samsloan wrote:
On Feb 25, 8:34 pm, Andrew wrote:
On Feb 24, 10:02 pm, samsloan wrote:
It is a mild exaggeration for me to say that I do not know a heart
from a spade. I actually played bridge for a little while in college
at the University of California in about 1966-67. I got about ten
master points but never send them in.
I even played with Al Lawrence as my partner in several sessions in
the Game Room or in the Bear's Lair at the University of California at
Berkeley. In case you think that makes me a good player, actually
these were money games. The idea was that Mike Lawrence was the best
player in the world and I was the worst player in the world.
Therefore, we played for money against a partnership of above average
ability. We always won. All I had to figure out how to do is always
have Mike Lawrence be the declarer and under no circumstances be the
declarer myself because I was terrible at that. I could defend a
little bit however.
I always had money in my pocket because I was President of the Sexual
Freedom League then so therefore I never had any financial problems
and I could afford to play in the big money games in the Bear's Lair
without fear of losing.
I was amazed how Mike Lawrence could figure out every card in
everybody's hand and know the exact result of the hand after only
three rounds of play. He would say "Down One" or "Making" or something
like that after only three rounds of play and everybody would just
throw in their cards and another hand would be dealt.
I could never understand how they did that.
Sam Sloan
If you are an old acquaintance of Michael's, write to him for his
advice. His email is on his web page:http://www.michaelslawrence.com/
Andrew
Actually, it just crossed my mind briefly that if I put on the cover
blurb of my book that I used to play in a partnership with Mike
Lawrence (which is true), I would greatly increase sales.
Do not worry, I am not going to do that.
My problem right now is that the book I am thinking of reprinting was
published in 1949. It was a very good book for that time. However, I
am wondering whether if it is too obsolete to reprint now.
I am concerned about negative reviews of the older bridge books. For
example, a review of "Contract Bridge for Beginners" by Charles Goren
at
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0671210521/ says:
"Unfortunately it teaches four card majors, which hardly anyone ever
uses anymore. If you want to learn bridge you'll find it much easier
to learn the right habits in the first place."
Is it really true that nobody uses four card majors any more? I assume
this means that they use five card majors. The book I am planning to
reprint uses four card majors. Is it that bad?
I have also read that nobody counts points any mo Ace = 4, King =
3, etc. Is that true?
By comparison to chess, some of the old Horowitz and Reinfeld books
are better for the beginner than anything published today, in my
opinion. Is the same not true for bridge?
No, people use 4 card majors (ACOL, and other systems use them). People
use a lot of things. But it is true that the old Goren Books are not
truly valid as the "science" has expanded tremendously, and the rules
have tightened considerably. There is a very interesting story that
must simply be told about forcing passes the polish team and the rule
changes that followed.
But the key to the reprints is the historical significance of the books,
and the stuff that you add to them to improve the readers understanding
of that significance.
You have done this with the chess books, and your other books. That is
why the other books even have a market. Don't short change the bridge
marketplace as well. And if it is too hard, and it is harder since your
expertise is not here, then keep focusing on the stuff you know. Like
Chess, Shogi, Go and the other things.
Cheers