Aug. 10th, 2007

jack: (Default)
Tonight's bridge theme was five diamonds. Just about every contract was, either making handily or going three down doubled. I met Camilla again, who I know from dancing and trinity (hi! if your livejournal ever comes back online) proving once again how small Cambridge is.

I sloped off to the Carlton. I got off early -- I'd meant to stay for half an hour, but exceeded that by less than an hour :) And I said hi to just about everyone -- Simon and Becky and Alison and Mobbsy and Duncan and Mark and AJ and Roger and Jess, and Rich and Ben.

It really is nice to go somewhere where everyone knows your name. And spontaneously gives you maths problems.

Quotes:

You know Ben from poohsoc? Oh, it really is all about the perverts, then.

Hi, I'm Jack.
Sean... Maths.
Good guess!
No, I meant me.

Oh, Duncan! Aren't you running a con tomorrow? And do you have any more accomodation?

Daily mail: Pi has more than three billion digits.
jack: (Default)
I mentioned in the last post I wanted to check which translation of Name of the Rose and Three Musketeers to get.

It seems Eco is invariably translated by William Weaver, who is supposed to be good, and is the editions I read. (Someone did helpfully point that out yesterday.)

Three Musketeers was slightly more difficult. I have the Wordsworth Classics edition[1]. It never occurred to me before to wonder who the translator was, but now I look, I couldn't find it anywhere! OK, maybe it's not always worth putting on the front cover, but they can certainly make or break a book, whoever they are, it seems odd it's not on the copyright page or anything.

I had a look on the internet, and it seems there's a *new* translation by Richard Pevear which many reviews have spoken glowingly of. He apparently translated many Russian novels which had previously been butchered. However, I can't read any of it[2], or find any specific comparison.

In the end, I decide to play it safe and order the same edition as I have, because his might be better, but I know this is very good, and it's always possible that this one is more suited to me than an overall better one would be. But if anyone else has read the new translation (out in Penguin, with Pevear's name on the cover), or compared both, I'd be very curious to hear their opinion.

[1] According to a faded label 50p from Galloway and Porter, probably early this millennium. Now I can't remember at all when I first read it. Did I read it at home? I don't think so. At school (non-officially)? Possibly. Or did I just pick it up in the bookshop and get very lucky? I can't remember. And because this was before I kept a diary, I'll probably never know. Mum, do you remember?

[2] Amazon is not on my lizt, as I'm grateful to them for sending me lots of books. However, I am still annoyed by a few little idiosyncrasies. Firstly, why couldn't amazon.uk and amazon.com share digitised texts? It's annoying if it's only available on .com and I haven't bought anything from there. Secondly, however they scan it, couldn't they give the first ten pages of novel, rather than ten pages of hagiographical waffling by the editor?
jack: (Default)
When I was typing the last post, I realised I was up all night worrying which translation of a book I had, and I suddenly felt all grown up.

I've been waiting *years* for that to happen. The last time was recently, when I suddenly realised I didn't care whether anyone thought I was populistic for liking a book everyone else did, or cussed for not liking a book everyone else did, but simply liked the one I enjoyed and didn't like the one I didn't :)
jack: (Default)
Fairly recently I was a bridge beginner again. At school and in the first year I learnt in a more teaching session where the majority of people were equally amateur, but recently it's really been social, with two different groups.

But both as a beginner, and now as someone talking to beginners, I've noticed a tendency to pile someone with advice to the extent that they feel very put upon and did everything wrong. From both sides of the fence. I wasn't sure if it was just me, but watching other people's expressions makes me think it isn't. (FWIW, with sgo bridge player friends, there's been less advice but occasional groaning or telling off; with ubc bridge player friends, there's been no criticism, but sometimes reams of advice.)

I think, since you could say a lot to any of us about a particular hand, people get the impression they don't get any less wrong, because they get the same amount of advice when they improve, it just gets more specific :)

Does that sound familiar to anyone?

Of course, standard advice is *never* to criticise and simply always be polite, which makes for a social game. If you're playing with people categorised as bridge "little old ladies", or simply someone who wants some fun and not to navel-gaze every hand, don't try and impose your views, let everyone have fun playing the way they want to!

But most people I know are always seeking to improve, so *do* always welcome *some* feedback, as well as choosing to play with friends. But it's still good advice not to post-mortem unless there's a reason for it.

If you agree, I thought I'd try to articulate some tips for how to give and take advice. Do you agree? What would you add?

For the expert:

* Start with a general overview. This is probably always welcome and polite and useful. Eg. "Thank you partner! Well played. You might have got an extra trick if [], " Don't necessarily do this, but I think it's a mistake to give any more specific advice without letting them know how well it went overall.

* Put advice in context, what's absolutely basic, and what's more situational? How often have you/have you seen someone leading a singleton at no-trumps?

* Make it clear what someone should see and someone should know. You can explain taking a finesse, and they should see when and where to do it. But don't say "when you bid 1nt, that meant...", say "Actually, we assign a specific meaning to that bid."

* You can't explain something to someone unless you get where they are. The advice that may be useful might not be "You needed an extra trick, you should have finessed the king", but "When you start the deal, you should try to form a provisional plan on how you're going to take tricks". The former alone won't help until they deduce they need the latter.

* If you want to post-mortem a hand and consider how you might have been able to make the most tricks, make it clear that this is not "you did it wrong and here's how to do it" but "well done partner, can I have a look, I'm curious".

* If you happen to have tact at your disposal, try employing it. Perhaps *offering* advice first, so someone is grateful to have it, rather than imposing it and making them resent it.

* Adding more to someone else's advice, even clarifying advice, can sometimes just make more overload.

* If someone seems to be feeling overwrought, move on.

* Play sometimes in a casual pub-type way, so everyone can have a laugh and experiment.

For the beginner:

* Be aware of the distinctions drawn above. The vast majority of advice isn't criticism.

* If you feel put upon, SAY SO! Most probably no-one's criticising, they're just not as good as they could be at giving helpful advice.

* Don't be scared away. It doesn't matter! Bridge is fun! Play bridge! Be proud of the things you go right! I remember my first successful squeeze (it wasn't even in bridge!) :)

* Ask for advice! It's probably more helpful than letting it be given. Say what you saw, bring people on-line, and see where you should have gone. "I knew you had 16pt, and I wanted to bid game, but I wasn't sure if we had a fit. I [] but what...? Oh, I see. And if I'd done that, then []..."

I definitely need to get on some regular partners :) And want to go to the UBC proper next term, and see how things come into perspective with proper duplicate scoring :)

By the way, Ghoti, Colin -- did Benedict enjoy bridge?
jack: (Default)
When Mair came to Cambridge, she took the opportunity to get rid of a lot of books she didn't want to have any more, to the voracious bibliovores of Cantabridgia. I've got these in keeping, and the aim is to give them away, so if anyone wants any, they are welcome. At some point I will take the residue to a charity shop. (Thus helpfully breaking my never-got-rid-of-books virginity, and helping me get rid of a few of mine. *One*, a good duplicate, I added to this pile :))

The list is here: http://mair-aw.livejournal.com/118145.html

ETA: On reflection, you had best first comment over there so Mair can cross it off. But ask here about physically getting it :)

Active Recent Entries