HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: bidding after a t/o double
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:50:00 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <1993Jan24.222142.1584@linus.mitre.org> bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.191124.5033@netcom.com> rudy@netcom.com (Rudy) writes:
>>You hold:   AQ  AKTx  x  AQJT7x
>>Matchpoints
>>RHO  You  LHO  Pard
>>1S    X    P    2H
>>P     ?
>>
>>Your plan?  I don't want to hear if you didn't double the first time,
>>because then you are playing in 2C and it's not even a play problem.
>
>In any event, I now bid 4H. What's the problem? You certainly can't
>be thinking of more with 4 losers. If partner has 2 or 3 cover cards
>he will move over 4H.
>--
>Bob Silverman

Isn't this a little conservative given the opening bid on the right? Surely
the club and spade finesses have become substantially better than 50%
in this auction (especially since LHO couldn't find any bid over the double).
If partner has as little as:
xxx	QJxxxx	xxx	xx
it seems to me that slam is a reasonable contract (depending upon the
defence all that it might need is a club finesse) and I wouldn't expect
partner to move after a 4H bid with this hand.
From: willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Offshape doubles
Keywords: double, free bid.
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:44:19 GMT
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


In article <1993Jan25.181742.26365@rayssd.ssd.ray.com>,
sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Steven G. Myerson) writes: 
> By this I mean, after (1M) - X - (2M) - 2N,
> where 2N is a transfer to 3C, the start of a Lebensohl sequence.
> What you lose is the ability to bid a natural 2N,
> but how often will this come up?

Bridge World Standard uses Lebensohl in the sequence weak2-double-P.
This sequence is similar to yours in some respects: opponents are
known to have a fit or long suit, one opponent is limited, and while
the opponents may be strong, they need not be.

However, there are significant differences.  In your sequence, the
opponents have at least 1/3 of the high cards, even if 2M can be very
weak.  Usually they will have close to half.  Also, doubler was under
less pressure after the opening one-bid, so there is a stronger
implication of support for all suits.  Finally, it wouldn't be rare,
especially at matchpoints, for 2NT to be the right spot.  Even if
opener's suit takes five tricks, you may take all the rest, or -50 or
-100 may beat -110's at other tables.  After the two-bid, if the long
suit runs, 2NT is probably down, and if it doesn't, 3NT probably
makes.  I don't think it would be ridiculous to play Lebensohl in
your sequence, especially if you play undisciplined takeout doubles,
but the case is much less compelling.
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu
  member, League for Programming Freedom; contact league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: boyiny@kovalevskaya.mit.edu (Professor Who?)
Subject: What is so terrible about doubling offshape?
Summary: A good idea.
Keywords: Double
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 20:46:55 GMT
Old_subject: Re: Assess the blame

Don A. Varvel writes:
>In article <C17KB0.BuJ@cs.uiuc.edu> bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao) writes:
>>|>           West               East
>>|>           AQ94               3
>>|>           AQT9               62
>>|>           K                  QT9865
>>|>           A642               9853
>  
>>|>                    (P)       P
>>|>  (1H)     X        (2H)      3D
>>|>           3NT                4D
>>|>           4S                 5C
>>|>           P        (X)*

>>Ummmm.... where to begin... the double is tough... not unreasonable.
>
>I beg to differ.  I'm ... for
>a 1NT overcall, preferring 16-19, and so have no problem with a 1NT
>overcall here.  ... would
>overcall 1NT even having agreed 15-18.  ... possible to
>miss game.  ... possible to go for 800 if you double.

>What do you plan to rebid?  Is this really a 19-20 HCP balanced hand, as
>it should be if you rebid 2NT?  I think it's better to pass than to double
>on this hand.

Surely you jest.  I know, you are not joking, which makes it even worse.
Why is everyone so afraid of offshape doubles?  The brainwashing really is
complete.  Bad things may happen.  Tough, that is life, I expect to
lose--lose big perhaps-- some of the time when I enter the auction, but I
consider pass bordering on the criminal, no matter how many experts do it.

>>3D is flat out wrong -- with AQxxxx of diamonds maybe or QJTxxx and
>>an outside K yes -- but on the actual hand it is ridiculous..
>Again, I disagree.  ... 3D won't buy the contract and serves no
>constructive purpose. 

As you demonstrated so well, it is a stupid bid that will only serve to
mislead partner.

>Since I trust my partners not to double [offshape]
>I would consider bidding 5D as a premature sacrifice. ...

With _doubleton_small_ in hearts????

>As for the rest of the auction, I agree everyone should have passed
>at nearly every opportunity.

3NT is not implausible, just unlucky.

>I think there's plenty of blame to go around on this hand.  But of the
>calls that got this mess started, I'm least fond of the double.

because "nobody does it" does not mean it is wrong.

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: rudy@netcom.com (Rudy)
Subject: Re: What to do when the rules conflict?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:40:05 GMT

In article <1jml68INNdr7@transfer.stratus.com> tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill) writes:
>I suppose you have agreements concerning at least these three auctions:
>
>     1C-2C(natural)-P
>     1C-2C(majors)-P
>     1C-2C(no agreement)-P
>
>I also gather that the meanings of pass in those three auctions are
>overlapping but not identical.  If so, partner gave you the unauthorized
>information that he has a pass in any of these auctions, so your future
>bids and plays are restricted by Law 16A!  In any case, you should alert the
>pass and tell her what it means in all three auctions.  Finding out their
>agreement concerning 2C would help to explain your agreement concerning pass
>only if partner had somehow known about their agreement at the time he passed!

This is silly.  Partner gave no unauthorized information, except maybe that
he knows what your opponents are playing, and you don't.  He might have
played against them before, looked at their convention card while you 
weren't looking or made some other assumption.

>Of course, there are some circumstances where you must interrupt RHO and say
>"excuse me, partner's bid may be alertable, but I need a review (or an
>explanation or a look at your convention card) first."  However, this isn't
>one of those situations.

It most certainly sounds like it to me.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: davidm@questor.Rational.COM (David Moore)
Subject: Re: Ready for Flight A ?
Organization: Rational
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:26:54 GMT

willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) writes:


>Here's an interesting play problem from a recent sectional Flight B Swiss.

>The bidding has gone:
>      W     N     E     S
>     1C     P     P    2NT (=18-20 balanced)
>      P    3NT   all pass

>EW are playing a generic five-card major bidding system with 15-17
>notrump.  The minor suit opening promised three cards.

>The opening lead is the K of hearts, and you see:

>        65   J93  AKQ5  9643

>        AKQ3 82   T63   AKJ7

>West proceeds to cash four rounds of hearts, having started with
>AKQT.  What do you discard on the hearts, and how do you play to make
>3NT?  West will not lead a club into your tenace.

I do not believe there is a sure line because you cannot get an exact count
without cutting your communications.

The problem hand is West being 1444. I think old-style Acol opens 4441 singleton
spade hands 1C. I would tend do do so playing standard since I believe 1D/b/2C
should normally be 5/4 rather than 4/4.

How good a player is West? If a poor player, there is probably
nothing to be infered from the fact that he rectified the count. A
more advanced player, if 1444, would see the squeeze and would not rectify 
the count, but might not recognize the possibility of a squeeze against
partner.

Perhaps a really good defender would rectify the count so you would play
for the wrong squeeze, but this seems far fetched, so I would think that
it will be fairly safe to discount the possibility of West being 1444.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: rudy@netcom.com (Rudy)
Subject: Re: HCP Diatribe
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:38:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.183734.29020@midway.uchicago.edu> pynq@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.061308.2296@netcom.com> rudy@netcom.com (Rudy) writes:
>>In article <C1439q.5Fw@irvine.com> adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) writes:
>>>to bet that there are other ACBL rules that make this clear, so that
>>>the rule you're quoting can't be interpreted properly out of context. 
>
>>You're kidding, right?
>
>Frayed knot.  What he is describing is a system a lot like our current
>system of speed limits.  The posted limit is one thing - the actual
>limit another.  The result: confusion and arbitrary enforcement.

Huh?  Did you not read the whole post?  Adam said: I'm willing to
be that there are other ACBL rules that make this clear
and I said yeah, right, ACBL have clear rules?

>>>Maybe so, if they can find another way to ban fert bids.  Assuming
>>>that this is a worthy goal, the 8-HCP rule, together with an
>>>understanding that players are allowed to add points for hand
>>>evaluation, seems to me a reasonable way to accomplish the goal.
>>
>>Ferts are already banned as "any bid which is destructive in nature"
>
>Yup.  Like pre-empts, weak two bids, and weak overcalls.

Are you being dense?  Ferts don't carry any constructive meaning.
Pre-empts, while obstructing opponent's bidding carry some limited
message about the hand.  Some point count (within a given range) and
some distribution (like longest suit).

Maybe I should have said are *only* destructive in nature.
From: caren@engin.umich.edu (Caren Levine)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Mac Bridge Program
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:46:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
NNTP-Posting-Host: orpington.engin.umich.edu


Does anyone know of a free/shareware/PD type Bridge game for
the Mac that I could ftp from anywhere?  I'm a VERY VERY
novice player (a friend has given me one "quickie" lesson)
and I want more!

Also, could someone please e-mail me the FAQ for this group,
if there is one?  Thanks.

	Caren Levine (caren@engin.umich.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: bidding judgment
From: avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:57:56 GMT
Organization: Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler) writes:
: I agree with Bob Silverman that most of my
: bidding problems are do to a lack of bidding
: judgment and ability to evaluate a hand (pair of hands)
: properly. However I was using this very fact to argue with
: my partner to adopt a non-standard bidding system.
: Briefly I thought by seeing how a radically different
: system would evaluate hands that that might improve
: our bidding judgment.

Go right ahead. It will improve your bidding judgement. Don't change
to Precision however, since the basic structure is similar to 2/1.
(except for the specialty bids and the 13-15 NT).

I would recommend Blue Team Club. Easy enough to learn, and practically
forces you to improve judgement. However, Acol, while not radically different
from SA, is also way to obtain a different view and develop judgement.

This is true, provided you spend enough time studying the meaning of Acol,
particularly difficult for SA players to get are the mini-opening bids,
and the use of Swiss rather than splinter. If you just assume Acol is
a variation of SA, don't bother.  A good source for Acol is Reese and Dormer:
The Acol System Today.  (Today is a bit of an anachronism, the book is
at least 20 years in print)

Avi




--
Aviel Roy-Shapira, M.D.         Ben-Gurion University Medical School
Dept. of Surgery A.             POB 151, Beer Sheva, Israel
avir@chen.bgu.ac.il             AVIR@BGUVM.BITNET
From: mclegg@cs.ucsd.edu (Matthew Clegg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: SA-YC explained (for okbridge and beginners).
Date: 28 Jan 93 01:59:49 GMT

In <24JAN93.17093222@nerus.pfc.mit.edu> mrl@nerus.pfc.mit.edu writes:

>There are a lot of beginners (like myself) and okbridge players that might
>benefit from the reposting of this message which explains the ACBL Yellow Card
>(known as SA-YC in okbridge).

By the way, there is a .gif image of the yellow card and text versions
of the bridge world standard and precision bidding systems available
by anonymous ftp from cs.ucsd.edu in the dir pub/clegg/bridge/conventions.

I would be happy to store descriptions of other bidding systems, if people
would like to submit them.  Any takers, Moty? :)

-- Matt.
-- 
Matthew Clegg, Gradual Student  (619) 558-3408            mclegg@cs.ucsd.edu
UCSD, Computer Science                             Jettison the Afterburners!
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ingvar@doctor.chem.yale.edu (Ingvar Lagerstedt)
Subject: Re: bidding after a t/o double
Organization: Yale University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:54:59 GMT

rudy@netcom.com (Rudy) writes:
: You hold:   AQ  AKTx  x  AQJT7x
: Matchpoints
: RHO  You  LHO  Pard
: 1S    X    P    2H
: P     ?
: 
: Your plan?  I don't want to hear if you didn't double the first time,
: because then you are playing in 2C and it's not even a play problem.
: So, if you bid 3C you play it there, but if you bid 2S, partner bids 3H
: 
: Now what?
: If you bid 4C, partner wil bid 4H.  Do you take another call?  What?
: 
Sorry about the previous non-reply.

There are some conclusions that can be drawn from the opponents lack of 
further bidding. LHO would have bid 2S with almost any hand with 3 spades
(and some with 2), LHO did not X 2S as he would with Kx in spades. RHO
did not X to show extra strength over 2H, neither did he bid 2S as he 
*might* have done with a 6-bagger, nor 3D to show a 5-5. (The rest of
the bidding indicate at least 9 diamonds between the opps.) LHO did not
bid 2D (first round) or 3D (second round), depending on methods, as he
probably should have done with HHxxx and a random 7-count.

Partner has at least 3 and often 4 spades, with 5 he would probably 
have bid 2NT over 2S, even if they are bad.
Partner has probably some HCP's despite his weak bidding, as LHO did not
find a bid. The remaining HCP's can of course be divided 15-5, but still
it is IMHO not unreasonable to give partner 2-3 HCP. As far as the bidding
have proceeded partner can have both xxxx xxxx xxx xx and xxxx QJxxx xxx x.
I think the prospects are in favour for finding partner with the latter
hand, so I bid 5H. Even without the HJ 6H is a good spot.

Regards,
Ingvar

Ingvar@doctor.chem.yale.edu
From: maceache@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Tim Maceachern)
Subject: Re: What to do when the rules conflict?
Organization: NSTN Network Operations Centre, Nova Scotia, Canada
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 00:13:24 GMT

tac6189@hertz.njit.edu (Tom Carmichael                                                  ) writes:

>In article <1jml68INNdr7@transfer.stratus.com> tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill) writes:
>>
>>I suppose you have agreements concerning at least these three auctions:
>>
>>     1C-2C(natural)-P
>>     1C-2C(majors)-P
>>     1C-2C(no agreement)-P
>>
>>I also gather that the meanings of pass in those three auctions are
>>overlapping but not identical.  If so, partner gave you the unauthorized
>>information that he has a pass in any of these auctions, so your future
>>bids and plays are restricted by Law 16A!  In any case, you should alert the
>>pass and tell her what it means in all three auctions.  Finding out their
>>agreement concerning 2C would help to explain your agreement concerning pass
>>only if partner had somehow known about their agreement at the time he passed!

>I'm not sure I agree with this.  There is no reason to assume that partner is
>not aware of what there bids mean.  He may have (perhaps without you 
>noticing or when he/she sat down at the table) looked at there conv. card
>and is aware of what the opponents are playing.  There is no reason to assume
>otherwise and _certainly_ no reason to assign a penalty simply because 
>partner did not invoke an _option_ of his to look at the opponents card.
>In point of fact, the way the problem was stated, he _could_ have looked at
>the card and then made his call.  I don't see a problem here at all.

>Incidentally, the original problem is a tough one, one I have encountered 
>myself.  I, fortunately, didn't have the problem of the opponents refusing
>to tell me what their bids meant so I could explain mine.  I really don't 
>have a solution for you, just muddle through as best you can.

>Tom Carmichael

I think that ethically you must assume that partner is aware of the 
nature of the cuebid.  It is not ethical to assign a meaning to partner's
bid "I'll bid this no matter what the cuebid means."  It is therefore
not ethical for partner to bid that way, or for you to reach a
conclusion that he/she has bid that way.

*******************************************************************
*         Tim MacEachern         * Tim_MacEachern@hawk.nstn.ns.ca *
*     Software Kinetics Ltd.     *  or maceache@hawk.nstn.ns.ca   *
* Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada *                                *
*           Opinions expressed are the author's only              *
*******************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: boyiny@kovalevskaya.mit.edu (Professor Who?)
Subject: Bhavanani Overcalls
Organization: MIT, Department of Mathematics
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 21:20:07 GMT


Used by some in the New England area, interesting and action-packed
although not necessarily sound in theory, the basic outline of the
structure is as follows:

Cue-bid=	Takeout with splinter in enemy suit, 4(+) cards in HUBS
1NT=		takeout with splinter in enemy suit, 3 cards in HUBS
1x=		Ostensibly natural overcalls but very aggressive
2x=		Suit and suit above (4+ each), not counting opened suit.
2NT=		equivalent of a light intermediate jump overcall.
3x=		preemptive.  [Sometimes 2NT and 3x are reversed.]

Double= any 14+ with Roman responses (next step= negative, other suits=
	short/weak suit, jumps= one under a long suit, cue= GF).

I recommend a good sense of humour if you are going to do any of this,
also, check in advance with director to see whether it is allowed.


Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao)
Subject: Re: Offshape doubles
Keywords: double, free bid.
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 13:10:31 GMT

In article <davidm.727750659@questor>, davidm@questor.Rational.COM (David Moore) writes:
|> boyiny@polya.mit.edu (Professor Who?) writes:
|> 
|> >hampton@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik) writes:
|> 
|> >>[Matchpts. South dlr., E-W game]
|> >>          West               East
|> >>          AQ94               3
|> >>          AQT9               62
|> >>          K                  QT9865
|> >>          A642               9853
|> >> 
|> >>                   (P)       P
|> >> (1H)     X        (2H)      3D
|> >>          3NT                4D
|> >>          4S                 5C
|> >>          P        (X)*
|> 
|> The only thing that could suggest not bidding 3D with this hand is
|> the doubleton heart. This is the worst holding you can have in
|> this situation. You would rather have 1 or 3. You expect 3D to
|> be away 1, but you do not expect to be doubled (especially as
|> double by LHO is probably a game try)

Why is 2 small the worst holding you could have?  Not even close --
xxx is by far worse, especially since its very possible that they could 
be on a 4-3 fit or a 5-2 (have you never raised 1H or 1S to 2 with
a weak hand and a doubleton honor over an X).

|> Even if you play 1NT as 15-18, this is not an underbid
|> with this miserable 19 count. If you don't consider you
|> can bid 1NT because of the singleton, then you certainly
|> cannot double with the intention of bidding NT later.
|> 

In my post I advocated 1NT as an overcall, but this is by no means a 
"miserable" 19 count.  yes, your stiff DK does not pull its weight
by any means, but look at your heart holding of AQT9 -- that
could quite easily be worth 3 trciks, especially if
the opponents are kind enough to lead hearts... surely it pulls
more weight than the lowly 6 HCP you allow it.

I think 1NT is the best bid at MPs (as I said in my original
reply), but it is a distinct underbid IMO -- not an evaluated
18 count...

Bharat

-- 
R. Bharat Rao                         E-mail: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu
AI Group, Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology
405 N. Mathews, Urbana, IL 61801   (217)-333-5978 (O), 337-6498(H)
Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana
From: adam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Adam Hamilton)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Alerts in real time (Was: Computer Bridge and the Law)
Date: 22 Jan 93 10:15:05 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <dej.0043@qpoint.ocunix.on.ca> dej@qpoint.ocunix.on.ca (David Jones) writes:
:
:Question: what happens if RHO bids before you can utter the word "Alert"?
:(It has happened to me.)
:
:What laws apply in this situation given that if RHO wants to change his
:call, then there has been unauthorized information.

	This is RHO's fault for not bidding in tempo.  I normally ignore it
until/unless RHO complains when I point this out.  If RHO wants to change
his bid, call the director and get a ruling.  I'll say that again, DON'T
guess what the law is, call the director and get a ruling.  This can save
a lot of grief.
	If you don't like RHO anyway, object to his too-fast bidding
immediately.  :-) I hope.
From: brl@kopasker.is (Bjorgvin Runar Leifsson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Big Club-Not Precision
Keywords: bidding, play, defense.
Date: 21 Jan 93 01:59:39 GMT
Organization: Primary School of Kopasker, Iceland

Professor Who? writes:

>[Bob S.:]

>>Expecting that mediocre players are going to improve their game by
>>switching to a more difficult bidding system is laughable.

>Perhaps not, but I would expect any pair to show a profit by switching
>to a substantially better/more-thought-out system, providing that
>there is no memory overload-- no?  

Agree and furthermore:  Do strong club systems need to be more difficult than
natural systems, like those played in North-America?  The blue club is not so
complicated and there is a booklet called simplified Precision, which proposes
a strong club system, which is so simple that even beginners can use it
without more than usual beginner difficulties.  And on the other hand, there 
are many variations on Standard American, which are at least as difficult as
standard Precision.

Bjorgvin R. Leifsson
brl@kopasker.is
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: rudy@netcom.com (Rudy)
Subject: Re: bidding after a t/o double
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:35:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.200658.5805@sco.COM> paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.191124.5033@netcom.com> rudy@netcom.com (Rudy) writes:
>>You hold:   AQ  AKTx  x  AQJT7x
>>Matchpoints
>>RHO  You  LHO  Pard
>>1S    X    P    2H
>>P     ?
>
>Unless agreed to be forcing (I do NOT play it as absolutely forcing in this
>sequence, partner would be allowed to pass with no clubs and no points) 4C
>is still an underbid. Over 4H I'd bid 5H.

4C is 100% forcing. You doubled and cue-bid, how else can you make it forcing?

>But, now that we have the heart fit, why am I bothering to mention my clubs?

Because you might just want to clue your partner in on how to evaluate
the King of diamonds versus the king of clubs.  

Partnership game, you know.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge