_On Lead With Belladonna_ books "in preparation"?
David Babcock
Courtney, and on the back cover is a mention of a 4-volume series "in
preparation" on Giorgio Belladonna's opening leads, to be entitled "On
Lead with Belladonna", and to be published by Ludus Books. It appears
that no such books have ever been published, and I wonder whether
anyone would know how far along the project got -- or, failing that,
could tell me how I might reach Mr. Courtney. (I am guessing that
Ludus Books' P.O. Box as given in the book, which was published in
1995, may be out of date.)
My interest in this is that if there is worthwhile material on the
promised subject that just needs some TLC to massage it into
electronically-publishable form, it is worth some effort at least to
look into it.
David
ulf...@gmail.com
he said he wanted the books to feature the complete set of leads made
by Belladonna. The publisher wanted to leave out the ones deemed not
so interesting. I guess it was a stand-off in the end. I believe the
books were completed (in Michael's version).
He also mentioned that he'd written a book about Game Thoery in
bridge. I always wanted to read that one but he never emailed the copy
as promised.
Someone might have this contact details "down-under".
/Ulf
richard...@gmail.com
> He also mentioned that he'd written a book about Game Theory in
> bridge. I always wanted to read that one but he never emailed the copy
> as promised.
DAMN!
I'd love to see something decent in print on this topic. I did one of
my graduate degrees in economics and focused on Game Theory. I've
always felt that a number of the thornier issues in bridge would
benefit from a game theoretic analysis. Both psyches and restricted
choice analysis are best analyzed as examples of mixed strategies.
On the bidding front, I suspect - but certainly can't prove - that
bidding system don't exhibit transitivity. Simply put, if bidding
system A > B and bidding system B > C, I don't think that you can
necessarily assume that A > C. If one looks at "real world" examples,
there doesn't seem to be any convergence towards one "true" bidding
system. If there is an equilibrium, it looks to be either
1. A population in which different bidding systems exist in some kind
of optimal ration
2. A cyclical system
Nick France
I too would love to see a book about Game Theory in bridge. I've been
hooked on game theory since 1960 when I read 'The Compleat
Strategyst'. For those who want to see how even a simple concept can
show new possiblities using game theory take a look at Jeff Reubens
articles in Bridge World on whether or not to cover the Queen with Kx
and Kxx using Game Theory concepts..
Nick France
Jürgen R.
>On the bidding front, I suspect - but certainly can't prove - that
>bidding system don't exhibit transitivity. Simply put, if bidding
>system A > B and bidding system B > C, I don't think that you can
>necessarily assume that A > C.
That's going to depend entirely on how you define '>'; and if you
define it in almost any sensible and useful manner (i.e. independent
of the players using the systems) then it is going to be transitive.
> If one looks at "real world" examples,
>there doesn't seem to be any convergence towards one "true" bidding
>system.
That is very true; and there aren't any good measures of quality even
for isolated gadgets. Or put another way: There is no such thing as
'bidding theory'.
nige1
> That is very true; and there aren't any good measures of quality even
> for isolated gadgets. Or put another way: There is no such thing as
> 'bidding theory'.
IMO Bidding Theory is useful. The following are examples of general
ideas, some of which even Jurgen must concede are usefuul:
Culbertson "Approach forcing", "Asking bids"
Simon, Squire "Prefer the limit bid"
Jacoby "Transfers" expecially with a weak hand opposite a srtong one.
Courtenay and Walshe "Losing trick count"
Vernes "Total number of tricks"
Robson & Segal "Competitive bidding"
Two-suiter conventions.
Paradox responses.
Sartaj Hans
The books have been completed but not published.
Michael has written some other manuscripts too, one of which was
gifted to me as a birthday present a few years ago on the promise of
not "forwarding" it.
I can check with him where he currently stands on all of this and try
and put David in touch with him.
By the way, the game theory book of his has no link to the formal
study of game theory.
Its more a book on bridge philosophy exploring concepts that no other
author has ever attempted to touch in bridge.
If you are a chess player, then the parallel is the books by Jonathan
Rowson.
Jürgen R.
wrote:
Sure, some - maybe all - are useful practical rules of thumb. They do
not nearly add up to a 'theory of bidding'.
A theory of bidding would have to tell you how, in a given bidding
situation, the available bids are best assigned to the information to
be conveyed - or at least attempt to approximate the optimum.
The basic problem is that the number of available bids is unknown a
priori and that it is the purpose of bidding to determine this number.
When this difficulty reduced, as in the case of relay sequences,
information can be coded very effectively.
pgil...@bigpond.net.au
I have read Michael's unpublished book(s) On Lead With Belladonna
and think that they are the best material on opening leads that I
have
come across so far. It's a pity that they are not available to the
general
public. I haven't asked Michael recently, but his feeling some years
ago
was that he likes writing and reading, but publishing is not
something
that he enjoyed doing. Something about publishing being for mugs.
Unless he changes his mind, I doubt if his many unpublished bridge
books (perhaps six or seven of them) will ever appear. For more
insight
into Michael Courtney, I recommend you read the chapter on Michael
in Robert Sheehan's bridge book called The Big Game.
Michael disagreed with me when I suggested that the Seres book
should be proofread before publication. He did not like the concept
of the author's personal choice of words being altered before
publication.
My recollections of his so-called game theory book are that Michael
codifies all the useful bridge endings (B9G2, P3D4, P3D5 etc) and
tries to explain how to observe that, for example, a Smother Play
(or a Criss Cross Squeeze or whatever) ending is looming, just as is
done in chess books, by identifying the elements which all Smother
Plays have.
Recently Tim Seres asked me if I know anyone who has done a Smother
Play in real life at the bridge table. "I believe that Michael
Courtney has done
four of them, but I don't know of anyone else who has ever done one",
I replied.
There is no doubt in my mind that Michael's attempts to codify card
play
at bridge work for him. What a shame it's too complex for me.
In the same book, aspects of bridge are divided into their theoretical
components
such as privacy (very important at bridge), agency (e.g. who is on
lead),
time, space and so forth, with the intention of clarifying the
elements
that each play or bridge decision involves.
It was all too much for my mind, and another top Sydney player's
reaction
after trying to read the book was: "Michael, surely you're kidding, is
this really about the game we call bridge?" This book is the most
unlikely of the lot ever
to be published, because it is so esoteric that its market would be
very limited.
Peter Gill
Sydney.
Ron Johnson
> On the artist and the presentation of his work
>
> Michael disagreed with me when I suggested that the Seres book
> should be proofread before publication. He did not like the concept
> of the author's personal choice of words being altered before
> publication.
Bill James fought bloody battles over this issue.
(quoting from an exchange between James
and Scott Gray)
1. I have very good reasons for doing things the way I do them.
2. My name is on the book; the copy editor's name isn't.
3. I know vastly more about the effective use of the English language
than the copy editor does.
So ... I don't want any bleeping policies.
And James is right -- he does write very well. But his stance
has led to errors making it into print and he hates that too.
Georgiana Gates
James the baseball analyst? I have enjoyed his writing.
Ron Johnson
That's the guy. Evidently Michael Courtenay's the editor
James has been looking for all of his life.
> I have enjoyed his writing.
Me too.
nige1
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:38:15 -0700, nige1 <guth...@ntlworld.com>
Jurgen and I agree to differ. For example, IMO, Principia Mathematica
by Isaac Newton is a useful theory of Natural Philosophy, even if by
modern standards it might be judged inaccurate and incomplete.
Steve Willner
> I have read Michael's unpublished book(s) On Lead With Belladonna
> and think that they are the best material on opening leads that I
> was that he likes writing and reading, but publishing is not
> something that he enjoyed doing.
Perhaps he should contact Randy Baron (of Baron-Barclay) or some other
bridge publisher. Publishing shouldn't be hard nowadays, and it's a lot
easier still if someone else does the work. :-)
> Michael disagreed with me when I suggested that the Seres book
> should be proofread before publication. He did not like the concept
> of the author's personal choice of words being altered before
> publication.
There's a difference between "editing" and "proofreading." The latter
is just to make sure nothing has gone wrong when the book was set in
type. Nowadays, with electronic copy, there are rarely problems at the
typesetting stage, but something like two hand diagrams being
interchanged could happen. Or more likely, a deal could be split across
two pages instead of being kept on one. Anyway, proofreading is
essential, and nobody should object. In my experience, the author is
usually one of the proofreaders.
Editing is a different matter. Here the author's words could be
changed, for example for brevity or clarity. However, in my experience
-- on both sides of the transaction -- the author has the last word. I
find a good editor tremendously helpful. No one -- at least no one I've
ever known -- can write consistently without ambiguity or other
problems. When I write a 10-page article, the editor will typically
make a couple of dozen corrections, mostly trivial, and I'll dislike
perhaps one of them. But even that one is usually a problem I created;
it's just that the editor's solution wasn't quite right. Anyway, lack
of control doesn't have to be an excuse for not publishing.
I'd love to read Michael's book on opening leads, so I hope anyone who
knows him will encourage him to publish it. It doesn't have to be an
ordeal!
pumpk...@hotmail.com
It seems a pity that the apparent absence of a sufficient commercial
market for an unedited version of Michael's work should prevent it
from seeing the light of day.
Would he be willing to make his writings available to interested
parties under terms and conditions he deems appropriate?
Cheers.
Nick
MCou...@telecomplus.co.uk
by looking at my email address)
I must say I disagree with Peter about the cardplay book. There is
some esoteric philosophy in there. However the major component of the
book attempts to teach cardplay. It is simply one of the best books I
have ever read in this regard (well imo it is actually the best). Yup
he does go through endings in part of the book which are quite tough
but he also goes through "common lines in common contracts". If you
struggle to play low-level Moysians for example: well seriously you
won't after reading the one section for, ooh, all of five minutes.
The "on lead with Belladonna".... Michael was motivated to write these
in part because many of the cheating accusations at that time centred
around the Italian's leads. He gave the lead problems to several world
class players. He believed that (he was proven to be correct) many of
the leads that at the time were considered suspect are now simply bog-
standard leads for today's experts. For example, in one you are
against 3NT and know that you must get a lead from partner through
declarer for you long (and bid suit). It is fairly standard now that
you lead from strength in another suit.
Getting Michael to publish them. Hey-ho. Well, a standard publisher
would be a tad put off by the philosophy in the card play book. And
Michael will insist on it being there. The onlead books: I don't know
why he won't do them as he certainly completed the project.
I would guess the easiest way to contact Michael is through David
Stern and the Double Bay Bridge Club in Sydney.
I think Michael has done 15 smother plays and to have 5 published. The
other published smother I recall has a wonderful story attached to it.
I believe David Stevenson had it somewhere on his website. It was in
New York during the Blue Team tour in I think the early 70s. Benitto
Garozzo has 9 top tricks in 3NT and makes them!!! The crowd screams
with delight. Garozzo then takes a finesse: the crowd goes wild... is
there no end to this man's talent? Then his partner, I believe
Avarelli (Avarelli who? thinks the crowd) plays 1H. Let's face it 1H
isn't that exciting and well, Avarelli isn't exactly Garozzo, who
cares. Total silence. Oh apart from Garozzo congratulating him on his
smother coup.
David Babcock
> Getting Michael to publish them. Hey-ho.
My interest here is in trying to get things rolling by offering to do
a substantial chunk of prep work -- I have the time and I enjoy a
second, slightly esoteric hobby: computer-based typesetting. Whether
the result should be something print-ready to hand off to, say, Master
Point Press, or something just to be put on the Internet, would be up
to others -- some may have a very legitimate financial interest for
here, and there are certainly intellectual-property issues. Helping
to bring what amounts to, as I understand it, Seres/Richman/Courtney
on Belladonna to the light of day would be quite a kick for this
bridge amateur. And if it happens to help make my opening leads
better, my partners will be thrilled...
> I would guess the easiest way to contact Michael is through David
> Stern and the Double Bay Bridge Club in Sydney.
I emailed Mr. Stern last night per your suggestion: thanks. BTW
thanks also to the private poster who gave me an email address for
Michael Courtney; alas, it turned out not to be current.
David
Steve Willner
>>bidding system don't exhibit transitivity. Simply put, if bidding
>>system A > B and bidding system B > C, I don't think that you can
>>necessarily assume that A > C.
Jürgen R. wrote:
> That's going to depend entirely on how you define '>'; and if you
> define it in almost any sensible and useful manner (i.e. independent
> of the players using the systems) then it is going to be transitive.
Why do you think that?
> Or put another way: There is no such thing as
> 'bidding theory'.
This is rather like saying we have no "theory of physics." Physics is
far from complete, but it's still possible to make useful general
statements. Bidding theory is nowhere near as well developed as
physics, it's true, but quite a bit is known. In particular, it's quite
easy to demonstrate that certain ideas are bad ones.
Statements about transitivity are, of course, matters within bidding
theory. I'm surprised anyone who thinks there is no such thing is so
categorical.
Chris
Perhaps different economics rather than traditional publishing could
be employed? He could publish the books as, e.g. locked PDFs. He
would still have a valid copyright. And no editors.
>From the descriptions, it would be a shame for either work to never be
published.