Justin Lall gives a good run down of bridge blogs here:
http://squeezingthedummy.blogspot.com/2007/04/blogroll-update.html
In particular I want to note two. First:
http://www.jonathanferguson.com/
When Jonathan was in Ottawa, he played with most of the local experts, including myself, and it was a great time for bridge in the local area. Jonathan's blog promises to be a lot of fun, as he will speak very freely (as he says: "outspoken, blunt, direct"). I'm glad I didn't play online with him the other night (I was tired) for who knows what would have shown up on his blog shortly after that!
Second:
http://dcrcbridge.blogspot.com/
If you like my blog, you will certainly like that one, but the vis-versa is not necessarily true. This is because David explains a lot about bridge theory concepts, which makes his blog a great read. By contrast, here I dive right into the deep end of bridge ideas, so this blog is only targeted to a small part of the bridge community who can swim in this stuff (this is deliberate - I'm not trying to get 100's to use the suggested methods, but just trying to get select 10's considering the ideas - this is R&D for bridge scientists, not marketing). However the http://www.bridgematters.com/ main site continues to have stuff of interest to most (that is marketing), so please check it out if you haven't already done so.
Seeing the approaches of others, I wonder from time to time if this blog, and perhaps the bridgematters site in general, should target a wider audience by reducing the complexity and density of material covered. However I worry that doing so would weaken the R&D aspects of the work here, and gain in the adoption of the suggested methods, which might not be a good thing, especially if it was widespread. For example, with 2dlay (the easiest of recent suggestions - see: http://www.bridgematters.com/2dlay.pdf ), this could be promoted to a wider audience (more examples, postings on various forums, article in a bridge magazine etc., things I have resisted doing so far), but should R&D stuff be rolled out for general use? I would rather see somebody pick up the 2dlay R&D and further advance it in some direction.
As an example of moving R&D forward, take the excellent development work that Henk Uijterwaal did with Transfer Walsh, from my small article in the Bridge World, to research discussions (in Dutch) and then to full fledged sequences covered in the Bruwil Bidding System book. So now we have some strong partnerships using T-Walsh type approaches, but the average player does not - this seems a good balance to me.
So after considering that, if you feel this blog should move in a certain direction that would help the collaborative R&D efforts, drop me a line or even better post a comment.
--- ----
A problem with J leads against suits from JTx, JTxx etc. is that partner doesn't know what to do if Axx(xx). For example, partner leads J in a side suit, dummy has Qxx, and you hold Axxx - should you play the ace in case declarer has a singleton K, or play low, waiting to later cover the Q with the A? Would a parity approach help? Say one leads J only from JTx and an odd number of cards in the suit - with even one leads a spot card. From KJT one would continue to lead J, regards of suit count. Could this approach be viable?
http://squeezingthedummy.blogspot.com/2007/04/blogroll-update.html
In particular I want to note two. First:
http://www.jonathanferguson.com/
When Jonathan was in Ottawa, he played with most of the local experts, including myself, and it was a great time for bridge in the local area. Jonathan's blog promises to be a lot of fun, as he will speak very freely (as he says: "outspoken, blunt, direct"). I'm glad I didn't play online with him the other night (I was tired) for who knows what would have shown up on his blog shortly after that!
Second:
http://dcrcbridge.blogspot.com/
If you like my blog, you will certainly like that one, but the vis-versa is not necessarily true. This is because David explains a lot about bridge theory concepts, which makes his blog a great read. By contrast, here I dive right into the deep end of bridge ideas, so this blog is only targeted to a small part of the bridge community who can swim in this stuff (this is deliberate - I'm not trying to get 100's to use the suggested methods, but just trying to get select 10's considering the ideas - this is R&D for bridge scientists, not marketing). However the http://www.bridgematters.com/ main site continues to have stuff of interest to most (that is marketing), so please check it out if you haven't already done so.
Seeing the approaches of others, I wonder from time to time if this blog, and perhaps the bridgematters site in general, should target a wider audience by reducing the complexity and density of material covered. However I worry that doing so would weaken the R&D aspects of the work here, and gain in the adoption of the suggested methods, which might not be a good thing, especially if it was widespread. For example, with 2dlay (the easiest of recent suggestions - see: http://www.bridgematters.com/2dlay.pdf ), this could be promoted to a wider audience (more examples, postings on various forums, article in a bridge magazine etc., things I have resisted doing so far), but should R&D stuff be rolled out for general use? I would rather see somebody pick up the 2dlay R&D and further advance it in some direction.
As an example of moving R&D forward, take the excellent development work that Henk Uijterwaal did with Transfer Walsh, from my small article in the Bridge World, to research discussions (in Dutch) and then to full fledged sequences covered in the Bruwil Bidding System book. So now we have some strong partnerships using T-Walsh type approaches, but the average player does not - this seems a good balance to me.
So after considering that, if you feel this blog should move in a certain direction that would help the collaborative R&D efforts, drop me a line or even better post a comment.
--- ----
A problem with J leads against suits from JTx, JTxx etc. is that partner doesn't know what to do if Axx(xx). For example, partner leads J in a side suit, dummy has Qxx, and you hold Axxx - should you play the ace in case declarer has a singleton K, or play low, waiting to later cover the Q with the A? Would a parity approach help? Say one leads J only from JTx and an odd number of cards in the suit - with even one leads a spot card. From KJT one would continue to lead J, regards of suit count. Could this approach be viable?
posted by Glen Ashton @ 6:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home