CO-FOUNDERS: Ellen (Caitlin)
Harold Schogger
EXPERT
AFFILIATES: Marty Bergen
Larry Cohen
Ron Klinger
Mike Lawrence
EDITOR: Avery
=================================================================
TABLE OF
CONTENTS:
1. SURFING THE BRIDGE WEB
2. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
3. 'SIMPLE COUNTING' BY NED DOWNEY
4. FOUR WAY TRANSFERS BY MARC SMITH
5. BID WITH THE EXPERTS
6. MARTY BERGEN ON 'OBEYING THE LAW' from MORE
POINTS SHCMOINTS!
7. AN INTERVIEW WITH LARRY COHEN..rumor has it
he is up to something:-)
8. THE ART OF SACRIFICING BY BOBBY WOLFF
9. BRIDGE FORUM TEACHES!
=====================================================================
1. SURFING
THE BRIDGE WEB:
This month
we will at some bridge sites from expert players, including Larry
Cohen, Ron
Klinger, Mike Lawrence, and Richard Pavilcek.
A. For Larry
Cohen's website, at www.larryco.com, you will find info on
upcoming
lectures and appearances, a demo program of his forthcoming CD (see
excerpts of
an interview regarding this new CD in section 7), as well as
excerpts
from books he has written.
B. Pam &
Matt Granovetter's website can be found at www.bridgetoday.com. We
recommend
you visit this site and sign up to receive a free copy of their
new online
magazine, BRIDGE TODAY DIGEST. If you sign up for a full
subscription,
currently offered at the reduced rate of $28.00 U.S., you can
expect 100
digests to arrive at your e-mail 'doorstep' twice weekly. Also
see an
excerpt from their hilarious collection of tales from 'Tops and
Bottoms' on
Bridge Forum's website at www.bridge-forum.com.
C. Ron
Klinger's site can be found at: www.ron-klinger.com.au/. Here you
will find
articles he has written for various Australian publications,
tournament
reports, and a myriad of other bridge resources, including a page
of quizzes
on bidding and card play.
D. Mike
Lawrence's site, at www.michaelslawrence.com/ , provides the reader
with
articles he has written on various bridge topics, products he sells
(books,
software, et al) and other bridge resources.
E. Richard
Pavlicek's home page is found at www.gate.net/~pavlicek/. He
offers newsletters
from his bridge school, software that has been developed
for him, and
a database of notes for teachers.
(Note: At
the time that this bulletin was sent out, all the above sites were
available
for viewing; however, as some experienced with last month's sites
on systems
and conventions, some sites may not be available at all times.)
================================================================
2. LETTERS
TO THE EDITOR
The issue of
negative doubles permeated letters to the editor, all
questioning
the suggestion that W: 1C N: 1D E: 1H/1S would promise FIVE
hearts or
spades. Ed Schwartz wrote in to say that while W: 1C N: 1D E: Dbl
would
guarantee both four-card majors, W: 1C N: 1D E: 1S, shows either four
or five
spades and denies the other major. Experienced teacher and editor of
a quarterly
magazine for Southern Ontario bridge players, Susan Bracken, and
Amir Kahily
wrote in taking the same position.
Given a
canvass of local experts by BRIDGE FORUM teacher Pat Lopushinsky
(pitbull)
seemed to sway to the position that over W: 1C N: 1D, a free bid
here now of
1S or 1H means that "partner will always EXPECT you have five,
but there
may be occasions when you will only have four", a poll was taken
of a wide
ranging group of pros and expert players to see if a consensus
could be found! Here is a summary of the
responses.
Marshall
Miles starts the discussion with a clear statement that he
disagrees
"especially when the choice is 1H or double [W:1C N:1D E:?]. He
asks, "would
you double with S:xx H:KQxx D:Qxxx C:xxx? And if the bidding
should
continue 1C/1D/Dbl/2D/2S, what would you bid then? This seems like a
clear-cut 1H
bid to me. Presumably a double should show 4+ of both majors
(with S:KQxx
H:Jxxxx D:xx C:Kx, better to double than bid 1H in case of
preemption,
since you can play in either major)." He continues stating that
"there
is a LITTLE bit more in favor of saying one of a minor, 1H, double
[W: 1C/1D N:
1H E: Dbl] shows four spades and 1S shows five (but not much).
Suppose the
bidding goes W:1D N: 1H E:? and you hold S:Qxxx H:xx D:Kxx
C:Kxxx. A
double seems clearly right since you don't care whether partner
rebids 1S,
2C or 2D. A 1S bid would put all your eggs in one basket. But if
it goes W:1D
N:1H E:? and you hold S:AQTx H:xxxxx
D:xx C:Qx, a 1S bid seems
clearly
correct for at least two reasons: In case of further competition,
you don't
want to encourage partner to rebid a minor. If partner raises with
three-card
support (and probably a shortage in hearts), you have the ideal
hand to play
in a 4-3 fit. To me a negative double implies a hand suitable
for more
than a one suit contract. The 1S bid (in case of further
preemption)
does not encourage partner to bid another suit at a higher
level."
While John
Gowdy (Chivas) summarizes his reaction to the thought that
"1C-1D-
1H/1S shows five and that you must double to show one four-card
major is
perhaps the worst idea I have seen in a long while" and wonders if
this bidding
style "was invented by a science major who has never really
played
bridge", Ron Klinger more gently (!) demonstrates what he sees as the
drawbacks to
this approach and how this can "lead to trouble (big trouble)
in a
competitive auction or if partner jumps to game." He provides the
following hand,
S:xxx H:KQxx D:xxxx C:Kx and the bidding:
You LHO
Partner RHO
1C 1D
X(??) 3D
4S ? or holding:
S:xx H:KQxx D:xxxx C:Kxx and the bidding goes
1C 1D
X(??) Pass
4S ?
Klinger
continues that "there is no great drawback in bidding 1H since 1C-
Pass-1H = 4+
and you can manage with that easily enough. It is tougher to
play
1C-1D-1H as 4+." However, he points out that it is "different if
their
overcall is
1H. Now you can sensibly bid double as showing four spades and
1S as 5+
since only one suit is relevant. Likewise, 1C-1S-2H as 5+ is sane,
with double
as four hearts, because only one major is involved.
Brian Senior
starts with the clear position that 1C-1D-1H/1S does not
promise
five. Rather, for Senior, the double would show 0 or 2 four-card
majors and
that bidding 1H or 1S merely denies such a holding. Thus, he
would not
double with four hearts and two or three spades, he would bid 1H.
Senior goes
on to state that when the bidding goes 1C/1D-1H-1S, "there are
two
approaches which are mainstream, either 1S shows five and double shows
four or 1S
shows four and double denies four." While he feels both ways have
points in
their favor, he plays a third way, "where 1S is allowed on four if
it is a
strong suit, willing to play a partscore on a 4-3 fit. So double
neither
promises nor denies four spades. It denies four good ones, AQJx, for
example."
He wraps acknowledging that " I do like to be different"!
Sharyn Reus
agrees with Klinger et al that 1C/1D-1H-1S guarantees 5+ spades.
She also has
no problem with 1C-1D-Dbl showing 4-4 or even 5-4 in the
majors.
However, she would bid naturally (i.e. 1C-1D-1H as showing four).
She points
out that with the following auction,
W N
E S
1C 1D
1H 2D
Dbl
that here
the double could still be played as a support double [showing 3
hearts], so
it is not important to know whether 1H shows five." And another
example from
Reus...
1C 1D
Dbl 4D
?
"It
does, however, become important when the opponents crowd the bidding so
for this
reason I would not object to playing 1H showing five. BUT if double
denies 5 and
shows 4 of either major, what do you bid with the hand above?
What if partner
does not have the major you want to bid?"
For Colin
Ward (Kaltica), while 1C/1D-1H-1S "usually" promises 5+ spades, he
cautions
that one " MIGHT bid a four-card spade suit here if they lack four
cards in the
other unbid suit. This is especially true after 1D-1H, with
four good
spades and 0-2 clubs and mediocre diamond support."
The debate
will no doubt carry on but we end it with our own BRIDGE FORUM
Marc Smith,
conductor of our BID WITH THE EXPERT panel quiz. First Smith
addresses
the auction that 1C/1D-1H-? and whether
1S guarantees 5+ spades
and double
promises precisely four spades. While Smith states that this is
one way to
play it, he suggests another "common method, and one that is
particularly
useful if the 1C opening does not promise a four-card suit, is
to play that
1S shows 4+ spades and double denies four biddable spades --
i.e.
suggests both minors." For Smith, this solves the problem on a hand
such as
S:Axx H:xx D:Kxxx C:Jxxx. " What do you bid after 1C-1H-?" he asks
and goes on
to state that you "would rather not raise a 3-card club suit
suit to 2C
and you cannot bid spades or notrump. Being able to double to
show this
hand solves the problem." He next addresses the issue of
1C-1D-1H/1S
and does not agree that here the 1H or 1S bid should promise 5+.
"Much
better", he states, "is to play 1H or 1S showing 4+ cards in the bid
suit (i.e.,
what you would have bid if RHO had passed) and double shows
either 4-4
in the majors (any strength)or 5-4 and a hand not strong enough
to make two
bids. The major reason why double must guarantee both majors is
that if the
auction goes something like:
W N
E S
1C 1D
Dbl 3D
?
Opener
cannot bid his four-card major without significant extra values if
there is no
guarantee of a fit. He has to be able to compete to 3H/S knowing
that he will
find four-card support."
Whoever said
bridge could offer us unequivocal answers?! And so we wrap up
our
discussion and thank those who wrote in regarding this issue and our
panel who
took the time to respond, making a lively and, we trust,
educational
debate.
================================================================
3. FOR THE
ADVANCING NOVICE -- WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY 'GETTING A COUNT ON THE
HAND'? --
SIMPLE COUNTING!
We are pleased
to present an excerpt from Ned Downey's (Ned-Maui) first
book, JUST
PLAIN BRIDGE. While Downey employs Standard American (five-card
major style)
with strong twos, and 16-18 notrump, both used less frequently
online and
in general, (maybe it's the beauty and sun in Maui that accounts
for the
'older' traditions!), the author has an excellent way of talking to
the 'average
player'. For example, when we talk about 'getting a count on
the hands,'
most novices and intermediate players are very intimidated. As
you shall
see from this excerpt, Downey takes such topics and simplifies
them with a
commonsense approach, example hands and lesson highlights.
**********
At the
conclusion of the hand you will often hear one of the players say:
“Sorry,
partner, I lost the count.” In all fairness, this is sometimes quite
easy to do,
especially for the beginner. There can be a lot going on, and
several
things to keep track of simultaneously. On the other hand, it has
been my
experience that most players who “lost the count” never actually had
it in the
first place. There are several reasons for this:
1. They “fell asleep.” This is an
interesting phenomenon. The game is
taking place
in Fort Worth. The player’s mind, however, has taken a brief
vacation to
Peoria. When the mind finally returns to the table, it may be
too late.
2. They were not originally aware that
obtaining the count in a particular
suit would
be important.
3. They thought their hand was unimportant
to the outcome. This can happen
when a
player has been dealt a particularly sorry assortment. Mumbling
something
about he never gets any cards, he loses interest and spends the
rest of the
hand pondering one of life’s great mysteries, like what an
occasional table
is the rest of the time.
4. They thought that partner’s hand was
unimportant to the outcome. This
generally
occurs when the player has a nice hand with a long suit. Long
after it is
obvious to the rest of the table that the suit in question will
never take a
trick, the player in question is doggedly hanging on to a bunch
of worthless
cards. Simultaneously, of course, seemingly unimportant (but
crucial)
cards are being thrown away.
There are
other ways of “losing the count,” but I
think by now you have the
general
idea. If you wish to play this game well, the first thing have to do
is stay
alert. This is especially true at the beginning of a hand. If you
put some
early effort into developing a picture of the hidden cards you will
rarely be
“lost” as the hand draws to a conclusion.
*********
For a fuller
discussion on the topic of 'SIMPLE COUNTING' from JUST PLAIN
BRIDGE, see
www.bridge-forum.com. To order your copy of the book e-mail Ned
at
snugmaui@gte.net and visit his website at http://home1.gte.net/snugmaui/
==================================================================
4. TIME TO
ADD FOUR WAY TRANSFERS TO YOUR BRIDGE REPERTOIRE? LET MARC SMITH
SHOW YOU THE
WAY
These days
it is rare to come across a partnership that does not play Jacoby
transfers
over a 1NT opening. For many though, that is the extent of their
use of
transfers. Of course, they are missing out on one of the great
innovations
in the game. In this lesson we'll present you with various ways
to utilize
all of the extra bids transfers make available. Everyone has
their own
pet methods, but there are essentially two families of transfers
over 1NT.
Assuming 2C
is Stayman (although Puppet Stayman asking for 5 card majors
also has its
advocates) and 2D/2H as red suit transfers, there are two major
schools of
thought on how to use 2S, 2NT and the 3 level bids. In these
notes we
will concentrate on developing a structure that also uses transfers
to the
minors. Be aware though, that this is not the only way to go. The
alternative
option is to use 2S as some kind of balanced or three suited
hand and 2NT
to show various minor suited hands.
**1NT-2S is
a transfer to clubs and
**1NT-2NT is
a transfer to diamonds:
When you
open 1NT and partner bids 2D, transferring to hearts, you will
usually
complete the transfer by bidding 2H because doing anything else
carries you
beyond your safety level when partner has a weak hand. When the
transfer is
to a minor, that is not the case. When responder shows clubs
with a 2S
bid you can bid either 2NT or 3C and still stop in the relative
safety of
3C.
========================================================================
5. BID WITH
THE EXPERTS
From the
general bridge-playing public who submit answers to our monthly BID
WITH THE
EXPERTS quiz, our congratulations go to Tiago CANELAS (Portugal),
the winner
of the March/April competition from the general public with a
score of
68/80. Also scoring well on a tough set of hands were: Barbara
KRANJIC (Slovenia),
with 65, and a six-way tie for third at 64 among Barrie
PARTRIDGE
(Derby, England), Despina KANELLOPOULOU (Greece), Daniel de Lind
van
Wijngaarden (Netherlands), Leonard HELFGOTT (NJ, USA), Paul QUODOMINE
(NJ, USA),
and Kieran DYKE (NSW, Australia).
From the
experts, an international panel comprised of many of the finest
bridge
players in the world, congratulations to Scotland's Victor
Silverstone
who led all his colleagues on this set with a perfect score of
80. David
and Lisa Berkowitz took second with 76, while Morten and Lars
Madsen and
Sharyn Reus each scored 75.
Here's a
hand that proved to be quite interesting from last month's set.
'MS' in the
discussion represents the comments of our Director, Marc Smith.
None Vul.
Dealer West. IMPs
S 9 8 6 4
H A Q 5
D A K 10 8 5
C A
West North East South
1D* 3C** 3D 4C
?
* 4+D **
weak
VOTES:
Double 10, 5D 7, 4S 4, 4D/5C/4H 2 each, 6D 1.
MARKS:
Double 10, 5D 8, 4H 7, 4S 6, 4D 5, 5C 3, 6D 2.
MS: A really
tough one to kick off, with the panel suggesting seven
different
options including bids in all four suits. The doublers were in the
majority,
but we'll hear from them at the end. Let's start with those who
chose to bid
some number of diamonds.
McCALLUM: 4D.
We can almost predict that partner is 3352 (no negative double
and
opponents at the 4-level). But he could hold anything from
Qxx/xxx/QJxxx/xx
to KQJ/Kxx/xxxxx/xx, which means we're guessing. 4D must be
a reasonable
offensive hand, and thus doesn't preclude our getting to 5D, or
even 6D. But
the odds are that partner doesn't have enough for game, so
bidding past
4D now will create a minus score more often than not. Double
(card-showing)
is a possibility, but I'll be nervous if partner passes it —
that's
enough to convince me it's not a very good idea.
MS: As we
will see later, a number of panelists disagree with Karen's
assessment
of partner's likely shape.
HOFFMAN: 4D.
It's likely that partner is also short in clubs, so game is
unlikely.
MS: A
sizable faction disagreed with Martin's judgment, although with
varying
degrees of conviction.
UMENO: 5D.
Double is too risky for me, even though it may be the percentage
bid. 4D is
just competitive and has very little upside...I'd rather pass. I
am guessing
that 5D will be at least 50%, but who knows?
MS: Marc
opts for game expecting it to be about a 50-50 shot.
ROBINSON:
5D. Partner could have xx/Kxx/xxxx/xxx, when 5D is cold, or he
could have
xxx/KJx/QJxxx/xx, and the 4D is our limit. I can't invite, so I
guess to bid
game.
MS: Steve
chooses game rather than settling for a partscore, but agrees that
it is a
guess.
VAN ZWOL:
5D. With partner's probable 3-3 in the majors (no negative double)
a slam is
unlikely. I hope we make 5D.
MS: Wietske
is concerned about missing a slam, and Maria Erhart bid 6D,
although
without commenting. Miles considered a
couple of other options
before
settling for 5D.
MILES: 5D.
It would be nice if double was an invitation to 5D, but I don't
think it
should be. Besides, would partner accept
any invitation with
xx/KJx/Qxxxx/xxx?
Slam is too unlikely for me to invite by cue bidding 5C.
Partner
might easily accept with the wrong hands.
MS: Not so,
say...
COHEN:
5C. I think I am a bit too good for 5D.
Although it is unlikely that
partner will
know to bid a slam with the right hand, this can't be any worse
than a
direct 5D. I'm afraid to cue-bid 4H — partner might pass, thinking we
are in a 4-3
fit instead of a 3-3.
WARSZAWSKI:
5C. I have enough for game, and there is a good chance for
slam —
Ax/Kxx/Qxxxx/xxx is enough. My only
slam try is 5C, as 4H should
suggest an
alternative game contract.
MS: Two of
the 5D bidders considered 4S the alternative.
LINDKVIST:
5D. Certainly not ideal, but hopefully partner has some values
outside of
clubs. Maybe we should play 4S, but I don't think 4S is natural —
or is it? If
I bid 4S and partner might think I'm interested in a slam, then
we're
potentially in even more trouble than if I bid 5D :-)
BERKOWITZ:
5D. If we miss a 4-4 spade fit we will have to apologize, but the
thought of
playing a 4-3 fit with 9864 is too much for us.
MS: Eddie's
not scared though...
KANTAR: 4S.
Why can't partner have four spades?
Maybe KQxx/xxx/QJxx/xx.
MS: Andrew
makes a good case in summing up the case for the 4S bidders.
ROBSON: 4S.
In such a guessy situation, I should do something that involves
partner, and
thus leads to more than one possible outcome. Thus I rule out
double
(penalty chez moi) and 4D (to play). Instead I prefer 4S, natural,
which
partner can pass or correct to 5D. I'm
rooting partner doesn't have
three
spades. If he has two or fewer, then 5D may well make; if he has four
or more,
then 4S may well make.
MS: Unlucky
this time, Andrew, as we will see later, but a well-reasoned
choice. Matthew
opts to try for the best of all worlds, and presents a
convincing
argument.
GRANOVETTER:
4H. A difficult problem. It could be best to double, but I
can't bring
myself to do this with a singleton. This bid is not forcing
opposite a
four-card major (partner can easily have a four-card major when
he bids 3D —
he was stuck). This should not be confused with a cue bid. I'm
willing to
play a 4-3 heart fit or a 4-4 spade fit in preference to 5D,
which might
produce only 10 tricks.
GORDON: 5D.
The trouble with bidding 4H and hearing 4S from partner is that
you are
obliged to bid 5C. Partner may then bid
6D with the wrong 10 or 11
count,
considering this a maximum, since partner's range in this sequence is
7-11. I don't like the spade suit.
MS: Summing
up the views of the bidders, it seems that most think partner
can still
have a 4-card major and they therefore consider 4H/4S should be
natural,
suggesting an alternative contract.
Whether partner is allowed to
pass with
only 3-card support for your major is unclear though. It is
always
surprising when there is so much uncertainty even amongst experts in
what is a
fairly common auction — perhaps it is worth checking that your
regular
partner agrees with your views on this situation. The panelists we
have heard
from so far have expressed various opinions on the meaning of a
double.
Let's hear some more from those who chose that option. Covering most
bases.
BERGEN:
Double. Responsive, cards, co-op, game try.
MS: And
proving that double means whatever you want it to mean...
BROGELAND:
Double. Partner, do the right thing!
REUS:
Double. I struggled for quite a while with this one and came to the
conclusion
that 'double' says it all and lets partner help in the decision.
COPE: Double.
Partner was under pressure over 3C, and has a wide range of
hands on
which he may have been forced to bid 3D. Since he's already been
under
pressure once, let us turn the screw one more time (nice guy eh?). If
he decides
to convert for penalties I am not ashamed of my top cards,
otherwise
any bid he makes will do me fine.
MS: Tim's
not joking.... he really does bid like this at the table — never
mind the
score, make sure you can win the postmortem!
Agreeing with him
though, are
some less sadistic-minded partners...
POTTAGE:
Double. This is a good problem as the range for partner's 3D call
stretches
quite wide. He might have wanted to bid more, but feared going
past 3NT. On
the other hand, he could still have a 4-card major if he judged
his hand too
weak for a negative double at the 3-level. Double, which is in
principle a
game try, now seems by far the most flexible action as it leaves
open 4D, 5D,
4S and 4C-x.
MS: A couple
of panelists seem to intend their double as primarily for
penalties.
BIRD: Double.
Game is uncertain, so I will offer partner the chance to pick
up 300 or
so.
PARANJAPE:
Double. Since 3C is a weak bid, partner's 3D shows some values.
Without
South's 4C bid, I would have tried 3NT expecting it to have good
chances as
little as the DQ and HK (or even HJ-10). No contract higher than
4C seems to
be attractive, so double seems to be the best bid.
MS: Both
Victor and Sabine think double should be a game try, but they'll be
happy to
defend if partner so chooses.
SILVERSTONE:
Double. I am just about worth a game try, and this is the only
way to make
one. We may still belong in a major suit, and I will pass 4D, 4H
or 4S. If
partner passes the double, we should also be OK.
AUKEN:
Double. 3D is a wide-range bid. Game is possible and double is the
only
game-try available. If partner passes, I would be delighted (if we are
on the same
wavelength, that is).
MS: Tim sums
up the case for the plurality who, I think, have just about had
the best of
a fascinating debate.
BOURKE: Double.
The most flexible call and a general game try. 4H risks
playing
there and 4S may be taken as a cue bid. Partner will be able to tell
that I am
making a game try. If he passes than we are likely to get +300.
MS: For the
record, partner had Axx/Jxxx/QJxx/xx. 4C-X goes for +500 if you
double and
partner passes (which he probably should with such a balanced
hand). Ten
tricks were the limit in diamonds. Hearts were 4-2, although with
the king
onside, so you might come to ten tricks in hearts if the defense is
not
particularly alert.
Never tried
your hand at BRIDGE FORUM's BID WITH THE EXPERT questions?
Here's one
of the problems from this month's set. Why not try this one and
the full set
can be found on our website: www.bridge-forum.com . You
may be the
monthly winner and receive a bridge book published by Master
Point Press
and be invited to join the panel for one month at a future
date:-)
Both Vul.
Dealer West. IMPs
S A K 10 9 8 6
H A 4
D A 5
C A K 7
West North East South
2C 3H Pass* Pass
3S Pass 4H Pass
5C Pass 5H Pass
?
*double would have shown heart
values/length
=======================================================
6. FROM
MARTY BERGEN's MORE POINTS SCHMOINTS!
'OBEYING THE
LAW' -- 'BID WITH 4S OVER 4H'
You are South
and open 1S. Before you know it, the auction has accelerated
to the three
level. What call do you make?
S
KQ10743 H 8 D KQ106 D 93
West North East South
— — — 1S
2H 2S 3H ???
Many players
would compete with 3S, and I too would be pleased to declare
that
contract. But is that really likely? The opponents are probably about
to bid 4H.
Do you have any interest in defending that contract? Not me, I
would rather
bid 4S. If it makes, great. If it does not, it will cost me
less than
the score for the opponents making 4H.
Another
reason for the immediate 4S bid is that if you wait until later,
the enemy
will be in a better position to judge to double you, or on
occasion bid
5H. You put a great deal of pressure on West if you bid 4S
immediately.
He will have to judge unilaterally whether to bid, pass or
double.
Some alert
LAW-abiding readers may question bidding at the four level with
only nine
trumps. However, because both 4H and 4S represent game contracts,
the potential
gain for both sides is great. If partner has the following
hand...
S
A92 H 764 D A853
C 742
...it is
likely that both games are cold.
For a fuller
discussion on when/if to bid 4S over 4H from MORE POINTS
SCHMOINTS!
see BRIDGE FORUM's website at www.bridge-forum.com and click on
Marty's bio.
========================================================
7. AN
INTERVIEW WITH LARRY COHEN
A) Word has
it that you are working on a sequel to 'PLAY BRIDGE WITH LARRY
COHEN 1999
LIFE MASTER PAIRS - DAY 1.' Can you tell us generally what to
expect?
More of the
same in that it is an 'over the shoulder' type program where
throughout
you must make choices while I provide my thoughts on why one bid
may be
better than another, why one might defend this way versus another and
other such
decisions and judgment calls one makes when playing 'live
bridge'.
I trust that if you liked Day 1, you
can expect to be challenged
again --
just completely different deals.
B) Can we
assume that in doing a second CD you have found this a good medium
to work with and in
what ways?
The medium
has proved to be incredibly popular. It
is so much easier to
work through
a deal on a computer as opposed to from a book. You see the
auction
develop line by line before your eyes, and even more importantly,
the played
cards are removed from the diagram as each trick is played. In a
book, you
don't see a new diagram for each trick.
The computer mirrors real
life. The other big advantage of the computer is
that it is interactive --
you get to
answer questions and make choices.
C). Can you
describe the differences between writing books versus writing
for
a computer
program, including the creative process involved in making a CD?
Writing for
the computer is much more rewarding because I know it's easier
for the
reader to follow with the cards in front of him. But, it is much
more time
consuming (exhausting!!) to write each deal.
D). Are
there special ways to handle terms and conventions that one doesn’t
normally
encounter, and other features you might find on this CD?
As with the
first CD, a feature which appeared to be very appealing to many,
is that when
terms or conventions come up which might be somewhat foreign to
the less
experienced player, you can click on that term and I provide notes
so that all
can follow along comfortably and at the same time enjoy the
challenge.
Also, all the hands are scored by instant matchpoints. This
allows you
to see how you have fared against the field. After each board we
examine the
scores from the hand just played and compare our score with the
field's.
Analyzing matchpoint results in this way becomes a great learning
tool.
For the full
interview, visit www.bridge-forum.com and to download a demo of
Larry's
second CD in progress, visit his website at www.larryco.com.