridge for Beginners and Beyond" were
available in book format or that
'The Bridge Book" Vol.1-4 by Stewart & Baron would be reprinted. It
might be found at 'Better World Books".
Stig
John Hall
<e6f1e0a4-0ecf-4d3f...@z3g2000prz.googlegroups.com>,
Bertil <stigf...@hotmail.com> writes:
>In the past the best bridge books were written by masters of the game,
>such as Culbertson,
>Goren, Karpin, Kaplan, Scheinwold, Roth and Bergen just to name a
>few.
I don't think that it's true that you have to be a great player to write
a great book. As one counter-example, I offer Hugh Kelsey, who was good
enough to play for Scotland but on his record could hardly be described
as a great player. Yet he was undoubtedly a great bridge writer.
--
John Hall
"The covers of this book are too far apart."
Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914)
boblipton
You don't have to be a great chef to tell if an egg is rotten.
Bob
derek
> > "Bidding in the 21st Century-Errata Sheets-Updated 10/8.
> > But there is more. Such as the definition of reverse bid in the
> > glossary.
> > Also, the Rule of 20 should never have been published.
> > If you don't mind all of this you might find the book useful
>
> such as Culbertson,
> Goren, Karpin, Kaplan, Scheinwold, Roth and Bergen just to name a
> few. By contrst
> Grant has no credentials as a player, none, zero, zip.
Not entirely true, but I'll accept that she is not a player of their
calibre. She is not even on the radar at the international level.
That, in itself, is a pathetic reason for dismissing her skills as a
teacher. As with most adages, there is a kernel of truth in the
saying, "those who can do, those who can't teach". I do find it
fascinating that you include Bergen, though, given the opinions you've
expressed of his abilities as a bridge author.
> She seems to think that a hand such as QJxx-QJxx-
> QJx-QJ qualifies for an opening bid because it meets the rule of 20.
The only person for whom she "seems to think" that is you. You have
never seen her say that's an opening bid.
> Dumbing down bridge educatiion is a disservice.
You think? I wonder why "Bridge for Dummies" is so successful, then?
Dumbing down bridge education has been an immense help in getting
people into bridge in the first place. The average person (of whom we
could use a lot more in the ACBL - an organization of a hundred
thousand plus high-performing autistics can hardly be ideal), can't
cope with the full complexity of the game when they're starting.
>
> I wish Karen Walkwer's manual "Bridge for Beginners and Beyond" were
> available in book format or that
There's a fine example. Karen Walker is an excellent bridge player -
she will never manage to do as much for bridge as Audrey Grant,
because she is a horribly boring writer. My eyes glaze at the thought
(Mike Lawrence can do that too).
Nick France
One must take what Stig says with too many grains of salt to be worth
much.
Grant's book on Play is an excellent book as is the next in the series
on Defense. Her first book on Bidding leaves too many holes in an
effort to simplify. The main weakness is in the area of notrump
bidding. She was slow to adopt the 15-17 notrump and still has
Stayman as a bonus chapter (in my book but maybe she has changed that)
rather than as part of basic notrump bidding and she doesn't have
Jacoby transfers at all. This is just oversimplifying to me. Her
handling of suit bidding is fine although I do regret she doesn't
really cover Quick Tricks.
for basic bidding 'Bridge for Dummy' is the best of the books easily
obtained. At your stage you would probably benefit from 'Standard
bidding with SAYC' by Downey and Pomer. Since you like Grant if you
want to learn about 2/1 bidding, look at her book with Rodwell on 2/1
bidding.
Since you loved the teacher for Play of the Hand you should see if she
teaches Defense from the same series. Play and Defending are key at
your stage once you learn basic bidding.
Nick France
nob...@nonospam.org
>
> Since you like Grant if you
> want to learn about 2/1 bidding, look at her book with Rodwell on 2/1
> bidding.
It's not so much that I like Grant, but rather that I became familiar
with her because her book was used for the course I took. I'm not
familiar with the term "2/1 bidding" but I'll look into that book.
> Since you loved the teacher for Play of the Hand you should see if she
> teaches Defense from the same series. Play and Defending are key at
> your stage once you learn basic bidding.
She teaches three courses, beginning, intermediate, and advanced. I took
the intermediate course since I learned the game in the '60s but hadn't
played much in recent years. I believe the Defense book is used for her
advanced course, which I may take in the Spring.
John
nob...@nonospam.org
>
> There are about 100 mistakes in the book. Search Google for
> "Bidding in the 21st Century-Errata Sheets-Updated 10/8.
I found that. But the copy I bought from Amazon a few months ago says
"updated 2010" on the copyright page, and all the errata appear to have
been corrected.
> But there is more. Such as the definition of reverse bid in the
> glossary.
My copy says "Reverse - Any rebid in a suit higher ranking than the
original one." If this is incorrect, what should it say?
> Also, the Rule of 20 should never have been published.
I haven't found that in "Bidding in the 21st Century". What page?
Thanks!
John
Martin Ambuhl
> Bertil wrote:
>> But there is more. Such as the definition of reverse bid in the
>> glossary.
>
> My copy says "Reverse - Any rebid in a suit higher ranking than the
> original one." If this is incorrect, what should it say?
There is wide disagreement about the use of the term "reverse".
There are bridge writers who might be regarded as authoritative who
insist that the term "reverse" means that opener's rebid over a simple
new suit response forces responder expressing a preference for opener's
first suit to bid at the three level. Responder's reverse can be defined
analogously.
There are bridge writers who might be regarded as authoritative who
insists that a reverse is a rebid in a suit higher ranking than the first.
The effective difference between these groups is in the distinction
between 2-level and 3-level rebids by opener, which were distinguished
in older texts as "low reverse" and "high reverse". Typically a "low
reverse" (which corresponds to Grant's definition) promises a longer 1st
suit than 2nd, while a "high reverse" promise a longer or equally long
1st suit than 2nd.
Those who refuse to call the "high reverse" a reverse (as with Grant)
are forced to additional phrasing, as "a reverse or rebid in a new suit
at the 3-level shows extra values". Those who do call a "high reverse"
a reverse often feel obligated to tell us that the 2nd suit in a 2-level
reverse is always shorter than the 1st, but that the 2nd suit in a
3-level reverse may be equally long.
Arguing about which is the correct use of the term is pointless. Both
usages have been current for 80 years at least. Probably the old "high
reverse" and "low reverse", with unmodified "reverse" used for either,
stands the best chance for clear communication.
Travis Crump
Do you consider 1C-1H; 1S a reverse? That seems another hole in the
definition quoted.
jogs
And is still probably the best teacher for beginners.
Have you noticed in sports most of the best coaches
weren't the star players.
Martin Ambuhl
It is a hole. Some writers will specifically mention that rebids at the
1-level are never reverses; some will not. Clearly, the "forces a
preference for the 1st suit to the 3-level" handles this.
Here are the non-jump auctions with opener's bid of the third suit
(auctions where responder bids 1NT are, or are not, different with
regard to their forcing quality, according to the taste of the author):
1. Rebids at the 1-level (not a reverse)
1C:1D, 1H
1C:1D, 1S
1C:1H, 1S
1D:1H, 1S
2. Rebids at the 2-level in a lower ranking suit (not a reverse)
1D:1H, 2C
1D:1S, 2C
1H:1S, 2C
1H:1S, 2D
1H:2C, 2D
1S:2C, 2D
1S:2C, 2H
1S:2D, 2H
3. Rebids forcing a preference for the 1st suit to the 3-level
3a. A higher-ranking suit at the 2-level (a low reverse; everyone calls
these a reverse)
1C:1H, 2D
1C:1S, 2D
1C:1S, 2H
1D:1S, 2H
1D:2C, 2H
1D:2C, 2S
1H:2C, 2S
1H:2D, 2S
3b. A lower-ranking suit at the 3-level (a high reverse; Grant does not
include these in her definition of reverse)
1H:2D, 3C
1S:2D, 3C
1S:2H, 3C
1S:2H, 3D
Dave Flower
>
> - Show quoted text -
And how about:
1D 1S dble pass
2H
Dave Flower
Martin Ambuhl
> And how about:
>
> 1D 1S dble pass
> 2H
That's not a new suit: it's a raise.
Dave Flower
I agree - but might not a beginner regard it as 'a rebid in a higher
ranking suit' ?
Dave Flower
Jim Blaisdell
Thomas Dehn
If you would have said Lawrence, I might have agreed.
Overall, the books from which I learned most were
not written by the star players and world champions.
Mollo-Gardener, Card Play Technique.
Kelsey, Killing Defense at bridge.
Thomas
Thomas Dehn
> On 2/16/2011 8:38 PM, nob...@nonospam.org wrote:
>> Bertil wrote:
>
>>> But there is more. Such as the definition of reverse bid in the
>>> glossary.
>>
>> My copy says "Reverse - Any rebid in a suit higher ranking than the
>> original one." If this is incorrect, what should it say?
>
> There is wide disagreement about the use of the term "reverse".
>
> There are bridge writers who might be regarded as authoritative who
> insist that the term "reverse" means that opener's rebid over a simple
> new suit response forces responder expressing a preference for opener's
> first suit to bid at the three level.
That position is nonsense, though.
Think about canapé systems.
Thomas
Martin Ambuhl
Kaplan's book on the Italian methods and the introduction to Belladonna
& Avarelli's book on Roman both go out of their way to tell us that the
use of "reverse" has a different meaning from that that English or
American readers might expect. Consider for example that a Roman
"preference" for the first bid (and potentially short) suit by a
responder after his negative step response is a _strong_ bid (around an
8-9 count). Preference to the 1st suit in a canap� system is rare,
while very common in long-suit first methods. The terms and the use of
the associated bids are sufficiently different in these two bridge
worlds that bringing up canap� methods in a discussion about more
standard methods is merely an attempt to muddy the waters for no
possible constructive reason.
Thomas Dehn
> On 2/17/2011 5:00 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote:
>> On 02/17/2011 06:03 AM, Martin Ambuhl wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2011 8:38 PM, nob...@nonospam.org wrote:
>>>> Bertil wrote:
>>>
>>>>> But there is more. Such as the definition of reverse bid in the
>>>>> glossary.
>>>>
>>>> My copy says "Reverse - Any rebid in a suit higher ranking than the
>>>> original one." If this is incorrect, what should it say?
>>>
>>> There is wide disagreement about the use of the term "reverse".
>>>
>>> There are bridge writers who might be regarded as authoritative who
>>> insist that the term "reverse" means that opener's rebid over a simple
>>> new suit response forces responder expressing a preference for opener's
>>> first suit to bid at the three level.
>>
>> That position is nonsense, though.
>
> Kaplan's book on the Italian methods and the introduction to Belladonna
> & Avarelli's book on Roman both go out of their way to tell us that the
> use of "reverse" has a different meaning from that that English or
> American readers might expect. Consider for example that a Roman
> "preference" for the first bid (and potentially short) suit by a
> responder after his negative step response is a _strong_ bid (around an
> very common in long-suit first methods. The terms and the use of the
> associated bids are sufficiently different in these two bridge worlds
> methods is merely an attempt to muddy the waters for no possible
> constructive reason.
We're discussing definitions here. The definition of a generic
term in a bridge book should still be valid if the author's favorite
system is not played.
In the context of a strong club system, a sequence like
1D 1S
2H
typically is not forcing because opener is limited.
So at minimum, any statement that a reverse is forcing should not
be part of the definition.
Thomas
Thomas Dehn
> Bertil wrote:
>
>>
>> There are about 100 mistakes in the book. Search Google for
>> "Bidding in the 21st Century-Errata Sheets-Updated 10/8.
>
> I found that. But the copy I bought from Amazon a few months ago says
> "updated 2010" on the copyright page, and all the errata appear to have
> been corrected.
>
>> But there is more. Such as the definition of reverse bid in the
>> glossary.
>
> My copy says "Reverse - Any rebid in a suit higher ranking than the
> original one." If this is incorrect, what should it say?
A reverse is a natural non-jump rebid by opener where opener bypasses
rebidding his own suit to bid another suit which responder did not
show or imply (such as via a transfer bid or a negative double).
Thomas
Martin Ambuhl
> On 02/18/2011 12:04 AM, Martin Ambuhl wrote:
>> On 2/17/2011 5:00 PM, Thomas Dehn wrote:
>>> On 02/17/2011 06:03 AM, Martin Ambuhl wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2011 8:38 PM, nob...@nonospam.org wrote:
>>>>> Bertil wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> But there is more. Such as the definition of reverse bid in the
>>>>>> glossary.
>>>>>
>>>>> My copy says "Reverse - Any rebid in a suit higher ranking than the
>>>>> original one." If this is incorrect, what should it say?
>>>>
>>>> There is wide disagreement about the use of the term "reverse".
>>>>
>>>> There are bridge writers who might be regarded as authoritative who
>>>> insist that the term "reverse" means that opener's rebid over a simple
>>>> new suit response forces responder expressing a preference for opener's
>>>> first suit to bid at the three level.
>>>
>>> That position is nonsense, though.
>>
>> Kaplan's book on the Italian methods and the introduction to Belladonna
>> & Avarelli's book on Roman both go out of their way to tell us that the
>> use of "reverse" has a different meaning from that that English or
>> American readers might expect. Consider for example that a Roman
>> "preference" for the first bid (and potentially short) suit by a
>> responder after his negative step response is a _strong_ bid (around an
>> very common in long-suit first methods. The terms and the use of the
>> associated bids are sufficiently different in these two bridge worlds
>> methods is merely an attempt to muddy the waters for no possible
>> constructive reason.
>
> We're discussing definitions here. The definition of a generic
> term in a bridge book should still be valid if the author's favorite
> system is not played.
Don't be silly: the discussion was about a book for beginners learning a
version of Standard American. There is absolutely no reason for Grant
to have definitions that apply to systems based on different principles,
just as Belladonna & Avarelli's definition of "reverse" in _Bridge - Il
Sistema Fiori Romano_ has no validity for Standard American, Acol, or
even standard Italian methods.
>
> In the context of a strong club system, a sequence like
> 1D 1S
> 2H
> typically is not forcing because opener is limited.
>
> So at minimum, any statement that a reverse is forcing should not
> be part of the definition.
At a minimum, you should learn to read. The statement was that it
forces a preference to the 1st suit to be at the 3-level. That says
nothing about the bid being forcing; a preference to the 2nd suit when a
reverse is not forcing is shown by a pass.
Bertil
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 5:54 am, nob...@nonospam.org wrote:
>
> > > Stig Holmquist wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:14:45 -0500, John<no...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> > > >> I played a lot of bridge in college, but that was a long time ago. My
> > > >> wife has just taken up the game. We're looking for some goodbooksto
> > > >> help us get up to speed quickly.
>
> > > > But avoid any book by A.Grant.
>
> > > > Stig Holmquist
>
> > > I started this thread over two years ago, FWIW. Last Fall, I joined a
> > > local bridge group which plays at our park district. One of the better
> > > players suggested I could probably benefit from taking a bridge course,
> > > since I had been away from the game for 40+ years.
>
> > > I took an intermediate level course which was available at the Arlington
> > > Heights, IL Senior Center, taught by a woman whose life revolves around
> > > her love of the game. It was very worthwhile and I learned a lot!
>
> > > The textbook was "Play of the Hand in the 21st Century", Volume 2 of the
> > > ACBL Bridge Series. I also purchased Volume 1, "Bidding in the 21st
> > > Century". These are 2006 revisions (by Betty Starzec) ofbookswritten
> > > in 1986 by Audrey Grant. I also purchased a 32 page "Cheat Sheet"
> > > entitled "Bridge At A Glance" by Audrey Grant which I found on Amazon.
>
> > > Now I have looked back at this original thread and find your suggestion
> > > to avoid anything by A. Grant. Please elaborate on why you dislike
>
> > > John
>
> > There is not much wrong with Grant'sbooks. Stig is just being Stig.
> > Ron- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> There are about 100 mistakes in the book. Search Google for
> "Bidding in the 21st Century-Errata Sheets-Updated 10/8.
> But there is more. Such as the definition of reverse bid in the
> glossary.
The ACBL definition of 'reverse' is: an unforced rebid of two or more
in a higher ranking suit than the that bid originally-usually a
strength showing bid.
The key word is 'unforced'. This would seem to imply that in the
bidding
1D-1S-2H opener has a 1=4=5=3 hand with all HCP in the red suits and
is inviting responder to bid NT. If the 1S bid were made by the opps
then
the 2H bid should be strong.
Bertil
> Also, the Rule of 20 should never have been published.
> If you don't mind all of this you might find the book useful
>
> Stig- Hide quoted text -
Dave Flower
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
So, 2H is a reverse on the uncontested auction:
1D 1H
2H
Dave Flower
Bertil
that dimwitted sophists
would regard the above sequence as a reverse bid since a raise of
responders suit is not excluded.
Bertil
> Dave Flower- Hide quoted text -
New
Newbie question.
From this, it appears as if the double indicated a heart bid!
What convention is this?
New
By your definition,
1D-P-2C-P
2H
would be a double.
However, "Morehead on Bidding" says that this doesn't neccessarily
show a stronger than opening hand by opener because responder has
already shown strength by this 2 over 1.
So does this mean your definition of a reverse is incorrect or that the
defn is correct, but a reverse need not always indicate a strong hand.
Or does the current system differ from what Morehead says?
Martin Ambuhl
This is a negative double. Partnerships have different agreements about
which doubles are negative, but almost everyone who plays some form of
negative double uses the double after a 1S overcall over a minor suit
opening as showing hearts. You will need to discuss with your partner
which doubles you will treat as negative and precisely what they show.
Martin Ambuhl
> Thomas Dehn wrote:
>> On 02/17/2011 02:38 AM, nob...@nonospam.org wrote:
>>> Bertil wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are about 100 mistakes in the book. Search Google for
>>>> "Bidding in the 21st Century-Errata Sheets-Updated 10/8.
>>>
>>> I found that. But the copy I bought from Amazon a few months ago says
>>> "updated 2010" on the copyright page, and all the errata appear to
>>> have been corrected.
>>>
>>>> But there is more. Such as the definition of reverse bid in the
>>>> glossary.
>>>
>>> My copy says "Reverse - Any rebid in a suit higher ranking than the
>>> original one." If this is incorrect, what should it say?
>>
>> A reverse is a natural non-jump rebid by opener where opener bypasses
>> rebidding his own suit to bid another suit which responder did not
>> show or imply (such as via a transfer bid or a negative double).
>
> By your definition,
>
> 1D-P-2C-P
> 2H
>
> would be a double.
>
> However, "Morehead on Bidding" says that this doesn't neccessarily
> show a stronger than opening hand by opener because responder has
> already shown strength by this 2 over 1.
>
> So does this mean your definition of a reverse is incorrect or that the
> defn is correct, but a reverse need not always indicate a strong hand.
The stronger responder's bid is, the less opener need to have to reverse.
The higher-ranking-suit definitions tend to be more left-pondish (says
the Encyclopedia of Bridge) while the
responder's-preference-for-the-first-bid-suit-will-be-at-the-three-level
is more right=pondish (according to the same source). I believe this is
an error, since I have US bridge books over an 80 year period that that
use the preference-at-the-three-level definition. Be that as it may,
there are two ways to play such bids.
a) 1D:2C, 2H shows extra values
b) 1D:2C, 2H shows the values to justify making responder, should she
prefer diamonds, show preference at the 3-level (3D).
In the days when 2-over-1 bids were frequently made on 8-9 HCP hand or
even less, these two were essentially the same. But the requirements for
20over-1 bids have gotten higher in most styles, even in Acol.
Many Standard American players have chosen path (b). This splits into
some some groups:
(b1) If the 2-over-1 is defined as GF, it is possible to play that the
reverse shows nothing extra. I should point out that this is
subject to abuse. When the 1D bid in the given auction is made
on a 3- or 4-card suit, the best rebid is probably 2NT even with
a 4-card major, reserving reversing auctions for hands with 5+
diamonds.
(b2) If the 2-over-1 promises 10 or 11 HCP upwards, the reverse need
not show much extra. A hand with 13 or possibly 12 HCP will
usually be enough to force responder when preferring the first
suit to show preference at the 3 level. If you open hands in the
9-11 HCP range, it is usually an error to reverse, so rebidding
5-card suits may be right. There are two further subgroups
(b2a) The reverse is not forcing. After 1D:2C,2H responder may
show a preference for hearts by passing with a dead
minimum, especially when holding 3 hearts.
(b2b) Since 1D:2C,2H is forcing to the 3-level when responder
has a diamond preference, there must be values for the
3-level when he has a heart preference or a long club suit
and for 2NT otherwise, so make the reverse *forcing* in any
case.
Others opt for path (a). This includes many Acolites (e.g. Crowhurst
and Kambites) and some American methods (KS when responder bids 2 of a
minor in response to 1 of a major). Since the minimum 2-over-1 now has
at least a queen more than the old-fashioned 2-over-1, this makes the
reverse not just forcing but game-forcing. Opener's rebid in an
uncontested, non-jump, non-raise auction higher than a simple rebid of
his 1st suit will always show extra values. This makes game bidding a
little cleaner (often emphasized by Acolites) and makes slam bidding a
lot easier.
As you can see, there are many choices to be made here. You and your
partner need to work out just where you stand on these issues, or else
decide to adopt someone else's already worked out methods.
derek
> Thomas Dehn wrote:
> > On 02/17/2011 02:38 AM, nob...@nonospam.org wrote:
> >> Bertil wrote:
>
> >>> There are about 100 mistakes in the book. Search Google for
> >>> "Bidding in the 21st Century-Errata Sheets-Updated 10/8.
>
> >> I found that. But the copy I bought from Amazon a few months ago says
> >> "updated 2010" on the copyright page, and all the errata appear to
> >> have been corrected.
>
> >>> But there is more. Such as the definition of reverse bid in the
> >>> glossary.
>
> >> My copy says "Reverse - Any rebid in a suit higher ranking than the
> >> original one." If this is incorrect, what should it say?
>
> > A reverse is a natural non-jump rebid by opener where opener bypasses
> > rebidding his own suit to bid another suit which responder did not
> > show or imply (such as via a transfer bid or a negative double).
>
> By your definition,
>
> 1D-P-2C-P
> 2H
>
> would be a double.
I think you meant "reverse"!
> However, "Morehead on Bidding" says that this doesn't neccessarily
> show a stronger than opening hand by opener because responder has
> already shown strength by this 2 over 1.
>
> So does this mean your definition of a reverse is incorrect or that the
> defn is correct, but a reverse need not always indicate a strong hand.
>
> Or does the current system differ from what Morehead says?
A reverse is a reverse :-) It just means that responder's been forced
to bid at the 3-level if he wants to show preference for your first
suit, so Morehead is right, and Thomas is right, and I don't see a
contradiction.
Thomas Dehn
> Thomas Dehn wrote:
>> On 02/17/2011 02:38 AM, nob...@nonospam.org wrote:
>>> Bertil wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are about 100 mistakes in the book. Search Google for
>>>> "Bidding in the 21st Century-Errata Sheets-Updated 10/8.
>>>
>>> I found that. But the copy I bought from Amazon a few months ago says
>>> "updated 2010" on the copyright page, and all the errata appear to
>>> have been corrected.
>>>
>>>> But there is more. Such as the definition of reverse bid in the
>>>> glossary.
>>>
>>> My copy says "Reverse - Any rebid in a suit higher ranking than the
>>> original one." If this is incorrect, what should it say?
>>
>> A reverse is a natural non-jump rebid by opener where opener bypasses
>> rebidding his own suit to bid another suit which responder did not
>> show or imply (such as via a transfer bid or a negative double).
>
> By your definition,
>
> 1D-P-2C-P
> 2H
>
> would be a double.
A reverse, not a double.
> However, "Morehead on Bidding" says that this doesn't neccessarily
> show a stronger than opening hand by opener because responder has
> already shown strength by this 2 over 1.
>
> So does this mean your definition of a reverse is incorrect or that the
> defn is correct, but a reverse need not always indicate a strong hand.
The latter. A reverse does not always indicate a strong hand.
Whether a reverse indicates a strong hand or not
is part of the system.
Thomas
Bertil
The 2H is not an unforced bid and thus should not be regarded as a
reverse bid.
Bertil
>
> Dave Flower- Hide quoted text -
derek
> > > > If you don't mind all of this you might find the book useful
>
>
> > 1D 1H
> > 2H
>
> The 2H is not an unforced bid and thus should not be regarded as a
> reverse bid.
No, it's not that 2H is "not an unforced bid", but that responder is
not forced beyond it.