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?

Sam Sloan

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

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

In article
,
samsloan writes:
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.

You realise that it will almost certainly still be in copyright, in most
countries at least (where copyright now does not expire till 70 years
after the author's death), and so you would need the permission of the
copyright holder.

If the book is on bidding it is probably obsolete. If it is on the play
of the cards, or sets out to be entertaining rather than instructive,
then it may well still be very marketable.
--
John Hall
"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts;
but if he will be content to begin with doubts,
he shall end in certainties." Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

On Feb 27, 12:29 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.

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? 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?

Sam Sloan

Well, it seems to me that the whole point of publishing such a book
would be that it would be obsolete and quaint.
Nobody with any sense would want to learn from it.

In message
,
samsloan writes

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?

I use four-card majors, and the point count you describe. I think this
is quite common in England.

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?

I think there's a point that you are missing. Almost everything I can
read in a 50-year-old chess book is still true, and I can improve my
chess by reading it. Maybe a few of the lines it recommends have been
refuted; but even this won't matter if my opponent does not know the
refutation.

However, bridge is about communication. The way bridge players
communicate has changed a lot in the last fifty years. Even where we
still play four-card majors, we make (for instance) take-out doubles
more freely than formerly. If I read a bridge book that is more than 30
years old, much of what I learn about bidding and about what I can infer
from bids will be inappropriate to modern styles, and if I remember what
I read, it will make my game worse.

Nick
--
Nick Wedd

In article ,
Nick Wedd writes:
I think there's a point that you are missing. Almost everything I can
read in a 50-year-old chess book is still true, and I can improve my
chess by reading it. Maybe a few of the lines it recommends have been
refuted; but even this won't matter if my opponent does not know the
refutation.

However, bridge is about communication. The way bridge players
communicate has changed a lot in the last fifty years. Even where we
still play four-card majors, we make (for instance) take-out doubles
more freely than formerly. If I read a bridge book that is more than
30 years old, much of what I learn about bidding and about what I can
infer from bids will be inappropriate to modern styles, and if I
remember what I read, it will make my game worse.

Also bridge is a *much* younger game than chess, and is therefore
probably evolving more rapidly than is chess. So books on bridge become
out of date more quickly. If bridge ever becomes as old a game as chess
is now, no doubt it will by then be changing much more slowly than it
has done over the last fifty years.
--
John Hall
"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts;
but if he will be content to begin with doubts,
he shall end in certainties." Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

When I used to teach my girlfriend online, some years ago, I would say
things to her like "You should have played the spade Jack, not the
spade Queen" and she would say "How did you know I had the Jack?"

The answer to your question "How did Mike Lawrence know what was in
everyone's hand" is probably the same as "How do you know that when a
certain move is made at move 10, what the board will look like at move
25?" Experts know.

In point of fact, Lawrence wrote a book "How To Read Your Opponent's
Cards" in which he explains how to use the clues available to locate
the unseen cards. If your opponents are rank novices then it will do
you no good, as you can't know what they hold when they themselves
don't know.

Regarding republishing of books, I don't know what the market is in
chess for them. Bridge has only been around for about 80 years, so
there are no "classic" books that predate that. Bidding has changed
tremendously, so older books on bidding are of almost no use.

I personally would find a book about the Culbertson-Sims and Culberton-
Lenz matches interesting, but I don't know if one exists.

Most bridge books are sold either through Baron-Barclay books (the
product of consolidation among three major booksellers) or by
booksellers at tournaments who buy them from Baron-Barclay. So Baron-
Barclay would be a good place to start.

- Hank Youngerman
ACBL Gold Life Master
Probably plays chess about as well as you play bridge


On Feb 25, 1:02*am, 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

"samsloan" wrote in message ...

snipped

I was President of the Sexual Freedom League then ...

Isn't that a non-sequiter in your case?

snipped

Mmbridge

Fluxman wrote
"samsloan" wrote in message ...

snipped

I was President of the Sexual Freedom League then ...

.... along came Mmbridge, and he [aaah!] snipped!

SSHHRRRRIIIIEEEEEEEKKKKKKKKK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm