Suit combinations

March 30, 2011 at 6:10 am 2 comments

Let’s keep the other stuff going, but something about actual bridge too.

Some of you asked for a copy of Ian Frank’s book on Searching and Planning as it related to bridge. Here is the original post: Searching and Planning

Ian has now come close to finishing a book on suit combinations:

Card Combinations Complete
A Computer-Generated Compendium

The introduction starts off:

This book is the definitive reference on Bridge card combinations. It contains
more problems and more solutions than any other book, and it contains no
errors. It also differs from other books about card combinations in another
major way: with the exception of the introduction you are now reading, it is
entirely written by a computer.

I’ve been looking at it today and we’ve been discussing some of the issues regarding which the authors would like some feedback. One is how deep and how shallow this book should go?

I confess I often go to the card combination section of the Encyclopedia and find what I’m looking for is missing. Unfortunately I’ve never keep track of these combinations so I can’t give an example.

Does anybody have any thoughts? Has anybody got specific examples: why hasn’t the Encyclopedia got….???

It’s my bedtime now…look forward to getting up in the morning and getting your ideas.


Entry filed under: thoughts on bridge.

Making bridge in Australia better. Collecting some thoughts. Guys, p-leeasssssseeeeeeeee

2 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Ben Thompson  |  April 6, 2011 at 8:29 am

    Big tables of card sombinations have some, but limited, use. One problem is that many combinations are essentially the same as one representative example. You’re much better off understanding the principles and the process for solving a suit combination than memorising a zillion combinations.

    Another problem is that suit combination tables don’t consider context. ‘A priori’ lines are frequently wrong at the table when you factor in the action to date. For example, ‘nine never’.

    Fred Gitelman wrote an interesting article on his perspective.

  • 2. Andrew  |  April 5, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    Why isn’t the Encyclopaedia online so I don’t have to cart it around on the off chance I need it?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

March 2011
« Feb   Apr »

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: