bridge

• closed bridge variations
• open vs. closed
• length

for more information, see Sections 2.03, 7.09, and 7.10 in The Illustrated Principles of Pool and Billiards

closed bridge variations

Where should the index finger be with a closed bridge?

from sfleinen:

The overlapping index finger closed bridge [with the index finger wrapping around the cue and firmly pressing on top of the middle finger] is extremely stable, since one of the legs of the tripod (the ring finger) is the foundation that the cue rests on, with the index finger keeping the cue down on top of it. It's basically a self-locking bridge. (This is as opposed to the traditional closed loop bridge, which consists of a "two-piece" construction -- the three-finger tripod / heel of the hand foundation is one piece, and the index finger loop / thumb is another piece; the player has to make sure that both "pieces" are pressed/locked together to keep it stable.) The overlapping index finger bridge also forms a "V"-bridge internally, albeit this "V"-bridge is laying on its side, with the open aperture of the "V" facing the player. The traditional looped index finger closed bridge tends to more or less form a circular orifice, or else a "shelf" (on the thumb) that the cue rests on.

The only caveat with the overlapping index finger closed bridge is that it almost "requires" a shaft with a pro taper. A standard slope-tapered shaft will "jam" inside the aperture created by the index finger on top of the ring finger, unless the player compensates by slightly releasing the pressure [applied by the index finger on top of the ring finger] in direct correlation with the increasing diameter of the shaft as it passes through that aperture.

open vs. closed

Is a closed bridge better than an open bridge?

I think an open bridge is better for most players and most shots. It doesn't look as fancy as the wide variety of closed bridges people use, and it is a lot easier to learn (even for beginners), but I think that's why some people think it isn't any good. An open bridge:

• provides unobscured view of the stick, for aiming and establishing the stroking direction.
• is very stable, even at fairly large heights (with the heel of the hand on the table and the hand cupped).
• keeps the stick centered and unrestricted in the V-shape through the entire stroke, even with significant shaft taper (this is not the case with all closed bridges).

Also, many great players trained in the snooker world (e.g., Allison Fisher and Karen Corr) use an open bridge for most of their shots. To me, this is fairly good evidence that an open bridge might be better. Accuracy is much more important in snooker than in pool (because of the huge table and small pockets), so they must be using an open bridge for a reason. Food for thought.

There are some shots (e.g., power shots, especially power follow) where a closed bridge might be more effective, but I think many people discount the open bridge without having valid reasons.

length

Is a longer bridge better?

TP A.10 shows how when you increase bridge length, the cue ball contact point error can increase. This can create unwanted English, which can result in unwanted squirt (cue ball deflection), swerve (cue ball curve), and throw.

Bridge length can also effect how you apply English and compensate for squirt. For more information, see aim compensation for squirt, swerve, and throw.

A longer bridge length can help create more power with less jerkiness; but with more length you will get less tip-placement accuracy. Every individual will have an optimal length where these tradeoffs are balanced.

More information about bridge length effects can be found in my December '08 article.

from Spiderman:

I agree with that analysis, however we are talking about tip-contact error relative to that produced by a shorter bridge. If both techniques result in acceptably small error, then there can be advantages to the longer bridge:

1. Long-bridge acceleration doesn't need to be as high to reach the same tip speed (firm shots). Perhaps error at the back hand might actually be greater on some firm shots, if taken using a short bridge, because of the snappy acceleration required. Though the short bridge would divide down this increased error, I could still imagine a net loss in accuracy.

2. Level cue: Some players with large or inflexible hands have more trouble getting their bridge height down. Moving the fulcrum back would reduce the resulting "tilt" angle.

3. Sighting: I personally like being able to clearly see the "forward" portion of my shaft during warm-up strokes. I could imagine this being hindered if you have both a low stance and a short bridge.

from dr_dave:
That's an excellent summary of the advantages of a long bridge. I agree with your list, especially item 1. In TP A.10, I was simply pointing out one possible disadvantage of a long bridge. BTW, I think another possible advantage is:

4. Some people feel more natural and comfortable with a longer bridge and stroke.

Like many things in pool, personal preference and comfort is often an important factor.

from Bob_Jewett:

My experience is that most players can get plenty of power with a much shorter bridge than they usually use. Also, for players with long bridges watch how far the tip comes back on their backstroke. If it does not come back to the bridge hand or pretty nearly, the bridge is longer than it needs to be (unless you want to make some kind of pivot-point, BHE argument).

from Colin_Colenso:

[Here are possible reasons why a player might use a longer bridge:]

4 reasons off the top of my head:

1. Corrects errors in stroke on many shots due to pivot point characteristics.
2. Visually gives good look at cue line.
3. Allows smaller adjustments in alignment for the same amount of bridge adjustment.
4. Allows more fluid stroke. (mainly helps for speed control)