HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: What would you bid?
Date: 2 Sep 1992 16:02:06 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: notrees.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Sep2.150559.13343@news.duc.auburn.edu> jpnicol@eng.auburn.edu writes:
>In article 3645@tivoli.UUCP, taylor@foraker.tivoli.com (Eric Taylor) writes:
>> Zip Swiss, You hold :
>> xx
>> KQx
>> AKQxxxx
>> A
 
>> Bidding continues :
>> You        Partner
>> 1D         1H
>> ??
 
>> I would like to be in a heart game.
 
>> Would 4D normally promise a solid
>> suit and 4 card support?  Would this be
>> an acceptable lie?
 
>> 3D is non-forcing.

>How about 3C* (* - splinter)? It saves some bidding room, the 
>drawback is that it 
>almost guarantees a spade lead.  I'm not sure 4D has a 'standard' meaning.

No, the drawback to 3C is that it means something else entirely.
It shows a game-forcing hand with diamonds and presumably clubs.
4C would be a splinter guaranteeing 4-card support and as most
play it denying solid diamonds.  That's two lies.

4D shows long, strong diamonds and 4-card heart support.  Whether
it shows solid diamonds, strong 4-card support, or denies high
cards in the side suits seems *not* to be standard.

Jump-shifting and then supporting partner's suit conventionally
shows a singleton in the remaining suit, or did before splinters.
Raising a major to the 5-level when there is one unbid suit shows
two top losers in the unbid suit.  It would be nice to make a
forcing club bid and then raise hearts to the 5-level if partner
rebids them, but 2C isn't forcing and 3C runs into the singleton-
showing problem.  Not to mention that it's scary to bid that should
be natural, showing a suit, when what you actually have is a stiff
ace.

It's easy to find objections to nearly anything here.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Try this one
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:06:25 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Robert D. Silverman <bs@gauss.mitre.org> writes:
>Some questions ARE like asking
>"what is 1+1", and it IS appropriate to then ask "why is this a problem?"

Most of us don't think it is appropriate.  What is the point of asking a
question to which you know the answer (namely, it is a problem to the
poster because the poster doesn't know as much as you do), and sending
that question to thousands of people all over the world?

                                        David desJardins
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Myerson)
Subject: Re: How would you rule?
Organization: Raytheon Company, Portsmouth, RI
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:59:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.043935.7118@midway.uchicago.edu>,
pynq@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

* Playing in a club game tonite, we were being kibitzed by one of the
* club's directors (not the one running this game), and we had one of our
* usual complex Precision auctions (I think it was 1NT - 3NT).  Anyway, I
* was about to become dummy when we all noticed Lefty fumbling among her
* cards, obviously looking for a lead.  At this point, the kibitzer
* pointed out to her that it was not her lead.
* 
* We felt that we were injured, since we lost the opportunity to benefit
* from a lead out of turn.  What do you think?

You would think a director would know how to kibitz.
I would have said something to the effect that kibitzers
should not say anything, and if unable to do so, he should leave.

Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)
From: h75@nikhefh.nikhef.nl (Henk Uijterwaal)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Bridge clubs in Dallas, Texas.
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:29:42 GMT
Reply-To: h75@nikhefh.nikhef.nl (Henk Uijterwaal)
Distribution: world
Organization: Nikhef-H, Amsterdam (the Netherlands).



In two weeks time I'll move from Holland to the Superconducting Super
Collider Labs (SSCL) (currently) just south of Dallas, Texas. I'm now
looking for bridge clubs  in that area. If anybody has the addresses,
phone-numbers  or  other useful information about clubs in that area, 
please send me a mail. 

As none of my regular partners here has voluntered to move to  Dallas
with me, I prefer a club where there is reasonable  chance  for some-
body coming alone to find  a  partner for that evening but everything
else is also fine with me.

I'm a fully qualified director  (by the standards of the Dutch bridge
league) and don't mind playing at club where the players have to help
the  director  (in  fact:  I've been doing that for ages at the clubs 
here).

Does anyone have the address of the ACBL and information about how to
become a member?

                                     Thanks in advance for your help.

                                     Henk Uijterwaal.



P.S. Please respond by Email.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Henk Uijterwaal          Email: Internet h75@nikhef.nl
                                Bitnet   uijterwaal@desyvax.bitnet
                                Decnet   zeus02::uijterwaal,  13364::uijterwaal
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: rainbow@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rob Buchner)
Subject: Re: 1+1
Organization: St Barts
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:21:48 GMT
Keywords: gunfighters


People do not intentionally try to embarrass themselves.
People's own self interest and survival instincts inhibit
such behavior. People do not try to make themselves look
foolish. Nor do people seek out situations in which to
be ridiculed, humiliated, insulted, or lose self respect.
People don't waste their own time asking questions for which
they don't want an honest, sincere, knowledgeable answer.
If someone wants to know what 1+1 is, it is because they
don't know the answer. They obviously have not yet learned
the basic fundamentals which have led up to the question.
Should they be put down for this inadequacy? I doubt it.
It is an opportunity for someone to be a teacher, to be a
guiding light, to lend a helping hand to those seeking to
learn. Teaching is a skill, it is a gift, not everyone has
it. Those that have it know how wonderful it feels to share
what you have already learned with someone else who hasn't.
I know how gratified I am to receive help from an expert
in something which I am trying to learn or improve myself.
Wanting to receive myself, I cannot help but give in turn.
Those that cannot teach need not bother explaining 1+1.
Why bother trying to explain something in such a fashion
which will only receive ingratitude from the student?
I can see no possible satisfaction to such an effort.
Let other teachers more patient and understanding do it.

On the other hand, there are plenty of people who try
to explain that 1+1=3. Not to mention being abrasive 
and arrogant themselves in profusing their wisdom. If
you point a smoking gun, beware the flames coming back.
There may be a gunfighter waiting to shoot you down...
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: j-grout@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (grout john robert)
Subject: Re: Precision, anyone?
Reply-To: j-grout@uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:32:37 GMT

bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing) writes:

>I'd be surprised to hear very many people claim that a natural system is
>really geared towards part scores.  IMHO natural systems are heavily weighted
>towards strong hands -- look how many forcing responses there are to opening
>bids.  Look at how many partial contracts go through 1n forcing and somewhat
>nebulous 1c or 1d openings.  In a system really geared towards partials,
>it would make more sense to make direct 2/1 responses non-forcing, and require
>forcing hands to bid 1n (i.e. exactly backwards from how it is now).

The Mafia Club does this and its authors cite Katz-Cohen's Breakthrough System
as an earlier example of this approach.
-- 
John R. Grout			| INTERNET: j-grout@uiuc.edu
From: doug@cm.deakin.OZ.AU (Douglas Newlands)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Precision, anyone?
Date: 31 Aug 92 03:46:32 GMT
Organization: Deakin University, Geelong, Australia

In article <20876@apadravya.princeton.edu: bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing) writes:
:
:I'd be surprised to hear very many people claim that a natural system is
:really geared towards part scores.  IMHO natural systems are heavily weighted
:towards strong hands -- look how many forcing responses there are to opening
:bids.  Look at how many partial contracts go through 1n forcing and somewhat
:nebulous 1c or 1d openings.  

Maybe you`re looking at it through 5cm SA eyes;perhaps a system with
more limit bids and 4cm so that minor suit openings don't have to be
so nebulous would lead you to a different view of the strengths of
natural systems. 

:In a system really geared towards partials,
:it would make more sense to make direct 2/1 responses non-forcing, and require

I feel that this kind of bidding is little better than guesswork; where
one partner names the contract without much exchange of info at all.
It's more acceptable in a 1 club system but unattractive in a 2C
system. When the opener has a moderate hand he can be in a quite
invidious position deciding whether to push on or not.

:forcing hands to bid 1n (i.e. exactly backwards from how it is now).

doug.
From: taylor@foraker.tivoli.com (Eric Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: 2/1 theory
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:51:11 GMT
Organization: TIVOLI Systems, Inc.

When your partner makes a 2/1 response, and you have
a minimum, he frequently has a better hand that you.

I have heard the hand with the most points should be
the "asker", and the hand with the fewer points should
be the "teller".  Given this, does it not make sense
to allow the opener to fully describe the shape of his hand
freely without worrying about how many points he has (we
are forced to game.)

In fact, it might make sense to say
that the cheapest bid over responder's 2/1 response
begins a relay sequence showing a better hand than advertised while
any other bid is limited to, say, 15 points.

This is opposite to what I play, but the discussion got
me thinking.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: Professor WHO?
Subject: Bidding over a preempt-- some _do_ play 3M =NF.
Summary: [Was Subject: Re: Life Master ?= expert]
Originator: boyiny@kovalevskaya
Keywords: preempts, responses, frequency.
Reply-To: maboyiny@ccvax.as.edu.tw (Dr. Weird)
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
X-Subliminal-Message: Preempts are meant to be doubled.  --- Kit Woolsey
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 21:40:55 GMT

[snip]
Steve Willner tells a sad story, and ends with: 

>does anyone advocate or play a new suit response to a
>3-level preempt as a signoff?  Answers by email, please, and I'll
>post a summary protecting anonymity of respondents.

Since I have no reputation to protect, I will make a fool of myself by
teling everyone that none other than Dr. Roth (not a real Ph.D or M.D.!)
has advocated that 3M over 3x be non-forcing.

From a frequency viewpoint, it has to be right to play it non-forcing if
your 3 bids are sufficiently bad like I play with some partners.  Of course
it is not a _SIGN-OFF_ and opener should be allowed to raise to game or
bid a new suit or bid 3N perhaps as a strong raise.

Of course, Al Roth advocates playing that over rather _sound_ preempts.  I
am not sure that it makes sense and am even inclined to think that he went
over the edge on this one.

I play, along with 3M non-forcing:

3D over 3C asks for a fragment.
4C over 3DHS as a modified form of Ogust.
4D over 3M as Trump Ask.
From: ted@sage0.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Michaels without a c(l)ue--assign the blame
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:52:39 GMT
Organization: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center

hampton@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik) writes:

>Love all, West deals:

>West                East
>T 7                 A K Q J 8
>9 2                 K Q 8 7 5
>7 5 3               K
>A K 9 7 4 2         6 5

>Pass      (1D)      2D(1)
>3C                  Pass

>(1) Michaels--weak or strong.

>3C overcame a 4-1 trump break, but the zero was still quite frigid.
>The partnership is relatively new, if that is relevent.  Assess the blame.

	Hmmm...since you are non-vul and you are playing split-range
	Michaels, I think that the East hand is obliged to make one
	more bid.  Partner's 3C call was based on the fact that you
	could have two weak 5 card majors and was bidding a long and
	solid minor anyways.  With your points, you have a good chance
	of making more.  With a diamond stopper in partner's hand, this
	hand has a good chance at 3NT.

	I would bid 3D over 3C to show partner a strong Michaels and
	ask partner to bid 3NT with a diamond stopper, or bid one of
	my majors (with 2 card tolerance) or rebid his/her suit otherwise.
	A nice multi-purpose bid and there are relatively few decisions
	that partner can make that can go wrong here.

	Ted Ying			ted@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov
	Hughes/STX			Goddard Space Flight Center
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: maillist@base.cs.ucla.edu (Generic Mailing List ID (Guest))
Subject: The Problem with the PSP
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:30:45 GMT

maillist@base.cs.ucla.edu (Generic Mailing List ID (Guest)) writes:

>Response to this PSP is poor (thusfar).  Is it too easy, too hard,
>too long, or are people just fed up with the PSP entirely.

Well, I got several responses to this question (almost as many as
responses received to the PSP itself.  The reasons people don't respond 
are (along with my response):

1. Too long.  
   This particular problem set was *way* too long.  I'm going
   back to 5 problems after this.  I just happened to have 9 lying
   around.  Note that you can actually respond to a subset of the
   problems, and my parser can deal with that, so if you skip a
   problem, it's no big shakes.

2. Too hard/obscure.
   Several people complained that many of the problems were either
   points of style or auctions that nobody would ever have discussed.
   I think that's kind of part of the delight.  It's a huge adrenaline
   rush to sit down with a pick-up partner and have a tough auction,
   having to think about *every* call's possible meanings.  Note that
   most problems come from wherever I can get my hands on 'em, so if
   you want certain problems to be addressed, just send 'em in.

3. Seen 'em.
   Lots of folks had read the June '92 Bulletin carefully enough to
   be familiar with the problems.  I think some of them are still
   open to interpretation/discussion, but perhaps those people will
   chime in as respondents to the results, when posted in two weeks.
   Again, note that you don't have to respond to all of the problems.

4. Still working on 'em.
   I was a bit trigger-happy when I didn't get much response.  Frankly,
   I was concerned that the new maillist ID wasn't working properly.
   Turns out it worked fine.

5. Moderator's comments
   I seem to have turned off at least one respondent with a couple of
   "snide" comments after his answers.  I apologize for that.  Most of
   my comments are meant to juxtapose one person's answer with some
   other answer just above/below it.  I'll try to hold them to a
   minimum.


That, along with the beginner's fear of public ridicule and the expert's
scoffing at the notion of the PSP has lowered participation.

I also note with some pride that many correspondents were openly delighted
at the return of the PSP.
--

Matthew Merzbacher	ARPA:	matthew@CS.UCLA.EDU
Moo - Moo Moo  		UUCP:	...!{uunet|rutgers|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!matthew
               		This time, *with* the oys
From: dberman@cs.washington.edu (Deborah Berman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Question about opening 1nt
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:20:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: beaver.1992Aug29.002038.18352
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

I usually play 15-17 nt.  Now, obviously it is nice to hold tenaces
and suits with inner texture when being the nt bidder if you eventually
are going to get to a nt contract.  So, my question is, what to do with
balanced 15-17 hands, with only aces and kings.  Like, a 4-4-3-2 hand
with 4 aces and all other cards are little.  Or 3 aces and a King, no
queens/jacks/tens/nines?

The main problem I've seen with shying away from nt is the rebid is a
problem and also nt tends to be somewhat preemptive, which can shut up
the competition.  (of course, if you fail to open 1nt with a hand
like this *and* a worthless doubleton, the opponents' interference may
point to your unprotected suit, and you might be happy to have 
avoided nt.  Don't get me wrong, I will usually open 1nt with a 
worthless doubleton, but not necessarily with a hand like Axx AKx xx Axxxx.)

I also like 1nt with any 15-17pt balanced hand b/c it is so descriptive
of your hand.

So, what do you all think?

Debbie

-- 
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend...
   Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.  (Groucho Marx)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: pynq@quads.uchicago.edu (George Jetson)
Subject: Re: Bid these hands
Reply-To: pynq@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: D. J. Dougherty & Associates
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 23:32:51 GMT

In article <Btpsxy.A5D@news.cso.uiuc.edu> j-grout@uiuc.edu writes:
>jaffray@oreo.berkeley.edu (Alan Jaffray) writes:
>
>>In article <BtpLo9.6o7@news.cso.uiuc.edu> j-grout@uiuc.edu writes:
>
>>>>North: AJTx,Qxx,AQTx,xx
>>>>South: Qx,Kxxxx,9xx,Axx

>In the first place, I don't think people should be opening a balanced 12-count
>with one of a minor (IMHO, if you're _going_ to open them, it's better to open
>1NT... followups to /dev/null)...
To what 12 count are you referring?
Last time I checked, 2 aces, 2 queens, and a jack were worth 13.
In (our variety of) Precision, you don't open 1N with a 4M.

>of course, with good suit textures or some
>other unusually positive factors, I would open a balanced hand which happened
>to have 12 HCP, but only because I valued it as equivalent to a normal
>balanced hand with 13 HCP.
But what does this have to do with the instant hand?


************************************************************************
A note to new readers:  the weasely :-) symbol is frowned upon in this
group.  Any questions, see Phil Gustafson who will gladly rearrange your
diodes for you.
			- From the AFU FAQ -

	- pynq@quads.uchicago.edu, who is still costing the net
	  hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars, every time he posts -
************************************************************************
From: h75@nikhefh.nikhef.nl (Henk Uijterwaal)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Wednesday's results from Salsomaggiore
Date: 3 Sep 92 07:58:30 GMT
Reply-To: h75@nikhefh.nikhef.nl (Henk Uijterwaal)
Distribution: world
Organization: Nikhef-H, Amsterdam (the Netherlands).

Quarter final results.
======================

Open:  USA             - Egypt            : 205 - 108 (final)
=====  Israel          - The Netherlands  : 121 - 130    "
       France          - Denmark          : 106 - 113 (after 48 of 64 boards)
       Poland          - Sweden           :  80 - 126    "

Women: Germany         - Denmark          : 158 -  82 (final)
====== Austria         - Sweden           : 180 - 129    "
       France          - China            : 161 - 107    "
       Great Britain   - The Netherlands  : 201 -  81    "

Semi final matches. 
===================

Open:  USA             - France/Denmark
=====  The Netherlands - Sweden/Poland

Women: Great Britain   - Germany         
====== Austria         - France

After 48 boards Great Britain has a 40 imp lead over Germany. Austria
vs France is still close, 7 imps.
From: rainbow@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rob Buchner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: fast arrival
Keywords: sample hands
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:51:04 GMT
Organization: St Barts


>>> KQxxx
>>> KQTx
>>> x
>>> xxx
>>>
>>> 1H   1S(1)
>>> 2N   3H
>>> 3S   4H
>>> P

>> If you use the principle of fast arrival, given a game forcing auction,
>> a subsequent jump to game indicates minimum values or no slam interest.
>> A jump to 4H here is descriptive, very descriptive. It ends the auction.
>> A jump to 4H is a catch all bid which is based on just about anything.
>> 4H need not be weak per-se, ie scattered values insufficient for slam.

> Oh come now.  The principle of fast arrival does not logically apply
> here if the original conditions are accepted:  that the 1S response
> followed by heart support is constructive, because otherwise responder
> should have raised directly.  Hence on showing heart support, responder
> will have shown more than a minimum.  It seems quite unlikely that
> responder can at that point categorically exclude slam.
> I suppose that 2NT is about 18 hcp; if you suppose less, perhaps fast
> arrival might apply here.  But if the conditions as stated here hold,
> I suggest that 4H were better used as some kind of slam try.
> How about an example hand for a fast-arrival 4H?

Easy, any hand with bad hearts, scattered values,
poor controls, or no source of tricks, for example:
KQxxx-Qxx-xx-Qxx
KQxxx-Jxx-xx-QJx
Kxxxx-xxx-xx-KQx
Kxxxx-xxx-Axx-xx

On none of these hands can I envision slam being a likely possibility.
When bidding 4H (assuming 1S first), yes, you tell partner you have more
than a minimum 6 pts, but also that your values are not conducive to 
encouraging/suggesting slam opposite a balanced 18 points. You also
by inference have a hand which you think plays better in 4H than 3NT.

When bidding 3H, it says I may have something useful for you if you
are interested in slam and encourages cue-bidding to find out more.
3H leaves room for exploration to check if the right cards are held.
This indicates that 4H should be used for non-forward going hands.

It is also useful to play 3C as a relay to sign-off in 3H/3S over 2NT
to allow bidding a descriptive 1S on a hand such as KQxxx-xxx-xx-xxx,
particularly when playing constructive raises. Otherwise in some
treatments your hand might not be good enough to take two calls.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: Professor WHO?
Subject: Some amusing things about Acol and others of its ilk....
Summary: Was "Subject: Re: Need some help"
Originator: boyiny@kovalevskaya
Keywords: Acol, raises, forcing, tempo
Reply-To: maboyiny@ccvax.as.edu.tw (Dr. Weird)
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
X-Subliminal-Message: Who needs forcing bids.....?
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 00:18:48 GMT

[Don Varvel about a OkBridge bidder from hell....]
>
>D: What do you play?
>P: SA 5cm limit raises, but I don't know Jacoby 2NT.  What range
>   for 2NT bid?  11-12 or 13-15?
>D: What *do* you use for a forcing raise?
>P: New suits are forcing.
>D: I open 1S and you have Kxxx AQx QTxx Qx.  What do you bid?
>P: CQ not worth much, 3S.  [I consider even Kxxx AQx QTxx xx worth
>   a game force, but decided to press on.]
>D: Then make it Kxxx AQx QTxx Kx.
>P: That why I ask about 2NT range.  13-15?
>D: To hell with it.  Bid.

>That partner actually turned out to be pretty good, by OKBridge
>standards.  He played very sound defense and we had no bidding 
>misunderstandings.

As recently as 1970, Standard Acol basically has _NO_ forcing raises
sequences available!  Eventually Swiss, splinters, and the Jacoby 2N took
over, but essentially there is no way to try for a slam intelligently-- all
bidding is quantitative a la B J Becker-- often bidding
will go something like

1S-3S-5S-6S

or 1D-3D-6D

or 1H-4H-6H

The only ways to show a better than game raise is the "Delayed Game Raise"
or the strong jumpshift.

The incredible thing is, this is actually not that stupid a way to play
short of the highest levels.  Just try to find a lead after one of those
bounces to slam!  It took the Italians to persuade the world the slow
bidding works better.

Another thing to notice is that Orthodox Blue Club (from the Blue Book) has
no immediate forcing raise either.  It was probably a tribute to the
intrinsic beauty of the Blue Club and the judgment of Forquet-Garozzo that 
for ten years they outbid the world's best armed with all the best Science
of the time.  [In case anyone thinks that bidding in those days were simple,