HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ted@sage0.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying)
Subject: Re: bidding problem after support redouble
Organization: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:10:55 GMT

taylor@foraker.tivoli.com (Eric Taylor) writes:

>In article <29287@olympus.wustl.edu>, geppo@dworkin.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi) writes:
>|> A friend gave me the following problem:
>|> 
>|>   You hold AJx, xx, AKQxxx, Ax unfavorable at IMPs
>|> 
>|>              1D   P  1S  X
>|>              XX   3H  P  P
>|>              ?
>|> 
>|>   What do you do if 
>|>      a) redouble was a support redouble
>|>      b) redouble showed general strength
>|> 

>Well I do not like a redouble in any case.
>It gets too little information across.   I would
>reserve it for penalty situations.

>You have an 18 point hand with a good diamond suit.
>Bidding 3 diamonds immediately should show this type
>of a hand.

>Now you are stuck.
>If meant as a support double I will bid 4S now.  Too much
>catching up to do.

>If I showed general strength, I will bid 3S so not to
>bid my hand twice.

	Uck.  I do play support doubles and redoubles.  First of all,
	you are not required to double or redouble on all hands with
	3 card support.  Failing to do so should be described as
	"tends to deny 3+ card support", but if I need to make a
	strong bid, then I make it instead and bid later.  A reverse
	can be made instead and three card support can later be shown.
	When you make a support double/redouble, you should be stating
	that that is the most important feature to show about your
	hand.  When you make an otherwise strong bid instead of bid
	support later, then you could have been trying to better define
	your hand first.  For example, holding:

		Qxx/AKxx/AQTxx/A

	And hearing the following auction:

		Me    LHO    Pard    RHO
		1D    P      1S      2C
		?

	I would reverse into hearts first and then support spades later
	to show the hand better.  I have such a strong hand and want to
	show the values.

	As for what to do on AJx, xx, AKQxxx, Ax unfavorable at IMPS,
	after the auction

		1D    P     1S    X
		XX    3H    P     P
		?

	If XX showed support, then I bid 4D.  If I've already shown 3 card
	support then I will stop to show game going values and my long side
	diamond suit.

	If XX showed general strength then I have to show my spade support
	now.  Partner will know that I am bidding on three card support since
	with 4 card support, I probably would have bid spades immediately
	with some sort of jump bid.

	In other words, I have two bids in which to show three card spade
	support and a good quality hand.  If I've shown one the first round
	then I have to show the other the second round.

	I prefer the support double auction.  This allows me to show the
	three card support on the first round and then on the second round
	show game forcing values AND long good diamonds (4D).  I get one
	additional bit of information in that I didn't get in with XX for
	general points.

	Ted Ying			ted@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov
	Hughes/STX			Goddard Space Flight Center
From: taylor@logan.tivoli.com (Eric Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Forcing Pass (was "Bid these hands" and "Competitive Decision")
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:43:08 GMT
Organization: TIVOLI Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep25.120520.8707@rayssd.ssd.ray.com>, sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Steve Myerson) writes:
|> In article <4455@tivoli.UUCP> Eric Taylor writes:
|> 
|> * |> BTW, if you're in the habit of opening strong two-suiters (hands like, say,
|> * |> -,AKJxx,AKQxxxx,J, from the November 1990 ACBL charity game) with 2C, you'll
|> * |> find this sort of preemption much harder to handle.
|> * 
|> * I think that this might be one of Bob's points.
|> * The more distributional your hand is, the more the opponents will
|> * be able to jack up the bidding to extreme levels before you mention
|> * your suit.
|> * 
|> * BTW, you strong clubbers, would you open such a hand 1C?
|> * You are likely to run into the same problems as someone who
|> * opens it 2C.
|> 
|> Absolutely this is a 1C opener. In fact, over any limited point count
|> showing response, I would make a bid that is forcing to game.
|> And yes, the spade void suggests possible opponent preemption,
|> but there is no alternative opening bid.

As a tactical bid, why not open this hand 1 diamond even in a big
club system?   You will not get passed out and there will little
doubt as to the nature of your hand when you jack up the
bidding to 4 or 5 hearts later?

You WILL get preempted if you open this 1 club and you might be able
to show one of your suits.   (You might even get doubled at the 3 or 4 level
and make a few overtricks ala Zia)
From: taylor@logan.tivoli.com (Eric Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Another (mis)information question
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:51:56 GMT
Organization: TIVOLI Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep23.000932.26114@bhprtc.scpd.oz.au>, dif@bhprtc.scpd.oz.au (David Faulkner) writes:
|> In our local club pairs championship last week, I was playing against a
|> Precision pair. My partner opened 1C, and RHO jumped to 2H, alerted by
|> his partner. I bid 2NT with 10 HCP and a heart stopper, and LHO passed.
|> 
|> My partner, holding 19 HCP, asked what a jump overcall was in their
|> (Precision) methods, and was informed "It's an overcall". When we said
|> "No, it's a jump overcall" and asked for more clarification, we were
|> told "It is 10 - 15 HCP and long hearts" .
|> Assuming a slam was out of the question, partner
|> signed off in 3NT. Making 7.
|> 
|> My question:
|> Now, I assumed the jump overcall was weak, but when we were told it was
|> strongish, I glanced at their convention card, which of course said WEAK.
|> So can I tell partner "Hey, look, their card says weak", or pass him the
|> convention card to read for himself, or should I have just called the
|> director straight off?
|> I know LHO has misinformed partner, can I say anything?

10 + 19 != 33
Did you partner have a long running club suit?
Did you have a semi-solid suit?
Unless you can diagnose 12 tricks, you have no reason to be in slam.

Whether or not their card says 0-5 or 10-12, you should be bidding
your own hands.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sperbr@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu (Ron E Sperber)
Subject: Re: Restricting conventions
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:30:12 GMT

burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Burt Voorhees) writes:

>adam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Adam Hamilton) writes:


>>    Starting a change of thread here.

>>    I have never played against a forcing pass system or fert bid system
>>and would not like to do so without chance to prepare a defence.  Would
>>some kind soul out there be prepared to post or make available by ftp or
>>mail some "known" defences against these systems.

>>    I think there will be a LOT of interest in this.

>>         Adam
>Seems to me that a forcing pass system is an open invitation to frequent
>psyches.x

Do you mean psyches by the opposition? I don't understand why that would be
so. I certainly would not really want to psyche after a strong pass on
my right. If I were to play a forcing pass I might well consider the auction
P(1)-1S-X to be a penalty double. certainly its just as easy to double
for penalty after a forcing pass as it is over any other opening bid.

Also psyches in 1st seat would probably be just as rare as they are now.
Not to mention that the fact is that after P-P-...its practically
suicidal to psyche where that is probably the most common seat to psyche in
otherwise.

I grant you that a forcing pass may invite preemption or 2-suited calls.
(The one time i defended a forcing pass we played cappalletti over their
pass), but I don't see a psyche being any more advantageous in defense
to a forcing pass.

	-Ron
-- 
    Ron Sperber  sperbr@rpi.edu Ron_Sperber@mts.rpi.edu Ron_sperber@rpitsmts
	"All the World's indeed a stage/And we are merely players"
	"Performers and Portrayers/Each anothers audience        "
	"Outside the gilded cage"                     	-Rush,"Limelight"
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: mojo@Caere.COM (Morris Jones)
Subject: Re: Negative Doubles and Required Alerts
Organization: Caere Corp.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:58:04 GMT

teague@stc.lockheed.com (Alan Teague) writes:
>When playing 5 card majors and Negative doubles through some level (say 2S),
>Which of the following are required to be alerted?
>
>   1) 1C 1H 1S -- Where the 1S promises 5+ spades

I discussed this sequence with Betty Bratcher (Director of the Year :))
a few months ago, after Pam and I had a disagreement about it.  Betty
says she recommends an alert because your opponents are entitled to
the information you have because of your agreement.  As to whether or
not it's required, I can't say.

Mojo
-- 
Morris Jones
Caere Corp.
mojo@caere.com
From: mclegg@cs.ucsd.edu (Matthew Clegg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: ACBL Yellow Card (Part 1 of 5)
Date: 27 Sep 92 00:46:17 GMT

I think it's wonderful that Mojo has taken the effort to type in
and post the Yellow Card.  Especially in the OKbridge milieu, it is
helpful to have standard bidding systems, since it is common to
have a partner with whom one has never played before.

I understand the Bridge World has a set of standard bidding conventions
as well.  Would someone be willing to post these?  Also, it would be
very nice to have concise on-line descriptions of ACOL and Precision.

Matt.
-- 
Matthew Clegg, Gradual Student  (619) 558-3408            mclegg@cs.ucsd.edu
UCSD, Computer Science                             Jettison the Afterburners!
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Elo ratings
Date: 3 Oct 1992 00:47:18 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In a recent article, curt (someone I see frequently at okbridge)
suggested Elo ratings.  This has come up before on this forum,
and I would like to address it.  I think several points must be
recognized:

1. Elo ratings are possible in bridge.  For any pair or team of
   players of known strength playing against another pair or team
   of players of known strength, there is an expected outcome and
   an expected error.  These can be translated into ratings.  The
   initial pool of "known strength" players can be produced by
   analyzing tournament results.  A couple of arbitrary decisions
   must be made at the beginning, but there no technical reasons
   why it can't be done.

2. I think the only constituency for Elo ratings is young people
   who can't afford to attend a lot of tournaments.  In general,
   people know who the good bridge players are.  It's irratating 
   to have spanking new life master turn you down at the 
   partnership table because you don't have enough master points, 
   but after you beat him a few times things change.

3. One of the things that always bothered my about chess 
   tournaments back when I played the game was that people played
   often not to win the tournament but to gain rating points or
   to pick up a class prize.  Class prizes are consolations prizes
   for people who don't win.  Ratings are indications of strength 
   and not ends in themselves.

4. I favor Elo ratings for bridge, largely for political reasons.
   Most bridge players, and almost certainly the league hierarchy,
   will oppose them for exactly the same political reasons.  I
   think that's perfectly valid.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
From: paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Over Strong NT
Date: 26 Sep 92 16:57:15 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <1992Sep23.182422.12956@linus.mitre.org> bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>
>Playing a 7 board swiss, you pick up 
>
>KJ9xxx
>9xxx
>Qxx
>-
>
>All white, RHO bids a 15-17 NT in first seat. 
>Do you bid?
>If so, what?
>Bob Silverman

I've found that it pays to be somewhat agressive over opponents strong NT
openings. Yes, I'd bid. I'd call 2S (old fashioned, I know, but I like to
play that 2S over 1NT shows spades).
From: gerry@bluemoon.rn.com (Gerard M. Foley)
Subject: Re: Scoring program.
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 09:56:31 EDT

tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill) writes:

> In article <1992Sep29.142451.4423@sunova.ssc.gov>, henk@pdsf.ssc.gov (Henk Ui
> > ...
> > Before you buy [ACBL Score], check whether it can handle score sheets in 
> > the European way, e.g. 0, 2, 4,... with odd numbered points for tied 
> > results and Neuberger's formula for artificial scores. The Americans use
> > 0,1,2.. with half points for tied scores (and don't seem to use Neuberger).
> 
> Actually, many U.S. directors also used double matchpoints in pre-computer
> days.  It's just a computational convenience.  (Another common shortcut was
> not complementing the matchpoints for EW, so the lowest EW score won.)
> Since rankings and percentages come out the same whether either of these
> shortcuts is used, does anybody really care?
> 
> What's Neuberger's formula?
> 
> 
>                                       Tim

My copy of the Encyclopedia of Bridge gives 1 for tie and 2 for
better.

gerry@bluemoon.rn whose home bbs has trouble getting the 
mail out sometimes, so it may go here instead.
From: brl@kopasker.is (Bjorgvin Runar Leifsson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Precision Club: What would you do with this?
Date: 26 Sep 92 22:50:51 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Primary School of Kopasker, Iceland

carney@rocky.rational (Mike Carney) writes:

>I've run into this a couple of times, and don't know how to handle the
>situation. Your hold a hand with 20 or so HCP with a 4441
>distribution, so you open 1C indicating your point count, which is a
>forcing bid. Your partner responds 1D indicating 0-7 HCP, a forcing
>bid also. Now, any bid you make says something about the distribution
>of your hand: A suit bid guarantees 5 of that suit, and a NT bid
>indicates a worst case distribution of 5332. So now what?

Yes, the 4441 hands in the 16-24 hcp range can be difficult - if you don't
use any special bids to handle them.  As you state, the problem only comes up
after 1c - 1d and after that the meaning of bids made by the opener are so 
crowded that it is perhaps impossible to include this type of hand.
Most precision players therefore use another opening to describe these hands.
Roman 2 diamonds is one way, but as these hands are rather rare, it is better
to use some kind of multi opening 2 diamonds.
One type is: a) weak 6+ major or
             b) any 4441 with 16-24 hcp
Another: a) weak 2 bid in hearts
         b) any 4441 with 16-24 hcp
         c) very strong balanced hand with 26-27 hcp, with 9 or more hcp in
            queens and jacks.
This latter one is decribed in Alan Sontag's book, Power Precision.  I've
used for some years now and can highly recommend it.

Bjorgvin R. Leifsson
brl@kopasker.is
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ckincy@cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Subject: A novice convinces his partner to play weak NT
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 06:01:56 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla
Originator: ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu

Ok, I think I have my partner nearly convinced that weak NT is the
way to go, but I have a few questions.
 
First, the system I have proposed to him (this goes on top of an SA
system that is close to, but not quite, the same as the "Yellow Card"):

1NT          =  12-14 pts (2QT + NV for 12 pts, hee :-)
1C/1D-1X-1NT =  15-17 pts
                (1c/1d is "semi" forcing...partner may pass with
                a yarborough or a hand with <9 HCP with 5-card support
                Bid the lowest minor that has three cards.)
2NT          =  18-20 pts
2C-2X-2NT    =  21-23 pts
2C-2X-3NT    =  24+ pts 
3NT          =  Psycho gambling solid-minor preempt thing.

[The only problem I have:  What about when responder to 1C has a 5-card
club suit and no four-card major and about 9 or 10 points?  I guess he
can bid 1NT, and that has the declarer reversal problem.  Oh, well. 
*sigh*]

There.  Now, I call on the total experience of the network to help
me with two questions I have:

(1)  We play Jacoby and Texas Transfers.  Should we turn them off for
the weak NT?  I have justification for both ways; I was just 
looking for some people who've played weak NT and their experiences
in this regard.   (As it happens, some LHOs will interfere w/ a weak
1NT with Landy or something, and the transfers are off anyway.)

I look at it this way.  A lot of times the opening hand will have the
same strength as the responding hand, so it won't matter who is declarer.
But, on the other hand, inconsistencies in conventions cause people
to forget at most inopportune moments. =)  Do you think one outweighs 
the other?

(2)  Note that 2NT is 18-20 pts and 2C-2NT is 21-23.  The reason I did
this is that our normal 2C opener is 21+ points, and I decided to do it
this way to stay consistent.  Any comments on this?

I really, really, really like the weak NT.  It helps solve a lot of 
problems that SA system has with that balanced yuck hand of 12-14 points.
It also makes life difficult for opponents to interfere with you at
the low level.  And woe be unto an unwise pair that interferes with
your 1C bid when you're sitting with 15-17 HCP!!  :-)

(Also, as Alfred Scheinwold put it, "Many players feel it is below
their dignity to let a weak 1NT go unchallenged, but their dignity
often costs them dear.")

Thanks!  =)

cpk
(BTW, the reason I haven't been using weak NT lately is that I have
a new partner, and he was wary of it.)
From: dwv@cs.brown.edu (David W. Vorbrich)
Subject: Macintosh Bridge Games
Organization: Brown Computer Science Dept.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:28:18 GMT

Thanks to everyone who pitched in some suggestions, I received quite
a few responses...

Here is the list of computer bridge games I received from fellow netters.
Keep in mind that my request was only for Macintosh games, so this definately
influenced the results.
 
                         ARCHITECTURE   AGAINST   FOR
Bridge 6.0                   Mac           5       0
MicroBridge Companion
  (aka Bridge Baron V)       Mac           0       3
Grand Slam                PC (mac?)        0       1
okbridge                     UNIX          0       1
 
Along with the sentiment that there are better bridge games on the PC.


-David V.
 dwv@cs.brown.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From:  pmbel@gst.kiev.ua (Beletsky Platon)
Subject: Bidding Program for IBM PC
Reply-To: pmbel@gst.kiev.ua
Organization: Gorsistemotechnika, Kiev, Ukraine
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 19:14:32 +0400 

    Is anybody interested in bridge bidding program for MS DOS? It uses
Standard American System principles but is intelligent enough to know
cue bids, splinter bid etc. Usually gains about 75% in bidding tests.
It is about 50KB encoded, so I'll send it to newsgroup, only if somebody
wishes to receive it.
    Platon Beletsky, Kiev, Ukraine  pmbel%gst.kiev.ua@relay.ussr.eu.net
From: turin@jarre.euromath.dk (Soren Turin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: More 4th suit forcing
Date: 26 Sep 92 19:50:30 GMT
Organization: Euromath Center, University of Copenhagen


Hi there.

While we are discussing 4th suit forcing. What is 1S-2H-3D-4C ? Is it a
normal 4th suit ? I had the problem a couple of days ago with an
unfamiliar partner. He thought it was a cue-bid agreeing spades!!! The
rationale behind this was that a preference to 3S could have been a
false preference without a club stopper. I think this treatment has some
merit, but could find no other bid with x-Axxxx-AJx-AKQx. We hadn't
discussed the sequence, but i think 1S-2H-3D-5N should be a grand slam
invitation (1S-2H-3D-4N would clearly have been quantitative). However,
i can't see us bidding a gigantic 7D after 5N, partner holding
AKQxx-x-KQTx-xxx (not really a 3D rebid). Yes, i admit it. I'd give my
right arm to bid a grand on a 4-3 fit. BTW he hadn't. AKQxx-Kx-Kxxx-Tx
was all he had.


I eagerly await your learned comments.



Regards Soren
--

|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Soren Turin                   |                                    |
|  Euromath Center               | e-mail:     turin@euromath.dk      |
|  Universitetsparken 5          | phone:      +45 3135 3133 417      |
|  DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark   | fax:           + 45 3135 0427      |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
From: braams@MFDD2.CIMS.NYU.EDU (Bastiaan Braams)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Law of total tricks (was: Re: My fault ?)
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:28:58 GMT
Reply-To: braams@cims.nyu.edu (Bastiaan Braams)
Organization: New York University

In article <davidm.717806622@voltaire> David Moore writes
>I have seen a lot of stuff on the "Law" of total tricks lately, some of
>it even by quite senior players. Still, I cannot help feeling it is bogus.
>The usual definition is something like:
>When each side holds about equal strength, the number of tricks either side
>can expect to take is equal to the number of trumps held.
>Has anyone done a statistical analysis of the "Law" of total tricks?
>Has the law any validity (which i would put at (perhaps) 
>variance(expected tricks-total_trumps)<0.5)? 

The formulation that I'm familiar with is that in a competitive
situation, the total number of tricks that the two sides can expect to
make, each playing in their best trump suit, is equal to the total
number of cards held by the two sides in their respective best trump
suit.  The reference is Vernes's 'Bridge Moderne de la Defence', and
for that reason it has also been called Vernes's Law.

Alex Martelli (alex@am.sublink.org), who is now disconnected from this
newsgroup, supplies the following comments:

"Unfortunately I don't have reasonable access to "Bridge Moderne de la
defense" right now, but you might be able to find the exact figures in
other books quoting it (for some reason I have in mind "Acol in
Competition" by Crowhurst and somebody else, but I may be wrong).
Anyway, exact figures apart: the root mean square of the difference
between total tricks and total trumps is quite a bit higher than
would be desirable (almost a trick, I seem to recall), BUT against
that you have to offset the root mean square when the IDENTICAL
contract is played at both tables from the same side - and THAT is
between 0.6 and 0.8 depending on whether suit or notrumps are
involved!  Vernes did not do a full ANOVA, at least in the works
I'm familiar with (both BMDLD and communications to the Academie
du Bridge), but very roughly the difference between root mean squares,
say 1 - 0.6 = 0.4, is VERY satisfactory, i.e. implies very close
correlation between total tricks and total trumps for competitive
deals (both sides have a fit >= 8 cards, point count split no
worse than 17-23).  Vernes further analyzed the causes of variance
and found most of it accounted for by double fits (tending to
enhance total tricks), with a minor factor being the emplacement
of minor vs major honors (e.g. a Q in the opponents' suit tends
to reduce total tricks expectation slightly, while an A does not
matter)."

 -- Bas Braams  (braams@cims.nyu.edu)