On Feb 26, 8:29 pm, 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.
If the primary topic is bidding, then the answer is almost certainly
yes (With an exception for S.J. Simon's book, "Why You Lose at
Bridge"). If it is a play manual, then the book might still be
relevant.
I am concerned about negative reviews of the older bridge books. For
example, a review of "Contract Bridge for Beginners" by Charles Goren
athttp://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?
Very very few.
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?
If the book is a manual on 4-card major bidding, it won't sell. If it
is a play manual that uses 4-card majors in its example hands that it
is not a fatal flaw.
I have also read that nobody counts points any mo Ace = 4, King =
3, etc. Is that true?
No. 90% of players still use 4-3-2-1 point count as the basis for hand
evaluation.
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?
Bridge bidding has evolved enormously since the 1940's. Almost no
bidding manual written before 1960 is more than a historical curiosity
today. However, since declarer play and defense have changed little a
play manual could still be valuable.
Andrew