IAC Forums
Chew the Fat! => The IAC Café => Topic started by: Curls77 on December 29, 2020, 02:18:24 PM
-
Some of great books from T. Reese are now available in open org archive library.
They might be old editions, but never the less great readings.
I uploaded them to Drop Box, you do not need have it installed, just click on each file and download.
Link is:
https://tinyurl.com/yaqbzqwt (https://tinyurl.com/yaqbzqwt)
Happy New Year IAC
!H
Sanya
-
Thanks, Sanya! :)
-
I at one time owned most of these but some have been misplaced.
Squeeze Play Made Easy is very good, even if "Squeeze" and "Made Easy" don't really belong in the same sentence.
I remembered his opening comment that squeeze play had to be learned rather than picked up. That seems right to me. Cross-ruffing, finessing that sort of thing can be picked up. But losing a trick to rectify the count? You don't just stumble onto that. Well, maybe some do. I had to read it, think about it, read some more, and still I have to be paying close attention and still I miss. The Reese exposition is about as clear as any that I have seen.
Anyway, this is a very nice resource. Thanks, I was not aware of it.
-
Further thoughts: This got me looking through my old bridge books. I still can't find the Squeeze Play Made Easy and I think I will order it from Amazon. I found my copy of Play Bridge With Reese, another book that I like a lot. I had written in a side note saying I thought I had a better line of play than Reese on his hand 1, and I still think so. Here are the hands:
!S AQ
!H AJ984
!D A83
!C J73
!S T82
!H KT752
!D K6
!C AK9
S is in 6 !H on an old-fashioned auction and the opening lead is the !S 9. Q from the board, the K wins, the !S 3 is returned, W playing the 7. Trumps are drawn (W held Q3) after which TR ruffs a !S as W discards a !C. TR now explains why it is better to play E for a doubleton Q than to try first the !C J forcing the cover and then to return to the board to lead a !C toward the A9 for a finesse.
Sure, playing for the drop is better than the repeat finesse given what we know of the distribution, by why ruff the !S T at all? E is likely to hold the !S J, maybe not certain to hold it but very likely, so after drawing trump play !D K, small !D to board, ruff a !D. Then run !H. You make whenever E holds the !S J and the !C Q regardless of his !C length, and you still make it if, for some reason, W led the !S 9 from J93 as long as E holds the doubleton !C Q.
Ok, I guess the choice might depend on the lead agreements of your opponents, but playing E for both the !C Q and the !C T is not attractive and I think it's better to play him for the !S J and the !C Q with the back-up possibility of the !C Q being doubleton even if W rather than E holds the !S J.
Reese points out that the odds of making this are much better if N rather than S is the declarer.
Despite my above audacity, I very much recommend Reese, both the squeeze book and the play book. And I still like books, meaning actual physical books, despite the obvious joys of the internet. I turn 82 on Friday, an age group that appreciates books.
-
Kudos, Ken for the above!
I too hand a bagfull or Reese books once, and cannot explain how not of them made my 'not-expendable' list. His 'anglopile' presententation of the Precision system is THE ONE I would play if anyone pulled my chain to switch to that route. -- Sadly, there would be lots more pairs using Precision if not for the horrendous proliferations of VERSIONS!?
My all time favorite pick-up from Reese's writing is ...how to get 3 trick you desperately need NOW from THIS [club?] layout with us(west) on lead:
Kxx
AQx(x) Jxx(x?)
10xx(x)
When I was much younger, the idea of leading the CQ and having it ducked , then low again to pardr's Jack then finally back to my ace was pure magic. And the chance to do that to an opp declarer is STILL on my bucket list, though the set-up is not looking like a one in a million situation :)
-
I had one of those books in my language and Helen, our member was so kind to use automatic translator to pass it to English, it is the book "When to duck and when not to duck".
But as every auto translation, it surely has many mistakes, or phrases that can be formulated better. Would any member, that has English for mother language, volunteer to read and correct what is obviously wrong?
Thanks,
Sanya