I’ve been playing Bridge more or less frequently for nearly 50 years, I think. Despite that, I still hesitate to call myself a “good player”. This is partially a reflection of my own skills and level of practice, but is also I believe an indication of the depth and richness that the game contains and will reveal to any player over time. Many bridge clubs recognise the category of “improver”, within which I would happily place myself, and which I would informally judge to contain perhaps 70-80% of regular players. Some other devotees clearly deserve to be called “advanced” and every year many join the ranks of “beginners” – most of whom will either decide that Bridge “isn’t for them” or relatively quickly graduate to improver status. Thus, most Bridge played – whether at home, online or in a club context is, I believe, “improver level”. The very nature of this form of the game is what makes it so enjoyable, I feel. In fact, I’m not sure I ever want to be an “advanced” player if it means that it all gets too serious and less fun!

As with Chess, I’ve been playing more Bridge recently and, I think, getting better. This is of course in the spirit of the “improvers” tag but the game also helpfully provides a range of indicators that assist the improver in judging whether real progress is being made. Interestingly, winning is not necessarily a key aspect; luck remains a feature, as does the quality of one’s opposition, and of your partner. So, while one can feel buoyed up by a string of good afternoons, there are other measures which I find equally important, and the fact that they exist puts this in a different category from something like Sudoku, which is effectively automatic and thus offers nothing new to learn after a relatively short time.

Some of these measures relate to prowess and speed at assessing simple facts about the hand, such as “how many points have I got?”; “how many trumps have gone?”; “did East follow the last round of Hearts or is s/he void?”; and so forth. Others are more subtle, such as “did the bidding indicate which of East or West is more likely to have the King?”. Both the very nature of these questions, and the degree to which they and the answers start to feel automatic and intuitive is I think a telling indicator of growing skill. Specifically, and personally, I learned to count trumps quite early on and this is now mostly automatic, unless I have a lapse in concentration; more recently though, I find I “know” how many cards of all suits outstand. This used to take quite a degree of concentration but with practice (and some shortcuts) I find that this is getting easier. (For an example of a “shortcut”, while also looking for voids and failures to follow, one can quickly reassess the remaining count – such as when there have been three rounds of Diamonds in a no-Trump hand with everyone following suit, then you know that 12 have gone, and the 13th card will thus be a winner.) Knowing how many of each suit outstand is useful at all stages of the game but most powerful towards the end. Whether playing or defending, knowing what to play or discard can be decisive and over time will of course feed through into the win rate – and the level of admiration from your partner!

On points, with many notable exceptions, there are some useful rules of thumb which tell you whether personally you can possibly or definitely bid, or just respond, and at what level. Similarly, once you have a feel for your partner’s point count, there are good broad-brush indicators of whether you could be in a part-score (roughly 22+), a game (25+), or even a slam (30+). Counting points has of course been automatic for me for many years, but more recently I’ve been trying to complement this with a conscious measure of the “losing trick count” which, when a suit is agreed, can be a very powerful indicator of the safe level of contract. I have much to learn on this but it feels very useful already, especially in combination with the points-centred assessment.

Where all this comes together most visibly, of course, is in the handling of “Conventions”. Whole books have been written about these, so a short blog piece is not going to do the topic anywhere near justice but, again, I find that this adds to the depth and richness of the game. Simply stated, as one’s portfolio of “understood” conventions grows then the feeling of skill deepens and one is better placed to choose what to use with any given partner (you don’t have to use everything with everyone). A common start point is the broad-based “Basic ACOL”, often complemented by the more narrowly-focused Blackwood, Stayman, Transfers and other enhancements. These are relatively quick to learn (in principle) but of course the real depth comes through only with practice. This is where the bridge clubs have always had a key role to play and, in today’s world, I find that the online platforms are complementing them in very interesting ways.

Clubs themselves are well-placed to support a “relaxed” form of “improvers”, where discussion of the bids and conventions is permitted over and above what is formally allowed by the rules – usually constrained to “alerts” of conventional bids and responses to “what do you understand by your partner’s bid?” Mutual learning can be very powerful and, once the objective of the session is clearly focused on that, rather than “winning”, then I find that the social aspect is greatly enhanced as well. Brutally speaking, Bridge is a great activity for anti-social people to socialise: you can stay largely silent without it seeming too odd, and speak only when required, or when joining a technical debate. Or you could be more chatty – within limits. As we were forced to move online, we’ve found complementary capabilities there that have added to the overall enjoyment, whilst retaining rigour. Alternatives are available, but we have found that BridgeBase Online takes the hassle out of dealing and keeping score, while also allowing us to compare our success with the various deals against others playing the same hands at the same time (as with a large “duplicate” tournament). The latter can also lead to good discussions as we learn from others, not just ourselves. In parallel, we have also found a 4-way WhatsApp video call a good substitute for “face to face” sessions, and adds to the “relaxed” element from which much enjoyment can be derived. Finally, I find that the BJ Bridge Lite tool “BriJ” perfect for solo practice, as the default conventions are fairly close to mine. Paid versions of various tools allow for customisation of the defaults, but I haven’t felt the need, as yet.

Finally, despite the “improvers” tag, there’s no penalty if you just want to socialise and “stay bad” once you’ve found a group of like-minded souls with similar (lack of) ambition. It’s still fun 🙂

Just one more way to stay sane in this strange world – give it a try!

I am not a good chess player but, like most of my generation, I started playing at an early age and “have always known” the basics. I find now though that I am playing more than perhaps ever before, and (finally?) making some progress towards a deeper understanding of how to get “better”.

As with any game of skill, practice helps; and the lockdown has provided an unexpectedly fertile context for enabling this. Not just in terms of my own time and the availability of a “good enough” technical platform, but also in the increased probability of finding counterparties with both time on their hands, and a similar mindset.

Also helpful is an opponent with a sufficiently-similar level of skill such that no-one gets bored: it’s just as dispiriting to “always win” as it is to consistently lose. I have one University friend who is much better than me and thus I always lose – so we play only very occasionally as a sort-of-benchmark as to whether I’m making progress – and I regard it as a courtesy from him to me. I probably could learn a lot from him but this would require taking it to a more formal teacher/pupil level and that’s not really what this is about. I’d rather get closer to his level through my own efforts and then re-enter the fray on a more even footing, if that is indeed possible. Chess fortunately also lends itself to fairly broad differences in capability – unlike squash, for example. With squash I learnt a long time ago that, because of the scoring system (you first have to win the serve back, and only then can you try and score a point) even small skill differences can rapidly lead to walkover-level scores as the better player rarely loses two interchanges in a row. Chess is much more forgiving than that.

Both of my schools took chess relatively seriously and I even recall playing for my year against a girls’ school when I was about 6, as part of a four-boy team. I probably wasn’t any good and my main memory of the day was that me and my first-game opponent decided to ignore the expectations that we would rotate to play all the other members, and instead played all four games against each other! Many years of playing at lunchtimes and in school clubs followed but, apart from buying the classic Harry Golombek book The Game of Chess, I don’t really recall any serious progress or study (or, indeed, teaching) and, in the 6th form, for me Bridge took over really (more on that another day).

My father and I had played fairly often until I was a teenager but once I got better than him that stopped, so my game had no real social dimension or impetus from there on. Chess is also not very televisual and doesn’t feature much in fiction either. Apart from a brief flurry of renewed interest after reading Walter Tevis’ The Queen’s Gambit, I don’t recall being inspired by any media coverage (even the Kasparov/Deep Blue matches) until the great 2016 film Queen of Katwe.

However, one thing that had made an impression on me was the occasional plot device of correspondence chess. Historically, each party would have a chessboard set out with the current state of the game, and each in turn would write (or telegram) to the other with a move. Games could thus take a very long time, or be quite active, depending on the thinking time needed, the relative busyness of the people, and the speed of communication (remembering that some UK postal districts used to have 7 deliveries per day…).

All the above thus coalesced into a conviction that there must be an internet-enabled App that would duplicate the asynchronous model of correspondence chess and be perfect for reconnecting with an old school friend/chess-foe. Quickly finding “Chess by Post” this happily proved to be true. Not only that, the App came with the usual internet features of being cloud-based and multi-platform – and also the powerful facility to plan moves before committing. This feature was new to me in practical terms – although of course the traditional simplistic measure of mastery is counted in “how many moves ahead can you see?” and we all strive to look “further”.

The combination of a well-matched partner, an App that allows us to maintain both an effectively-permanent series of games and to develop real skill through practice and scenario planning has provided a real breakthrough, I think. Re-reading Golombek yet again, I see further depth in the strategic options and approaches, and more is “sticking”. While the portfolio of standard openings is still a bit daunting, and I’m miles off learning some of the “classic games” of Fischer et al, there is a joy in identifying and executing certain plays, of which my current favourites are the pin and the fork. (Along with keeping my opponent in serial check – which is always fun and often very powerful strategically.)

Simplistically, the pin prevents an opponent’s move by implicitly threatening the piece that it behind the apparent target. Most aggressively, the King is the implicit target and thus the “pinned” piece cannot be moved at all – perhaps becoming an accidental sacrifice or a party to a suboptimal exchange such as Rook-for-Bishop. Looking for pin opportunities is a major feature of my current approach, second only to fork-seeking. The fork exploits a major differentiator of the Knight threat, in that it cannot be blocked, and threatens two pieces at once. Again, the most aggressive variant combines a check on the opponent’s King, with a threat to another piece – ideally the Queen. The fork is almost always very bad news for the victim. Furthermore, without very careful and diligent defence, this play can be very tricky to spot in advance, and is thus my favourite “surprise move” at the moment. Of course I must have read about these moves in Golombek before, but combined with continuous practice there is something deeper developing, which is very pleasing.

There is a long-standing allocation of points values to the various pieces (1 for a Pawn up to 9 for a Queen, etc.) which allocates 3 to both the Bishop and the Knight. Perhaps there are “hot debates” in the chess community about these and whether they are still appropriate for the modern game, but I haven’t yet been inspired to look. I have heard that Bishops are seen as more valuable early in the game, and Knights later on. However, given the above, I would definitely come down on the side of Knights, and will always sacrifice a Bishop for an opponent’s Knight, given the chance. Perhaps my next move should be another deeper reading of Golombek, looking for sophisticated Bishop plays, which might affect this view…? We’ll see.

Overall, I doubt this would work anywhere near as well with someone not previously known “in real life”, but I have found this near-perfect as a way of simultaneously developing a dormant skill and deepening a relationship with an old friend. (Who is hopefully enjoying this as much as me… there is also a chat function in the app which adds to the social dimension in a very elegant way – so I think so…)

So – if you’re currently thinking that you perhaps ought to “phone a friend”, or a relative, but aren’t sure what to say – this might be worth a try? It could change the world in a very small but positive way…

I am somewhat regretting starting this blog with the comment “I’m a natural optimist and positive person – happy, even. However, increasingly I feel that maintaining this approach requires a basic background environment that is at least OK”

Clearly, we are now facing a background environment that is even less “OK” than it was a year ago.  This is leading me to think even harder about the life- and purpose-affirming things worth celebrating over and above the family, home and friends that keep me going most of the time.  You may detect from my radio silence over the last few months that this has been tricky.  In my defence, I’ve been busy.  Also, an unexpected factor has been that it seems somewhat perverse to celebrate trivial things in a world of unusually serious tectonic shifts.

However, I’m going to have a go.

For some time, I was mulling over a celebration of the Derry Girls as near-perfect sitcom TV.  As with something like Bluestone 42, the ability to take a very serious and literally divisive context, populate it with a range of characters you care about, and make it consistently very funny is a rare skill, and something to be celebrated.  Kudos to Lisa McGee for this – it’ll be fascinating to see what she does next.  Sitcoms that “work” aren’t exactly rare, of course, and what works for me might not do so for you, but life would be a lot duller without them.

I’ve also been watching a lot of old vampire and horror films from the 60s and 70s which, despite often very creaky special effects and dubious plots, can be staffed by very good actors and thus acting.  British efforts in this category I think benefited from a great cross-fertilisation with theatre and one also gets the pleasure of watching yet-to-be-famous actors in early roles.  Kudos also here to the British Film Institute for taking these films appropriately seriously and making them available on BFI Player, and in particular to the Flipside team of Vic Pratt and William Fowler, whose book The Bodies Beneath is a very entertaining read on this subject.  It’ll take a few decades to tell whether this synergy is still there and whether today’s efforts and emerging talents will be similarly celebrated by the archivists of the future, but I hope so.

Finally, another persistent source of interest has been the “Walter Presents” section of World Drama on the channel 4 streaming service 4OD.  Walter’s hyperbolic introductions get a bit samey after a while, but his heart is in the right place and the sheer diversity of non-UK sources keeps things interesting.  Some of the plots and plot devices even from different countries can also be repetitive (e.g. the boss of the “rogue detective” who is always being leaned on by the press, politicians and higher-ups for quick results and threatening to pull the plug…), but the variety of cultural context really helps subvert the “I already know where this is going” factor that can be a risk with local TV.  The development of a truly global pool of TV (and film) access is a great feature of the internet, I feel, and hopefully a source of cross-cultural understanding.  Takk!

Meanwhile, it’s also heartening to have the time to watch the natural world in action relatively unaffected by human concerns and challenges.  Our spending on seed is amply repaid by watching the competition around the bird table and seeing how many species pay attention and join (or jump) the queue after the daily distribution.

Is this trivial?  I’m really not sure.  Maybe it’s the deeper truth.

I suspect that I will find films, books and music a key source of new delights worthy of mention here; therefore I thought it would make sense to start with some historic/persistent favourites, in order that we all know where I am coming from. Who knows, I may even pick one of these from time to time and dive a bit deeper to articulate why it makes the cut, just in case you might like it too… but I’ll start with a brief summary for now.

Top 32* Films

As my family and friends will testify, film is one of my obsessions. I think that the reason is the ability to immerse oneself in a self-contained story for a couple of hours, whether identifying with the protagonists or not, perhaps feeling the resonances with real life and sometimes just wallowing in the imagery or technical skill in the telling.

Broadly speaking, here I have chosen films that I have watched multiple times already, and would be happy to see again at any time, and to recommend to others. I am aware that this excludes many “great films” but, frankly, if I don’t feel the need to see something a second time then for me that puts it on a different list. Also, ones that are too new I have deliberately excluded, on the grounds that I will know in due course when and whether they have made “the list” – but it’s currently too early to tell. As such, I may well revise this post from time to time!

For now, I would cite the following:

1. The Wicker Man (Robin Hardy, 1973) **
2. The Man Who Fell to Earth (Nicolas Roeg, 1976)
3. Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, 1982)
4. Rollerball (Norman Jewison, 1975)
5. Groundhog Day (Harold Ramis, 1993)
6. Get Carter (Mike Hodges, 1971)
7. Serenity (Joss Whedon, 2005)
8. The Warriors (Walter Hill, 1979)
9. The Matrix (The Wachowskis, 1999)
10. Hero (Yimou Zhang, 2002)
11. Point Blank (John Boorman, 1967)
12. Mad Max 2 (George Miller, 1981)
13. For a Few Dollars More (Sergio Leone, 1965)
14. Monty Python and the Holy Grail (Terry Gilliam & Terry Jones, 1975)
15. Theatre of Blood (Douglas Hickox, 1973)
16. The Terminator (James Cameron, 1984)
17. Heathers (Michael Lehmann, 1988)
18. The Adventures of Robin Hood (Michael Curtiz & William Keighley, 1938)
19. Underworld (Len Wiseman, 2003)
20. The Long Good Friday (John Mackenzie, 1980)
21. Harold and Maude (Hal Ashby, 1971)
22. Hanna (Joe Wright, 2011)
23. Shaun of the Dead (Edgar Wright, 2004)
24. Captain Blood (Michael Curtiz, 1935)
25. The Draughtsman’s Contract (Peter Greenaway, 1982)
26. Twelve Monkeys (Terry Gilliam, 1995)
27. Secretary (Steven Shainberg, 2002)
28. Donnie Darko (Richard Kelly, 2001)
29. The Harder They Come (Perry Henzell, 1973)
30. The Princess Bride (Rob Reiner, 1987)
31. Forbidden Planet (Fred Wilcox, 1956)
32. The Producers (Mel Brooks, 1968)

(* This may sound like a strange number, but I’m a binary fan…)

(** A purist might say that the title should be enough, but with all the (pointless) remakes around I thought it would be safer to be explicit.)

Top 16 Books

In contrast to my approach to film, I almost never re-read fiction. Firstly, life is just too short and there are so many books out there; and secondly I like the element of discovery – once I know the ending it removes that dimension. (I know you’re thinking “why does that not apply to films as well?” – but I don’t know!) Thus, while I will shamelessly recommend these to others – perhaps years after I should have realised that it was no longer appropriate – these are all “first impressions” for me.

NB though, often these will be my view of a “best book” from an author where I have read pretty much everything… so feel free to extrapolate.

Fiction

1. Dhalgren (Samuel R Delany)
2. Excession (Iain M Banks)
3. Don’t Point That Thing at Me (Kyril Bonfiglioli)
4. Crime and Punishment (Fyodor Dostoyevsky)
5. The Food Chain (Geoff Nicholson)
6. Cryptonomicon (Neal Stephenson)
7. Altered Carbon (Richard Morgan)
8. The Fan Man (William Kotzwinkle)
9. Thus Was Adonis Murdered (Sarah Caudwell)
10. The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul (Douglas Adams)

Non-Fiction

1. Non Zero (Robert Wright)
2. Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ’72 (Hunter S Thompson)
3. Fuzzy Thinking (Bart Kosko)
4. Emergence (Steven Johnson)
5. Amusing Ourselves to Death (Neil Postman)
6. Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak-Catchers (Tom Wolfe)

Music

In my younger days, the single was the calling card, but the album was “the thing” to which one graduated in order to signal allegiance. Quite apart from the additional investment required, being seen with a copy of a cool album under one’s arm was a significant mark. Even then, though, few albums actually worked as complete entities – rather devolving into two or three (or even just one) killer tracks and a residue of filler.

These days, of course, the song is once again not just the appetiser but often the main course also, with attendant video. I still have lots of albums (and CDs) but rarely play any all the way through. And where we used to make mixtapes we now generate and circulate playlists.

I’ll admit to a new problem, though, in that many familiar songs play in my head as soon as I think of them – removing the need to actually listen! I’m not sure how common this is, but it means that I now react very well to “new good stuff”, and can often listen on heavy repeat before the internal player kicks in. As such, what follows is somewhat a “point in time” view.

This makes choosing a “best of” list very hard. Suffice to say that it would feature many tracks from the Ramones, T.Rex and the Sex Pistols, plus regular appearances from ABBA, Lily Allen, Alter Bridge, Atomic Kitten, Beau Brummels, Blondie, Blue Oyster Cult, Bowie, Kate Bush, Cash Brothers, Leonard Cohen, Elvis Costello, Cure, Divine Comedy, Dropkick Murphys, Echo & the Bunnymen, Caro Emerald, Erasure, Eurythmics, Paloma Faith, Flaming Groovies, The Flaming Stars, Florence and the Machine, Green Day, Human League, Iggy Pop, Jesus and Mary Chain, Elton John, Kraftwerk, Lady Gaga, Led Zeppelin, Madonna, Melodians, Mink DeVille, Monkees, Moses, Muse, Pet Shop Boys, Pink Floyd, Pogues, Public Image Ltd, Queen, Rezillos, Shangri-Las, Siouxsie & the Banshees, Sparks, The The, Frank Turner, Ultravox!, Undertones, U2, Velvet Underground, Wreckless Eric, Yazoo and Ylvis.

These would be complemented by one-off entries where I have effectively invested all my attention in one song by that artist – for example:

• All of My Heart – ABC
• All or Nothing – Small Faces
• Amsterdam – Jacques Brel
• At Home – Crystal Fighters
• Ballad of Lucy Jordan – Marianne Faithfull
• Band of Gold – Freda Payne
• Be The One – Dua Lipa
• Brown Eyed Girl – Van Morrison
• Candy – Paolo Nutini
• Clearest Blue – Chvrches
• Cups – Anna Kendrick
• Common People – Pulp
• Dance the Night Away – Mavericks
• Death of the European – The Three Johns
• Desolation Row – Bob Dylan
• Fields of Fire – Big Country
• Final Day – Young Marble Giants
• Four Seasons in One Day – Crowded House
• Freak Scene – Dinosaur Jr
• I Drove All Night – Cyndi Lauper
• I Fought The Law – Bobby Fuller Four
• I Feel Love – Donna Summer
• If You Tolerate This Your Children Will Be Next – Manic Street Preachers
• I’m Gonna Be – Proclaimers
• I’m Still Waiting – Diana Ross
• I’m Yours – Jason Mraz
• In Dreams – Roy Orbison
• Kiss Me – Sixpence None the Richer
• Last Resort – Eagles
• Like a Hurricane – Neil Young
• Lonely Spy – Lori and the Chameleons
• Motherless Children – Eric Clapton
• Not Too Soon – Throwing Muses
• Paradise – George Ezra
• Pssyche – Killing Joke
• Question – Moody Blues
• Revolutionary Spirit – Wild Swans
• She Will Be Loved – Maroon 5
• Ship Song – Nick Cave
• Smokers Outside the Hospital Doors – Editors
• Song to the Siren – This Mortal Coil
• Soul Happy Hour – Jazz Butcher
• Sound of Silence – Disturbed
• Story of the Blues – Wah
• St Trinians Chant – Girls Aloud
• Torn – Natalie Imbruglia
• Trouble is a Friend – Lenka
• Truly Madly Deeply – Savage Garden
• Welcome to the Black Parade – My Chemical Romance
• What’s Up? – 4 Non Blondes
• When We Die – Bowling for Soup
• Where Were You? – Mekons
• White Flag – Dido
• White Man in Hammersmith Palais – Clash

Top 4 Equations

As a mathematically-inclined physicist, I have to admit a fondness for the fundamental purity of Maths – but some Physics equations are just as beautiful.

1. The Euler Identity – all 5 fundamental constants in one equation:
2. Maxwell’s Equations – electromagnetism, basically:
3. Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence formula – nuclear physics:
4. Schrodinger’s Equation – quantum mechanics:

And…

… of course, my family and friends, who I won’t talk about here!