[Scarabin]

 nige1, on 2014-February-19, 14:36, said:

There's little scope for further innovation in declarer-play theory. Unfortunately, system-regulation constrains advances in bidding and defensive theory (e.g. Strong pass, Encrypted signals). Different Bridge legislatures forbid different methods (e.g. EBU & Moscito) and handicap different conventions (e.g. ACBL & Multi). This frustrates a concerted effort by theorists in what would otherwise be interesting and challenging aspects of Bridge. There's no incentive to develop a more effective method that you can play only in a long-match, at world-championship level, conceding seating rights, with opponents consulting their written defences, at the table. Unclear, over-sophisticated, inconsistent, fragmented rules hasten the demise of Bridge.

Strong stuff! But as regards your first sentence: has this ever been true in any field of human competition? What about further inferences from bidding and play (not mannerisms)? And techniques that have no immediate but have potential benefit?

[Lorne50]

 Scarabin, on 2014-February-18, 20:06, said:

That's fascinating: I take this as saying top players do evaluate and monitor progressive card states but the process is not well documented. Agreed deriving information is the major factor but others would be creation & management of entries,stops, and ducking and unblocking. The factors writers tend to classify as basic technique but do not list and that players at my level tend not to recognize as necessary.

I think too many books on play are written as entertainments (good for sales) and too few as textbooks. Let me take Forquet's "Bridge with the Blue Team" as an example. As an entertaining puff for the Blue Team it's magnificent but as a textbook it stresses the "shock,golly" at the expense of straightforward explanations.

The first hand describes how Chiaradaia made 6 spades on the following:

---

Forquet, who is one of my favourite writers, waxes eloquent on how Chiaradia "played as if he could see through the backs of the cards" instead of just saying he assumed everything was favourable.

Ch unblocked the spades and created an extra entry to dummy. F describes this as a farsighted unblocking play instead of saying Ch needed another entry to dummy and the unblocking play could not lose and might provide this.

The whole effect is to suggest Ch exercised inimitable genius and not to instruct you how to play a hopeless hand.

The only genuine textbooks I can remember are Love's "Bridge squeezes complete", Mollo & Gardiner's "Card Play Technique" and, perhaps Culbertson's Blue Book.

It is interesting that the line of play chosen (dropping an off-side doubleton spade 10) was probably inferior to the losing line (that also creates the extra entry) of playing the spade 9 to the Q and following with a finesse of the 7.

[Vampyr]

 Scarabin, on 2014-February-18, 20:06, said:

The only genuine textbooks I can remember are Love's "Bridge squeezes complete", Mollo & Gardiner's "Card Play Technique" and, perhaps Culbertson's Blue Book.

There are loads of bridge textbooks. Hugh Kelsey has written a large number of them, as has, more recently, Krzysztof Martens. And obviously no discussion is complete without mention of Adventures in Card Play.

[cherdano]

 Lorne50, on 2014-February-20, 08:15, said:

It is interesting that the line of play chosen (dropping an off-side doubleton spade 10) was probably inferior to the losing line (that also creates the extra entry) of playing the spade 9 to the Q and following with a finesse of the 7.

That's not right. For one thing, you might not need the extra entry (if clubs are 3-3). For another, West could prevent the second entry by inserting the T.

[whereagles]

"Adventures in Card Play" has some textbook stuff, but is not organised as one.

That book is probably the most advanced work on card play, but unfortunately many of the coups there have little practical use because they are so rare. For instance, after 20 years of play, I came across a grand total of 1 non-material squeeze (and I always play very concentrated). I may have missed an entry-shifting squeeze 10 years ago, though.. I came across a particular hand where it "felt" like there was one.. lol.

[Vampyr]

 whereagles, on 2014-February-20, 09:16, said:

That book is probably the most advanced work on card play, but unfortunately many of the coups there have little practical use because they are so rare.

Well, yes.

[barmar]

A more practical book might be Lawrence's "How to Read Your Opponents' Cards". However, it generally assumes opponents who know what they're doing and play rationally. If you play in lots of club games with mediocre competition, it's hard to make good inferences (kind of like that scene in Star Trek when Kirk beat Spock at chess because he made an illogical move -- although such a trick really shouldn't work in a game of perfect information like chess).

[nige1]

 chasetb, on 2014-February-16, 12:05, said:

We had a discussion awhile back (See this thread). I don't know whether it was in that thread or not, but Justin asked Bob Hamman what the biggest differences between the top players in the 60s and today. Apparently, Bob said it was the bidding. If the famous Blue Team in their prime were given a month or two to learn a modern system and treatments, he thought they would again be among the best, because their card play was that good.

That thread was about the relative importance of bidding and play.

JLOGIC's view is that, nowadays, play is most important. In the past, however, bidding systems and bidding skills seem more critical than card-play skills. In UK domestic competition, for many years, the Sharples team, with a sophisticated bidding system and superb bidders, beat teams that featured world-class card-players (e.g. John Collings, Terence Reese) . On the global stage:

• 1930 Ely Culbertson (Science) beat Walter Buller (Natural) by nearly 5000 total points over 200 deals.
• 1937 Paul Stern (Vienna) beat Ely Culbertson in the 1st World Championship (Vienna featured the latest bidding theories).
• 1969 & 70 Underdogs, Republic of China finish 2nd in World championships, using CC Wei's "China" system (later "Precision").
• 1957-75 Italian Blue team dominate International bridge, developing various innovative bidding systems.

[Vampyr]

 nige1, on 2014-February-20, 14:01, said:

That thread was about the relative importance of bidding and play.

JLOGIC's view is that, nowadays, play is most important.

Of course this applies at higher levels. Pairs that cannot bid to sensible contracts will never score well.

[Scarabin]

 Vampyr, on 2014-February-20, 09:07, said:

There are loads of bridge textbooks. Hugh Kelsey has written a large number of them, as has, more recently, Krzysztof Martens. And obviously no discussion is complete without mention of Adventures in Card Play.

I probably owe Eddie Kantar an apology as well. I remember Kelsey as ahead of his time, like Autobridge. If someone publishes Kelsey's books as interactive software I'd be ready to try them again. Probably a fault of memory but I don't remember their presentation as textbook.

[Scarabin]

 whereagles, on 2014-February-19, 05:43, said:

There are very few textbooks in english, but in french you can find a couple. Bridge is an optional course at secondary school (as chess, teams sports, etc), so they do have textbook-like stuff. French bridge textbooks are good, pedagogically speaking, and have reasonable systematics. See e.g. works by Roudinesco, Lebel, Bessis or Cronier. However, they have a tendency to flee from borderline hands and I found a few systemic lapses (some due to "holes" in the system, others due to different theoretical trends). Textbooks go all the way, up to university level stuff.

In english I would add Willam Root's "How to play a bridge hand" to your list.

I am in the process of writing one myself, in my native language (portuguese). Problem is, work keeps getting in the way LOL

I have a copy of Borel & Cheron, and I know Roudinesco, although his great work has been superceded by Suitplay. Which books would you recommend from the others? I have largely given up books in favour of interactive software.

[Scarabin]

I still cannot decide how to vote. I find it impossible to believe that declarer play, in the abstract, has reached such a level that it cannot be improved; conversely I cannot suggest just how it could be improved. Deception? Forward technique? Rare plays?

[manudude03]

I think computers have effectively completed cardplay theory, but I'm not sure anyone will ever get to that level consistently. Bidding theory will never stop developing, but I think card play is more advanced.

[helene_t]

 manudude03, on 2014-February-21, 02:47, said:

I think computers have effectively completed cardplay theory

Are you sure about this? I would think that computers still have a lack of understanding of the psychological aspects of card play - are they as good as human experts at figuring out when a false signal can benefit more by confusing declarer than it can harm by confusing partner?

And the issue of which carding and lead agreements are optimal is certainly not solved.

[whereagles]

 Scarabin, on 2014-February-20, 22:15, said:

I have a copy of Borel & Cheron, and I know Roudinesco, although his great work has been superceded by Suitplay. Which books would you recommend from the others? I have largely given up books in favour of interactive software.

You can check the french federation site for textbooks. Some I know by heart are

"Majeur 5eme", by Lebel. Textbook on french standard (similar to sayc).
"Bien encherir en defense", by Bessis/Lebely. Textbook on overcalls and balancing.
"Bien encherir en attaque", by Bessis/Lebely. Textbook on action after overcalls by opponents.
"Encheres mode d'emploi", by Kerlero. Systemic collection of bidding tricks.
"Le bridge français" vol 1,2,3, by french federation. Standard teaching textbook (will bore you to death since it's so simple).

[Vampyr]

 whereagles, on 2014-February-21, 04:37, said:

You can check the french federation site for textbooks. Some I know by heart are

"Majeur 5eme", by Lebel. Textbook on french standard (similar to sayc).
"Bien encherir en defense", by Bessis/Lebely. Textbook on overcalls and balancing.
"Bien encherir en attaque", by Bessis/Lebely. Textbook on action after overcalls by opponents.
"Encheres mode d'emploi", by Kerlero. Systemic collection of bidding tricks.
"Le bridge français" vol 1,2,3, by french federation. Standard teaching textbook (will bore you to death since it's so simple).

The OP wants textbooks on card play. Freddie. North's Cards at Play takes a very systematic approach.

[Scarabin]

Further thoughts on voting.

I realize, of course, that any individual player can improve play by reducing unforced errors and extending knowledge of technique. Maybe we have reached the stage of diminishing returns and it's clearly easier to formulate new theories on bidding although not so clear these are improvements. I really wonder if we could have reached stagnation?

How would you prove you'd improved the theory of bidding and/or play? Win a world championship? Would you be believed or accused of cheating?

I really don't know.

[johnu]

 manudude03, on 2014-February-21, 02:47, said:

I think computers have effectively completed cardplay theory, but I'm not sure anyone will ever get to that level consistently.

Double dummy card play may have been nearly perfected by programmers, but single dummy play can be pretty primitive, and real bridge is played single dummy. Anybody who has watched GIB play a hand or defend has seen inexplicably awful plays that make no sense and can't possibly work.

I'm not sure I would even call it card play theory. I think most bridge programs use Monte Carlo simulations to generate the other hands and then more or less test all possible lines to see which one is most successful. I suppose there might be some rules of thumb to cut down on simulations. Of course, card play is also tied into bidding because in order to do your Monte Carlo runs, you need to set parameters, so if the bidding programming isn't very good, the play results won't be reliable.

[gergana85]

How to calculate the distributive strength of the hand? See that: http://bridge-law.hit.bg

[Vampyr]

 Scarabin, on 2014-February-21, 21:39, said:

How would you prove you'd improved the theory of bidding and/or play?

Well, any line of play can be reduced to a percentage. So obviously by theory you mean something other than taking the highest percentage play or catering for the most layouts, or the most likely ones given the opponents' bidding.

So what do you mean exactly?