| |
Main
Date: 24 Feb 2008 17:13:18
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
I am about to publish a book about bridge. However, somebody told me
that nobody plays bridge any more.
Is that true? Is bridge play up or down?
Would it be a waste of my time and money to publish a book about
bridge?
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 20 Mar 2008 15:31:13
From:
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
On Feb 24, 1:13 pm, [email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote:
> I am about to publish a book about bridge. However, somebody told me
> that nobody plays bridge any more.
>
> Is that true? Is bridge play up or down?
>
> Would it be a waste of my time and money to publish a book about
> bridge?
>
> Sam Sloan
If it will prevent you from destroying chess in the United States, go
for it.
- Rich
|
| |
Date: 18 Mar 2008 08:45:49
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
I have carried out my threat to publish a book on Bridge, and here it
is, available now on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891943
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 18 Mar 2008 20:31:50
From: David Babcock
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
> Whenever a new book is listed on Amazon it always takes a few days
> before it comes up in the search engines.
It will be more than a few days before a book that Amazon thinks is by
Goren comes up in a search for Harkness.
David
|
| | |
Date: 18 Mar 2008 18:11:21
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
On 18, 7:39 pm, David Babcock <[email protected] > wrote:
> > You are correct that the Amazon page is wrong. The author is Kenneth
> > Harkness. Charles Goren only wrote the introduction. I do not know why
> > this mistake was made or how to correct it.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> The bad news is that because of that error, a search on Anazon for the
> Harkness book returns the original, not the new edition. The good
> news is that instead of eleven copies starting at 70 cents, they are
> down to ten.
>
> David
Whenever a new book is listed on Amazon it always takes a few days
before it comes up in the search engines. Try again in a few days.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0007EA9BY/
There will always be a few buyers who prefer to buy a new book for
$19.95 rather than a used book for 70 cents. (Me, I always buy the 70
cent variety, which is the reason why I have stacks of books piled all
around my desk.)
It does bother me that the listing on Amazon shows Charles Goren as
the author. I hope that this is corrected soon.
My book is not entirely a reprint. I also include a biography and a
photograph of Kenneth Harkness which are not in the original book.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 18 Mar 2008 16:39:17
From: David Babcock
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
> You are correct that the Amazon page is wrong. The author is Kenneth
> Harkness. Charles Goren only wrote the introduction. I do not know why
> this mistake was made or how to correct it.
>
> Sam Sloan
The bad news is that because of that error, a search on Anazon for the
Harkness book returns the original, not the new edition. The good
news is that instead of eleven copies starting at 70 cents, they are
down to ten.
David
|
| | |
Date: 18 Mar 2008 09:45:22
From:
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
On 18, 11:00 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> 10.promoting some form of degenerate sexual engagement
Hey, don't knock it!
The better question is not whether he should (re)publish a book but
whether we should buy it. Currently there are several websites/
projects devoted to (re)publishing music works that are out of
copyright. They're little more than repositories for scanned sheet
music. Is there a large enough body of extant, out-of-copyright
bridge literature to justify such a project?
-Todd
|
| | |
Date: 18 Mar 2008 09:44:50
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
On 18, 11:53 am, John Crinnion <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 18 , 15:45, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I have carried out my threat to publish a book on Bridge, and here it
> > is, available now on Amazon:
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891943
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> You mean this whole ridiculous thread was no more than a publicity
> stunt?
No. This thread was by no means a publicity stunt. I was already
reprinting two of the chess books by Kenneth Harkness. It occurred to
me that I might as well reprint his chess book too, since I had
already done all the work.
However, I keep hearing that Bridge is a dying game. So, I wanted to
see if anybody plays bridge any more. After all, it requires a
financial investment to reprint a book.
I am now satisfied that it is mostly chess players who say that bridge
is a dying game and it is worth the risk to reprint this book.
This is, of course, a complete beginners book, most suitable for those
who have never played bridge before. It does not even reach weak-two
bids.
I am now planning to reprint two of the Watson 1934 books (but NOT the
updated revisions). However, first I need to find a picture of Watson,
which does not seem to be available anywhere.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 18 Mar 2008 09:40:44
From:
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
On 18, 12:35=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 18, 12:02 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 18, 11:53 am, John Crinnion <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On 18 , 15:45, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > I have carried out my threat to publish a book on Bridge, and here i=
t
> > > > is, available now on Amazon:
>
> > > >http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891943
>
> > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > > You mean this whole ridiculous thread was no more than a publicity
> > > stunt?
>
> > =A0 Virtually everything Sam Sloan does can be characterized as a
> > publicity stunt in one sense or another. His main goal in life is to
> > draw attention to himself at any cost.
> > =A0 I notice that his Amazon page gets the author of the book wrong. The=
> > picture of the book cover clearly says Kenneth Harkness, but the web-
> > page says Charles Goren. As habitues of the chess newsgroups are all
> > too well aware, this is a typical level of factual accuracy for Sam.
>
> You are correct that the Amazon page is wrong. The author is Kenneth
> Harkness. Charles Goren only wrote the introduction. I do not know why
> this mistake was made or how to correct it.
>
> Sam Sloan
Do you ever bother to correct a mistake anyway, Sam? Or to retract a
lie, and apologize for it? You've committed several glaring errors and/
or falsehoods in just the past week, but have not published a single
correction, as far as I can tell. Or if you are sure you're right, why
haven't you put your money where your mouth is and called my bet?
$10,000 minimum, but I'll go higher if you like.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Mar 2008 09:35:22
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
On 18, 12:02 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On 18, 11:53 am, John Crinnion <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 18 , 15:45, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I have carried out my threat to publish a book on Bridge, and here it
> > > is, available now on Amazon:
>
> > >http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891943
>
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> > You mean this whole ridiculous thread was no more than a publicity
> > stunt?
>
> Virtually everything Sam Sloan does can be characterized as a
> publicity stunt in one sense or another. His main goal in life is to
> draw attention to himself at any cost.
> I notice that his Amazon page gets the author of the book wrong. The
> picture of the book cover clearly says Kenneth Harkness, but the web-
> page says Charles Goren. As habitues of the chess newsgroups are all
> too well aware, this is a typical level of factual accuracy for Sam.
You are correct that the Amazon page is wrong. The author is Kenneth
Harkness. Charles Goren only wrote the introduction. I do not know why
this mistake was made or how to correct it.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 18 Mar 2008 09:02:12
From:
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
On 18, 11:53=A0am, John Crinnion <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 18 , 15:45, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I have carried out my threat to publish a book on Bridge, and here it
> > is, available now on Amazon:
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891943
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> You mean this whole ridiculous thread was no more than a publicity
> stunt?
Virtually everything Sam Sloan does can be characterized as a
publicity stunt in one sense or another. His main goal in life is to
draw attention to himself at any cost.
I notice that his Amazon page gets the author of the book wrong. The
picture of the book cover clearly says Kenneth Harkness, but the web-
page says Charles Goren. As habitues of the chess newsgroups are all
too well aware, this is a typical level of factual accuracy for Sam.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Mar 2008 09:00:04
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
On 18, 10:53=A0am, John Crinnion <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 18 , 15:45, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I have carried out my threat to publish a book on Bridge, and here it
> > is, available now on Amazon:
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891943
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> You mean this whole ridiculous thread was no more than a publicity
> stunt?
You got it John. Every thread he publishes in is about him and how he
has the :
1.answers to the worlds problems
2.the inside scoop on someone
3.set up Elliot Spitzer
4.is running for elected office
5.was cheated out of an elected office
6.is suing because of some imagined injustice
7. is counter suing a victim of his frivilous suits
8.is tracing the bloodlines of his degenerate kinship
9.is proving that he can still fater a child
10.promoting some form of degenerate sexual engagement
11.hawking something he has printed at kinkos and is selling
12.recouting past expliots prior to his viagra days.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Mar 2008 08:53:37
From: John Crinnion
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
On 18 , 15:45, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> I have carried out my threat to publish a book on Bridge, and here it
> is, available now on Amazon:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891943
>
> Sam Sloan
You mean this whole ridiculous thread was no more than a publicity
stunt?
|
| |
Date: 06 Mar 2008 12:47:19
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
On Feb 24, 11:13=A0am, [email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote:
> I am about to publish a book about bridge. However, somebody told me
> that nobody plays bridge any more.
>
> Is that true? Is bridge play up or down?
>
> Would it be a waste of my time and money to publish a book about
> bridge?
>
> Sam Sloan
It depends on if Kinkos will let you back into their stores
|
| |
Date: 06 Mar 2008 18:09:42
From: David Stevenson
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
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
<[email protected] > bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
|
| |
Date: 27 Feb 2008 20:03:44
From: John Hall
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
In article <[email protected] >,
Nick Wedd <[email protected] > 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)
|
| |
Date: 27 Feb 2008 19:43:02
From: Nick Wedd
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
In message
<bc3be318-3667-4c1d-af29-5cecbb0ae115@j28g2000hsj.googlegroups.com >,
samsloan <[email protected] > 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 more: 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 [email protected]
|
| |
Date: 27 Feb 2008 10:54:18
From: John Hall
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
In article
<bc3be318-3667-4c1d-af29-5cecbb0ae115@j28g2000hsj.googlegroups.com >,
samsloan <[email protected] > 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 ketable.
--
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)
|
| |
Date: 27 Feb 2008 00:32:34
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
On Feb 24, 5:13 pm, [email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote:
I am about to publish a book about Buckaroo TM, pardner!. However,
somebody told me that nobody plays Buckaroo TM, pardner, any more.
Is that true? Is Buckaroo TM, pardner! play up or down?
Would it be a waste of my time and money to publish a book about
Buckaroo TM, pardner!!?
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2008 18:05:49
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
Sam Sloan wrote:
> I am about to publish a book about bridge. However, somebody told me
> that nobody plays bridge any more.
>
> Is that true? Is bridge play up or down?
>
> Would it be a waste of my time and money to publish a book about
> bridge?
>
> Sam Sloan
There is probably at least a viable ket for reprints of historically
interesting out-of-copyright bridge books. The key is to give rebirth
to the historically interesting part.
You have done it with chess books, I see no reason you can't expand in
the same vein.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Mar 2008 21:49:47
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
On 20, 8:38 pm, Bob Lipton <[email protected] > wrote:
> Amazon.com lists new copies for sale. The cover makes it appear to be a
> printing of the same edition I bought about 20 years ao and which I
> reread every few years.
>
> The addenda on squeezes is useful. The ket for a reprint of the
> first edition would be limited and for those who wanted it, a copy of
> the actual first edition would be what is wanted -- abe.com lists none,
> although copies of the Fry edition are available for less than $5. But
> I am confident that if I wanted to read Jacoby's introduction, it would
> be readily available from the New York Public Library or some other
> Interlibrary loan service.
>
> As for the legibility issue, I find the Fry ediion quite easy to read.
>
> So I think it's a crumby idea, even if the first edition is not under
> some copyright protection,
>
> Bob
Don't try the New York Public Library. I was there yesterday, and the
only copy they have was crumbling in my hands, probably from two much
use.
The reason that ABE Books does not have any is I bought them all. I
seem to have bought the last two copies they had.
I have two copies of the 1934 hard cover book in mint condition. I
also have two copies of the 1958 Sam Fry updated soft cover edition. I
agree with you that all of the copies shown on Amazon are copies of
the 1958 update, and that they do not have any of the 1934 original
hard cover edition.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 20 Mar 2008 18:40:29
From:
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
On 20, 6:18 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
If I do this, the printing will be better quality with the text blown
up, the fonts larger and easier to read.
What do you think?
**************
Well, if the 1958 edition contains everything in the 1934 edition
except for the introduction, plus adds two chapters of material, and
is available in used format for around a dollar, why would I purchase
a reprint of the 1934 edition for $10, or whatever it sells for?
So in my opinion, redoing the 1934 edition when the 1958 edition is
available is not a good choice.
Henrysun909
PS: Has anyone bothered to see if either edition is available for
free download online?
|
| | |
Date: 20 Mar 2008 18:18:37
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
On 20, 7:09 pm, Tim <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 20, 7:35 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 20, 6:10 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 28, 6:58 am, Hank Youngerman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Regarding republishing of books, I don't know what the ket 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.
>
> > > ************
>
> > > While this is true, in the sense that older books on bidding have no
> > > direct connection with modern bidding, there is a sense in which some
> > > older books are still worth reading (or re-reading) because of their
> > > historical value. I would include, amongst these:
>
> > > 1. Churchill's natural bidding system (oh, how I wish I had a copy of
> > > this one!)
> > > 2. Stern's original book on Vienna (the first little club - big NT
> > > system)
> > > 3. Squire's The Theory of Bidding
> > > 4. Roth-Stone's Bridge is a Partnership Game
> > > 5. Kaplan-Sheinwold System of Winning Bridge
> > > 6. Belladona-Avarelli, The Roman Club
> > > 7. Garozzo-Forquet, The Blue Team Club
> > > 8. Morehead's, On Bidding (1964 version)
> > > 9. Goldman's Aces Scientific
> > > 10. Karpin's Psychological Strategy in Contract Bridge
>
> > > All of these are mid-1970s or older and I haven't included more recent
> > > books on, e.g., 2/1 or Ultimate Club or Symmetric Relay because they
> > > don't meet the criterion of being older.
>
> > > I would imagine that any experienced tournament player could read any
> > > of these books and find something of value in each of them, even if no
> > > one system is adopted in toto.
>
> > > Henrysun909
>
> > What would you think about a reprinting of two 1934 books:
>
> > The Outline of Contract Bridge by Louis Watson
>
> > and
>
> > Watson on the Play of the Hand at Contract Bridge
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Isn't Watson's Play of the Hand readily available?
There are two books. I am holding them in my hands right now.
They were both published in 1934. I cannot tell which one was printed
first since the both cite each other but is seems that they were
published virtually simultaneously.
The Outline of Contract Bridge by Louis Watson is a much shorter book.
It covers both bidding and the play of the hand. However, bidding has
changed so much that most readers will probably not be interested in
the bidding section. On the other hand, many readers will find the 147-
page Play of the Hand section to be preferable to wading through the
dense 492 page work, "Watson on the Play of the Hand at Contract
Bridge".
Only 8,000 copies of the original "Watson on the Play of the Hand at
Contract Bridge" were printed and they sold out quickly. Right after
that, Watson, aged only 29 and seemingly in good health, suddenly died
of no apparent cause on St. Valentine's Day, 1936. He was ranked
fourth in the world at the time of his death.
His widow, Catharine Potter Watson, wasted no time getting ried to
Albert Heymann one year later. I have not been able to find out
anything about either of them.
By "readily available", you are referring to the Sam Fry "Enlarged and
Modernized Version" published in 1958. It is out of print, and is
really just a carbon copy. I have been looking through it to try to
see what changes Sam Fry made. Basically, he deleted the introductions
by Oswald Jacoby and Louis Watson and substituted his own introduction
instead.
Sam Fry also added two chapters at the end: Chapter XII entitled "Some
Modern Innovations" which priily deals with some defensive
signaling conventions and Chapter XIII entitled "Some Loose Ends"
which gives some examples of squeezes. The total of these two chapters
combined comes to 12 pages.
He also added or deleted a few footnotes but otherwise seems not to
have changed the text of the book.
I am considering reprinting the two 1934 books but NOT the 1958
update. If I do this they will appear at:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/092389182X
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891749
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891943
If I do this, the printing will be better quality with the text blown
up, the fonts larger and easier to read.
What do you think?
Sam Sloan
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Mar 2008 21:38:35
From: Bob Lipton
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
samsloan wrote:
> On 20, 7:09 pm, Tim <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 20, 7:35 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 20, 6:10 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Feb 28, 6:58 am, Hank Youngerman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Regarding republishing of books, I don't know what the ket 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.
>>>> ************
>>>> While this is true, in the sense that older books on bidding have no
>>>> direct connection with modern bidding, there is a sense in which some
>>>> older books are still worth reading (or re-reading) because of their
>>>> historical value. I would include, amongst these:
>>>> 1. Churchill's natural bidding system (oh, how I wish I had a copy of
>>>> this one!)
>>>> 2. Stern's original book on Vienna (the first little club - big NT
>>>> system)
>>>> 3. Squire's The Theory of Bidding
>>>> 4. Roth-Stone's Bridge is a Partnership Game
>>>> 5. Kaplan-Sheinwold System of Winning Bridge
>>>> 6. Belladona-Avarelli, The Roman Club
>>>> 7. Garozzo-Forquet, The Blue Team Club
>>>> 8. Morehead's, On Bidding (1964 version)
>>>> 9. Goldman's Aces Scientific
>>>> 10. Karpin's Psychological Strategy in Contract Bridge
>>>> All of these are mid-1970s or older and I haven't included more recent
>>>> books on, e.g., 2/1 or Ultimate Club or Symmetric Relay because they
>>>> don't meet the criterion of being older.
>>>> I would imagine that any experienced tournament player could read any
>>>> of these books and find something of value in each of them, even if no
>>>> one system is adopted in toto.
>>>> Henrysun909
>>> What would you think about a reprinting of two 1934 books:
>>> The Outline of Contract Bridge by Louis Watson
>>> and
>>> Watson on the Play of the Hand at Contract Bridge
>>> Sam Sloan
>> Isn't Watson's Play of the Hand readily available?
>
> There are two books. I am holding them in my hands right now.
>
> They were both published in 1934. I cannot tell which one was printed
> first since the both cite each other but is seems that they were
> published virtually simultaneously.
>
> The Outline of Contract Bridge by Louis Watson is a much shorter book.
> It covers both bidding and the play of the hand. However, bidding has
> changed so much that most readers will probably not be interested in
> the bidding section. On the other hand, many readers will find the 147-
> page Play of the Hand section to be preferable to wading through the
> dense 492 page work, "Watson on the Play of the Hand at Contract
> Bridge".
>
> Only 8,000 copies of the original "Watson on the Play of the Hand at
> Contract Bridge" were printed and they sold out quickly. Right after
> that, Watson, aged only 29 and seemingly in good health, suddenly died
> of no apparent cause on St. Valentine's Day, 1936. He was ranked
> fourth in the world at the time of his death.
>
> His widow, Catharine Potter Watson, wasted no time getting ried to
> Albert Heymann one year later. I have not been able to find out
> anything about either of them.
>
> By "readily available", you are referring to the Sam Fry "Enlarged and
> Modernized Version" published in 1958. It is out of print, and is
> really just a carbon copy. I have been looking through it to try to
> see what changes Sam Fry made. Basically, he deleted the introductions
> by Oswald Jacoby and Louis Watson and substituted his own introduction
> instead.
>
> Sam Fry also added two chapters at the end: Chapter XII entitled "Some
> Modern Innovations" which priily deals with some defensive
> signaling conventions and Chapter XIII entitled "Some Loose Ends"
> which gives some examples of squeezes. The total of these two chapters
> combined comes to 12 pages.
>
> He also added or deleted a few footnotes but otherwise seems not to
> have changed the text of the book.
>
> I am considering reprinting the two 1934 books but NOT the 1958
> update. If I do this they will appear at:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/092389182X
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891749
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891943
>
> If I do this, the printing will be better quality with the text blown
> up, the fonts larger and easier to read.
>
> What do you think?
Amazon.com lists new copies for sale. The cover makes it appear to be a
printing of the same edition I bought about 20 years ao and which I
reread every few years.
The addenda on squeezes is useful. The ket for a reprint of the
first edition would be limited and for those who wanted it, a copy of
the actual first edition would be what is wanted -- abe.com lists none,
although copies of the Fry edition are available for less than $5. But
I am confident that if I wanted to read Jacoby's introduction, it would
be readily available from the New York Public Library or some other
Interlibrary loan service.
As for the legibility issue, I find the Fry ediion quite easy to read.
So I think it's a crumby idea, even if the first edition is not under
some copyright protection,
Bob
|
| | |
Date: 20 Mar 2008 17:09:21
From: Tim
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
On 20, 7:35 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 20, 6:10 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 6:58 am, Hank Youngerman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Regarding republishing of books, I don't know what the ket 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.
>
> > ************
>
> > While this is true, in the sense that older books on bidding have no
> > direct connection with modern bidding, there is a sense in which some
> > older books are still worth reading (or re-reading) because of their
> > historical value. I would include, amongst these:
>
> > 1. Churchill's natural bidding system (oh, how I wish I had a copy of
> > this one!)
> > 2. Stern's original book on Vienna (the first little club - big NT
> > system)
> > 3. Squire's The Theory of Bidding
> > 4. Roth-Stone's Bridge is a Partnership Game
> > 5. Kaplan-Sheinwold System of Winning Bridge
> > 6. Belladona-Avarelli, The Roman Club
> > 7. Garozzo-Forquet, The Blue Team Club
> > 8. Morehead's, On Bidding (1964 version)
> > 9. Goldman's Aces Scientific
> > 10. Karpin's Psychological Strategy in Contract Bridge
>
> > All of these are mid-1970s or older and I haven't included more recent
> > books on, e.g., 2/1 or Ultimate Club or Symmetric Relay because they
> > don't meet the criterion of being older.
>
> > I would imagine that any experienced tournament player could read any
> > of these books and find something of value in each of them, even if no
> > one system is adopted in toto.
>
> > Henrysun909
>
> What would you think about a reprinting of two 1934 books:
>
> The Outline of Contract Bridge by Louis Watson
>
> and
>
> Watson on the Play of the Hand at Contract Bridge
>
> Sam Sloan
Isn't Watson's Play of the Hand readily available?
|
| | |
Date: 20 Mar 2008 16:35:57
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
On 20, 6:10 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 28, 6:58 am, Hank Youngerman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Regarding republishing of books, I don't know what the ket 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.
>
> ************
>
> While this is true, in the sense that older books on bidding have no
> direct connection with modern bidding, there is a sense in which some
> older books are still worth reading (or re-reading) because of their
> historical value. I would include, amongst these:
>
> 1. Churchill's natural bidding system (oh, how I wish I had a copy of
> this one!)
> 2. Stern's original book on Vienna (the first little club - big NT
> system)
> 3. Squire's The Theory of Bidding
> 4. Roth-Stone's Bridge is a Partnership Game
> 5. Kaplan-Sheinwold System of Winning Bridge
> 6. Belladona-Avarelli, The Roman Club
> 7. Garozzo-Forquet, The Blue Team Club
> 8. Morehead's, On Bidding (1964 version)
> 9. Goldman's Aces Scientific
> 10. Karpin's Psychological Strategy in Contract Bridge
>
> All of these are mid-1970s or older and I haven't included more recent
> books on, e.g., 2/1 or Ultimate Club or Symmetric Relay because they
> don't meet the criterion of being older.
>
> I would imagine that any experienced tournament player could read any
> of these books and find something of value in each of them, even if no
> one system is adopted in toto.
>
> Henrysun909
What would you think about a reprinting of two 1934 books:
The Outline of Contract Bridge by Louis Watson
and
Watson on the Play of the Hand at Contract Bridge
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 20 Mar 2008 16:10:10
From:
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
On Feb 28, 6:58 am, Hank Youngerman <[email protected] > wrote:
Regarding republishing of books, I don't know what the ket 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.
************
While this is true, in the sense that older books on bidding have no
direct connection with modern bidding, there is a sense in which some
older books are still worth reading (or re-reading) because of their
historical value. I would include, amongst these:
1. Churchill's natural bidding system (oh, how I wish I had a copy of
this one!)
2. Stern's original book on Vienna (the first little club - big NT
system)
3. Squire's The Theory of Bidding
4. Roth-Stone's Bridge is a Partnership Game
5. Kaplan-Sheinwold System of Winning Bridge
6. Belladona-Avarelli, The Roman Club
7. Garozzo-Forquet, The Blue Team Club
8. Morehead's, On Bidding (1964 version)
9. Goldman's Aces Scientific
10. Karpin's Psychological Strategy in Contract Bridge
All of these are mid-1970s or older and I haven't included more recent
books on, e.g., 2/1 or Ultimate Club or Symmetric Relay because they
don't meet the criterion of being older.
I would imagine that any experienced tournament player could read any
of these books and find something of value in each of them, even if no
one system is adopted in toto.
Henrysun909
|
| | |
Date: 28 Feb 2008 05:58:26
From: Hank Youngerman
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
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 ket 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=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > 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
|
| | |
Date: 27 Feb 2008 03:45:07
From:
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
On Feb 27, 12:29 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 25, 8:34 pm, Andrew <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 24, 10:02 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> 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 more: 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.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Feb 2008 21:28:34
From: Andrew
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
On Feb 26, 8:29 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 25, 8:34 pm, Andrew <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 24, 10:02 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> 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 priy 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 more: 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
|
| | |
Date: 26 Feb 2008 20:29:33
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
On Feb 25, 8:34 pm, Andrew <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 24, 10:02 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> 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 more: 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
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2008 20:52:59
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
samsloan wrote:
> On Feb 25, 8:34 pm, Andrew <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Feb 24, 10:02 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> 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 more: 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 ket. Don't short change the bridge
ketplace 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
|
| | |
Date: 25 Feb 2008 17:34:59
From: Andrew
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
On Feb 24, 10:02 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > 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
|
| | |
Date: 25 Feb 2008 09:19:14
From: Charles Brenner
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
On Feb 25, 8:31 am, Bob Lipton <[email protected] > wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
> > "David Babcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:f1fb0167-b316-4dc9-8011-386df02a8050@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> >>> Here he is; the man who brought contract bridge to the United States
>
> >>> Ely Culbertson
> >> Well, not exactly. Auction bridge was popular in the US when
> >> Culbertson was still in his early teens, and it was Harold Vanderbilt,
> >> of the US, who introduced the scoring changes in 1925 that gave us the
> >> game we know today. It was Vanderbilt's social standing and
> >> visibility that were largely responsible for contract taking over so
> >> quickly. Culbertson saw what was happening and did a great deal to
> >> publicize the game, and had considerable success as a player and was
> >> the first person named to the Bridge Hall of Fame, so his place in the
> >> history of the game is secure -- but "brought it to the US"? No.
>
> > Yes - you are in the right of it David, I should have made greater emphasis
> > on the /scientific/ aspect of the new 'contract' idea. Whether this
> > statement "Culbertson suggested to the bridge-playing public that the
> > Culbertson System of bidding was superior to the systems of his rivals" is
> > entirely candid, or a somewhat hyperbolous means to sell his books, is
> > certainly the contestable aspect of things - as you mention above.
>
> > And somewhat equivocally tested;- in this anecdote from Wikipedia:-
>
> > Culbertson-Lenz match
> > This took place between December 1931 and January 1932 at two New York
> > hotels, and was called "The Bridge Battle of the Century". Sidney Lenz was
> > the leader of a group of players opposed to Culbertson's domination of the
> > game, and who called their bidding system the Official System. Culbertson
> > challenged Lenz to a match, wagering $5,000 against his opponent's $1,000,
> > with the money to go to charity regardless of the outcome. The match was
> > played as rubber bridge, with 150 rubbers being played. Culbertson played 88
> > of these with his wife, Josephine, partnering one of Theodore Lightner,
> > Walde von Zedtwitz, Howard Schenken and Michael Gottlieb in the
> > remainder. Lenz played with Oswald Jacoby for the first 103 rubbers, but
> > Jacoby then resigned following a heated difference of opinion over a
> > defensive play. For the rest of the match Lenz's partner was Cmdr. Winfield
> > Liggett Jr. Culbertson's team won by 8,980 points.
>
> > -------
>
> > Tell me something about Bridge players - my own teacher was a guy who was on
> > "O's Flying Circus", and needless to say, quite good! And in exchange for
> > the pain of teaching a novice bridge, I taught him chess.
>
> > Is there, in your experience much mutual interest in the games? I know many
> > ardent chess players have never tried Bridge, while others seem to like all
> > 'deep' games.
>
> > I also note your previous comment about chess and bridge being perhaps
> > equivalent in popularity - and while I have no datum to permit any comment
> > of my own, I did read with amusement some months ago that Bill Gates and his
> > Tennessee buddy billionaire tried to give away - how much was it? A $million
> > to NY City schools if they would teach bridge.
>
> > They were unsuccessful! Though, it did occur to me at the time that if the
> > very evident success of Gates and Buffett suggested that bridge aided modern
> > management practices, and my premuption being that they tried to encourage
> > the game by entering it to mainstream curricula, then they were commenting
> > on something lacking in US education.
>
> > The same is true, you see, about chess - where there is a mass of anecdotal
> > support for its benefit, academically, psychologically, but also in terms of
> > socialization of students, harnessing agrression in culturally permitted
> > ways, and so on ... everything in fact except academic acceptance.
>
> > Have there been successfully entries of bridge into mainstream education
> > anywhere in the Western World? If so, can you please cite me a reference?
>
> > Cordially, Phil Innes
>
> > Vermont USA
>
> > [excuse my presumption that you are American]
>
> >> David
>
> 1: Culbertson's book written in the wake of the 'Bridge Match of the
> Century' was published by a Philadelphia firm.
>
> 2: Culbertson was living in New York City at the time. He later owned
> about six houses, including Connecticut; bought the place in
> Brattleboro some time later than the events under discussion.
>
> 3: 'Gates' Tennessee buddy' is Warren Buffett, who was born in Omaha,
> raised there and Washington D.C., worked for a few years in NYC and has
> lived again, for the past forty or so years, back in Omaha. While it is
> possible he may have visited Tennessee, I can't think of any visit I
> have ever heard of.
>
> 4: As I can't think of why anyone in the chess newsgroups might be
> interested in this discussion, I have removed them from the list.
Chess people are a large part of this discussion -- including the OP
and the one you just responded to.
Charles
> Otherwise I notice no inaccuracies in your assertions, except that I
> thought that all of O's Bridge circus members were Egyptian or
> European. But I might be mistaken.
>
> Bob
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2008 16:14:03
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
"Charles Brenner" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:f43ff02a-ca44-495f-ad36-b479931adbf2@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 25, 8:31 am, Bob Lipton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Chess One wrote:
>> > "David Babcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:f1fb0167-b316-4dc9-8011-386df02a8050@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>> >>> Here he is; the man who brought contract bridge to the United States
>>
>> > Tell me something about Bridge players - my own teacher was a guy who
>> > was on
>> > "O's Flying Circus", and needless to say, quite good! And in
>> > exchange for
>> > the pain of teaching a novice bridge, I taught him chess.
>>
>> > Is there, in your experience much mutual interest in the games? I know
>> > many
>> > ardent chess players have never tried Bridge, while others seem to like
>> > all
>> > 'deep' games.
>>
>> > I also note your previous comment about chess and bridge being perhaps
>> > equivalent in popularity - and while I have no datum to permit any
>> > comment
>> > of my own, I did read with amusement some months ago that Bill Gates
>> > and his
>> > Tennessee buddy billionaire tried to give away - how much was it? A
>> > $million
>> > to NY City schools if they would teach bridge.
>>
>> > They were unsuccessful! Though, it did occur to me at the time that if
>> > the
>> > very evident success of Gates and Buffett suggested that bridge aided
>> > modern
>> > management practices, and my premuption being that they tried to
>> > encourage
>> > the game by entering it to mainstream curricula, then they were
>> > commenting
>> > on something lacking in US education.
>>
>> > The same is true, you see, about chess - where there is a mass of
>> > anecdotal
>> > support for its benefit, academically, psychologically, but also in
>> > terms of
>> > socialization of students, harnessing agrression in culturally
>> > permitted
>> > ways, and so on ... everything in fact except academic acceptance.
>>
>> > Have there been successfully entries of bridge into mainstream
>> > education
>> > anywhere in the Western World? If so, can you please cite me a
>> > reference?
>>
>> > Cordially, Phil Innes
>>
>> > Vermont USA
>>
>> > [excuse my presumption that you are American]
>>
>> >> David
>>
>> 1: Culbertson's book written in the wake of the 'Bridge Match of the
>> Century' was published by a Philadelphia firm.
Surely, but written where?
>> 2: Culbertson was living in New York City at the time. He later owned
>> about six houses, including Connecticut; bought the place in
>> Brattleboro some time later than the events under discussion.
Pardon me, I was unaware of what events these are. I rather thought he
stayed here, previous to buying a place? The town was after all, a 'spa',
and thought that is as facetious a claim as many Vermont and New York
exclmations, nevertheless, people came.
>> 3: 'Gates' Tennessee buddy' is Warren Buffett, who was born in Omaha,
>> raised there and Washington D.C., worked for a few years in NYC and has
>> lived again, for the past forty or so years, back in Omaha. While it is
>> possible he may have visited Tennessee, I can't think of any visit I
>> have ever heard of.
Ah... well, at least I know something!
>> 4: As I can't think of why anyone in the chess newsgroups might be
>> interested in this discussion, I have removed them from the list.
Except of course what I wrote about bridge being adopted in any curriculum.
But, let me take that as a pass, I having opened 2 clubs! being a 23+ point
conversational item!
> Chess people are a large part of this discussion -- including the OP
> and the one you just responded to.
>
> Charles
Surely... ?
>
>> Otherwise I notice no inaccuracies in your assertions, except that I
>> thought that all of O's Bridge circus members were Egyptian or
>> European. But I might be mistaken.
Yes. A man who after 6 hours of play can say about the second hand, which we
defended;- do you remember your club holding [when spades were trumps, and
the 2, 9, J, and then compares with a similar hand just played, and a deceit
possibly thereon, and after being 'in wine' for the interim period; such a
person is a 'player'. Possibly an extremely strong player, though admittedly
not on the evidence of any such meagre anecdote.
I apologise if such references ruffle feathers, or if local knowledge
deflates historiographies, but I too am a player ;)
Cordially, Phil Innes
>> Bob
>
|
| | |
Date: 25 Feb 2008 06:03:21
From: David Babcock
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
> Here he is; the man who brought contract bridge to the United States
>
> Ely Culbertson
Well, not exactly. Auction bridge was popular in the US when
Culbertson was still in his early teens, and it was Harold Vanderbilt,
of the US, who introduced the scoring changes in 1925 that gave us the
game we know today. It was Vanderbilt's social standing and
visibility that were largely responsible for contract taking over so
quickly. Culbertson saw what was happening and did a great deal to
publicize the game, and had considerable success as a player and was
the first person named to the Bridge Hall of Fame, so his place in the
history of the game is secure -- but "brought it to the US"? No.
David
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2008 10:47:16
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
"David Babcock" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:f1fb0167-b316-4dc9-8011-386df02a8050@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Here he is; the man who brought contract bridge to the United States
>>
>> Ely Culbertson
>
> Well, not exactly. Auction bridge was popular in the US when
> Culbertson was still in his early teens, and it was Harold Vanderbilt,
> of the US, who introduced the scoring changes in 1925 that gave us the
> game we know today. It was Vanderbilt's social standing and
> visibility that were largely responsible for contract taking over so
> quickly. Culbertson saw what was happening and did a great deal to
> publicize the game, and had considerable success as a player and was
> the first person named to the Bridge Hall of Fame, so his place in the
> history of the game is secure -- but "brought it to the US"? No.
Yes - you are in the right of it David, I should have made greater emphasis
on the /scientific/ aspect of the new 'contract' idea. Whether this
statement "Culbertson suggested to the bridge-playing public that the
Culbertson System of bidding was superior to the systems of his rivals" is
entirely candid, or a somewhat hyperbolous means to sell his books, is
certainly the contestable aspect of things - as you mention above.
And somewhat equivocally tested;- in this anecdote from Wikipedia:-
Culbertson-Lenz match
This took place between December 1931 and January 1932 at two New York
hotels, and was called "The Bridge Battle of the Century". Sidney Lenz was
the leader of a group of players opposed to Culbertson's domination of the
game, and who called their bidding system the Official System. Culbertson
challenged Lenz to a match, wagering $5,000 against his opponent's $1,000,
with the money to go to charity regardless of the outcome. The match was
played as rubber bridge, with 150 rubbers being played. Culbertson played 88
of these with his wife, Josephine, partnering one of Theodore Lightner,
Walde von Zedtwitz, Howard Schenken and Michael Gottlieb in the
remainder. Lenz played with Oswald Jacoby for the first 103 rubbers, but
Jacoby then resigned following a heated difference of opinion over a
defensive play. For the rest of the match Lenz's partner was Cmdr. Winfield
Liggett Jr. Culbertson's team won by 8,980 points.
-------
Tell me something about Bridge players - my own teacher was a guy who was on
"O's Flying Circus", and needless to say, quite good! And in exchange for
the pain of teaching a novice bridge, I taught him chess.
Is there, in your experience much mutual interest in the games? I know many
ardent chess players have never tried Bridge, while others seem to like all
'deep' games.
I also note your previous comment about chess and bridge being perhaps
equivalent in popularity - and while I have no datum to permit any comment
of my own, I did read with amusement some months ago that Bill Gates and his
Tennessee buddy billionaire tried to give away - how much was it? A $million
to NY City schools if they would teach bridge.
They were unsuccessful! Though, it did occur to me at the time that if the
very evident success of Gates and Buffett suggested that bridge aided modern
management practices, and my premuption being that they tried to encourage
the game by entering it to mainstream curricula, then they were commenting
on something lacking in US education.
The same is true, you see, about chess - where there is a mass of anecdotal
support for its benefit, academically, psychologically, but also in terms of
socialization of students, harnessing agrression in culturally permitted
ways, and so on ... everything in fact except academic acceptance.
Have there been successfully entries of bridge into mainstream education
anywhere in the Western World? If so, can you please cite me a reference?
Cordially, Phil Innes
Vermont USA
[excuse my presumption that you are American]
> David
|
| | |
Date: 25 Feb 2008 04:35:46
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
On Feb 25, 3:31 am, "Gerben Dirksen" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Then my advice is to don't bother. You are coming in with the wrong
> attitude. I am quite sure that no first time bridge book writer wrote the
> book to make lots of profit, which seems your priy interest. If you don't
> start with a story you want to tell, it's not going to work.
>
> Gerben
I am not writing the book. The book is already written by a good
player. I am trying to decide whether to publish it or not.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 25 Feb 2008 02:33:33
From:
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
On Feb 25, 10:21 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 24, 9:05 pm, johnny_t <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Sam Sloan wrote:
> > > I am about to publish a book about bridge. However, somebody told me
> > > that nobody plays bridge any more.
>
> > > Is that true? Is bridge play up or down?
>
> > > Would it be a waste of my time and money to publish a book about
> > > bridge?
>
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> > There is probably at least a viable ket for reprints of historically
> > interesting out-of-copyright bridge books. The key is to give rebirth
> > to the historically interesting part.
>
> > You have done it with chess books, I see no reason you can't expand in
> > the same vein.
>
> Yes. That exactly is what I plan to do.
>
> Personally, I do not know the difference between a heart and a spade.
>
> Sam Sloan
It might make some money. I'd say the popularity of bridge is about
the same as chess.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Feb 2008 22:02:59
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
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
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Mar 2008 00:50:24
From: Fluxman
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
"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
|
| | |
Date: 24 Feb 2008 18:21:58
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
On Feb 24, 9:05 pm, johnny_t <[email protected] > wrote:
> Sam Sloan wrote:
> > I am about to publish a book about bridge. However, somebody told me
> > that nobody plays bridge any more.
>
> > Is that true? Is bridge play up or down?
>
> > Would it be a waste of my time and money to publish a book about
> > bridge?
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> There is probably at least a viable ket for reprints of historically
> interesting out-of-copyright bridge books. The key is to give rebirth
> to the historically interesting part.
>
> You have done it with chess books, I see no reason you can't expand in
> the same vein.
Yes. That exactly is what I plan to do.
Personally, I do not know the difference between a heart and a spade.
Sam Sloan
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Feb 2008 11:35:54
From: mudshark
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
samsloan wrote:
> Personally, I do not know the difference between a heart and a spade.
>
> Sam Sloan
One's downside up & the other's upside down..
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2008 09:31:11
From: Gerben Dirksen
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 24, 9:05 pm, johnny_t <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Sam Sloan wrote:
>> > I am about to publish a book about bridge. However, somebody told me
>> > that nobody plays bridge any more.
>>
>> > Is that true? Is bridge play up or down?
>>
>> > Would it be a waste of my time and money to publish a book about
>> > bridge?
>>
>> > Sam Sloan
>>
>> There is probably at least a viable ket for reprints of historically
>> interesting out-of-copyright bridge books. The key is to give rebirth
>> to the historically interesting part.
>>
>> You have done it with chess books, I see no reason you can't expand in
>> the same vein.
>
> Yes. That exactly is what I plan to do.
>
> Personally, I do not know the difference between a heart and a spade.
>
> Sam Sloan
Then my advice is to don't bother. You are coming in with the wrong
attitude. I am quite sure that no first time bridge book writer wrote the
book to make lots of profit, which seems your priy interest. If you don't
start with a story you want to tell, it's not going to work.
Gerben
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Feb 2008 08:33:13
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
"Gerben Dirksen" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Here he is; the man who brought contract bridge to the United States, and
published from our town.
Ely Culbertson, born July 22, 1891, Ploesti, Rom.
died Dec. 27, 1955, Brattleboro, Vt., U.S.
American authority on the card game known as Contract Bridge who later
abandoned the game to work for world peace.
Culbertson was the son of an American oil explorer and lived as a boy in
Russia. He was educated in Geneva and Paris. In his youth he was a
revolutionary agent in the Russian Caucasus, ... /EB
Brattleboro was thus famous for Kipling's residence, printing the first
bibles in the usa, and also the firsr /contract/ bridge titles. Culbertson
published:-
a.. Contract Bridge Blue Book (1930)
a.. The Strange Lives of One Man (1940)
a.. The World Federation Plan (1942)
a.. Total Peace (1943)
a.. Must We Fight Russia? (1946)
a.. Culbertson on Canasta: a Complete Guide for Beginners and Advanced
Players With the Official Laws of Canasta (1949)
Phil Innes
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Feb 2008 21:19:28
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
samsloan wrote:
> On Feb 24, 9:05 pm, johnny_t <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Sam Sloan wrote:
>>> I am about to publish a book about bridge. However, somebody told me
>>> that nobody plays bridge any more.
>>> Is that true? Is bridge play up or down?
>>> Would it be a waste of my time and money to publish a book about
>>> bridge?
>>> Sam Sloan
>> There is probably at least a viable ket for reprints of historically
>> interesting out-of-copyright bridge books. The key is to give rebirth
>> to the historically interesting part.
>>
>> You have done it with chess books, I see no reason you can't expand in
>> the same vein.
>
> Yes. That exactly is what I plan to do.
>
> Personally, I do not know the difference between a heart and a spade.
>
> Sam Sloan
I don't think you really need to know much, this is essentially a found
money kind of venture, and the question is whether you're finding
pennies, quarters, or dollars.
There is an opportunity/time cost for you to find, package and publish,
but it is a numbers game. You're out there at the end of the long tail
investing your time, and particular expertise of finding, publishing,
and keting these things.
There are worse ways to make a living for sure. Whether there *is* a
living here, is an interesting question, but I suspect so.
Good luck.
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2008 15:21:53
From:
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
On Feb 24, 9:13=A0am, [email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote:
> I am about to publish a book about bridge. However, somebody told me
> that nobody plays bridge any more.
>
> Is that true? Is bridge play up or down?
>
> Would it be a waste of my time and money to publish a book about
> bridge?
>
> Sam Sloan
Having published about eight bridge books, you should not expect to
make big bucks out of it.
If you don't enjoy publishing bridge books then you might want to do
something else.
Eric Leong
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2008 11:22:21
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
I cannot say anything about the success of bridge (or even chess)
books; my one attempt to publish a chess book being unsuccessful
(though t did lead to my chess history column). However, ifyou want a
somewhat interesting subject that combines chess and bridge, I might
suggest writing about the Hymes family. They seem to have had
extraordinary natural talent at chess and bridge. Edward Hymes was a
rekably strong chess player of the early 20th century; he played
one of the top 5 boards for the US in cable matches vs Great Britain
for a number of years. He never lost a game in these matches, despite
getting almost no practice during the year. He first appeared in the
chess world leading the Columbia U team to victory in some of the
first intercollege matches, and seems to have been rekably strong
for a young player who did little training. His brothers were strong
chess players as well, though not in Edward's league.
The next generation of the Hymes family had one of the top bridge
players in the country. At some point an IQ test of top bridge players
was given at a major tournament; Hymes seems to have scored far above
all others. Some still live in the NY area, and you might be able to
get extra information from them.
There are some interesting personal stories as well, IIRC; without
checking my notes, I believe that there were ties to the Bloomingdales
(known for their stores) through riage.
I was going to write an article about them sometime, but if you really
have knowledge of bridge as well as chess, and you use your often
misdirected energy on such a project, I think you could do a good job
with it; I would be happy to share my notes on the subject.
Jerry Spinrad
On Feb 24, 11:13=A0am, [email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote:
> I am about to publish a book about bridge. However, somebody told me
> that nobody plays bridge any more.
>
> Is that true? Is bridge play up or down?
>
> Would it be a waste of my time and money to publish a book about
> bridge?
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 24 Feb 2008 17:38:01
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
if you want to publish something about bridge in usa, you might mention
brattleboro
we are not just famous for kipling
but for the first bibles printed in usa
for first banning slavery, but also
as for bridge, [research this jerry] who lived here and introduced contract
bridge to usa?
5 nobels from Windham county Vermont - which is something eh? in one of the
poorest states and the poorest county thereof
but hey! uscf chose whatsitville TN, home of methathetamines
heuch! any book on bridge should look here
phil innes
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:a074a5e5-21dd-4b3a-a602-0d5406cc7eb9@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
I cannot say anything about the success of bridge (or even chess)
books; my one attempt to publish a chess book being unsuccessful
(though t did lead to my chess history column). However, ifyou want a
somewhat interesting subject that combines chess and bridge, I might
suggest writing about the Hymes family. They seem to have had
extraordinary natural talent at chess and bridge. Edward Hymes was a
rekably strong chess player of the early 20th century; he played
one of the top 5 boards for the US in cable matches vs Great Britain
for a number of years. He never lost a game in these matches, despite
getting almost no practice during the year. He first appeared in the
chess world leading the Columbia U team to victory in some of the
first intercollege matches, and seems to have been rekably strong
for a young player who did little training. His brothers were strong
chess players as well, though not in Edward's league.
The next generation of the Hymes family had one of the top bridge
players in the country. At some point an IQ test of top bridge players
was given at a major tournament; Hymes seems to have scored far above
all others. Some still live in the NY area, and you might be able to
get extra information from them.
There are some interesting personal stories as well, IIRC; without
checking my notes, I believe that there were ties to the Bloomingdales
(known for their stores) through riage.
I was going to write an article about them sometime, but if you really
have knowledge of bridge as well as chess, and you use your often
misdirected energy on such a project, I think you could do a good job
with it; I would be happy to share my notes on the subject.
Jerry Spinrad
On Feb 24, 11:13 am, [email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote:
> I am about to publish a book about bridge. However, somebody told me
> that nobody plays bridge any more.
>
> Is that true? Is bridge play up or down?
>
> Would it be a waste of my time and money to publish a book about
> bridge?
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2008 18:17:14
From: John Hall
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
In article <[email protected] >,
Sam Sloan <[email protected] > writes:
>I am about to publish a book about bridge. However, somebody told me
>that nobody plays bridge any more.
>
>Is that true? Is bridge play up or down?
>
>Would it be a waste of my time and money to publish a book about
>bridge?
There is still a reasonable ket for bridge books, but you generally
need your name to be "known" for your book to sell well. I suspect that
a book by an unknown has little hope of substantial sales, however good
it might be. One possibility would be to approach a top player/writer.
If you can convince them of your book's merit, then they might agree to
be named as co-author (though of course they would want a share of the
profits).
Why have you crossposted to a couple of chess groups? Few chess players
are very knowledgeable about bridge (and vice versa)?
--
John Hall
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin"
attributed to Sir Josiah Stamp,
a former director of the Bank of England
|
| | |
Date: 24 Feb 2008 18:41:51
From: Steven Gibbs
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
"John Hall" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Why have you crossposted to a couple of chess groups? Few chess
> players
> are very knowledgeable about bridge (and vice versa)?
Because he's a well-known Usenet troll who should be ignored. (He's
been in my killfile many years.)
Steven
|
| | |
Date: 24 Feb 2008 10:29:58
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
On Feb 24, 6:17 pm, John Hall <[email protected] > wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Sam Sloan <[email protected]> writes:
> Why have you crossposted to a couple of chess groups? Few chess players
> are very knowledgeable about bridge (and vice versa)?
LOROL!! Monsieur Sloan e lurve de old cross posst
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2008 09:56:40
From: raija d
Subject: Re: Should I publish a book about Bridge?
|
"Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I am about to publish a book about bridge. However, somebody told me
> that nobody plays bridge any more.
>
> Is that true? Is bridge play up or down?
>
> Would it be a waste of my time and money to publish a book about
> bridge?
>
> Sam Sloan
What would you write about it?
Raija
|
|
