HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se (Lars.Andersson)
Subject: Re: Another swing involving a Multi
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 12:55:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.223151.5681@leland.Stanford.EDU> daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao) writes:
>1991 NEC World Championships--Quarterfinals 
>Board 6 of the first of six 16 board segments.
>(Source: World Championship Book 1991)
>
>Vul:EW     J8
>Dlr:E      JT9764
>           KJ6
>           Q9
>97                  AQT432
>K83                 5
>AQT94               75
>653                 K742
>           K65
>           AQ2
>           832
>           AJT8
>
>Bermuda Bowl quarterfinals: Iceland v USA II
>Open Room
>West        North        East      South
>-           -            2S        x
>3D*         4H           4S        x
>P           P            P
>Result: NS -800
NS+800.

I think West is supposed to hold Kxx/xx/ADT9x/xxx or something like that.
Based on that information it is sick (right Bob?) of East to bid 4S, no
fit for diamonds, if they make 4H you probably go 2 down in 4S, nothing
gained. On the actual hand the 3D bid helped NS to bid their
bad game (4 finesses out of 5).

Compare this with if East holds AQTxxx/x/Kxx/xxx, on that hand he should
clearly bid 4S (and be very suprised to go for 500 or 800).

My conclusion is;

a. West misbid with 3D
b. East misbid with 4S
c. North used the information perfectly.

To go for 800 must be considered just in that perspective.

>
>Closed Room
>West        North        East      South
>Arnarson    Weinstein    Jonsson   Stewart 
>-           -            2D*       P
>2S          P            P         x
>P           3H           P         P
>P
>Result: NS +170, 12 IMPs to Iceland. 
>

Well judged bidding by NS but unlucky. I use the double over 2D to
show (primarily) 14-16 BAL and a later double as a limited T/O.

>Venice Cup quarterfinals: Japan v USA I
>Open Room
>West        North        East      South
>Meyers      Hayashi      Schulle   Aoki
>-           -            2D*       P
>2S          P            P         P
>Result: NS +100
>

South was to conservative here, the Multi gave her tho chances that she did
not use.

>Closed Room

>West        North        East      South
>Tan         Chambers     Shimamura Bjerkan 
>-           -            2S        x
>P           4H           P         P
>P
>Result: NS +420, 8 IMPs to USA I

Directly over 2S this hand is a marginal T/O-double. I believe that
North should restrict herself to 3H (positive at least when using
Lebensohl). Anyway, who can argue with succes!?

--lars
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: "Kevin T. Likes" <likes@leopard.cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Bid these hands
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:42:20 -0500

In article <lb9reqINNefj@bovina.cs.utexas.edu> varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.110325.8655@news.cs.indiana.edu> likes@moose.cs.indiana.edu (Kevin Likes) writes:
>>Kevin Likes
>>Bridge Neophyte (but learning)
>
>Uh, pardon me, but what's a bridge neophyte doing messing with Romex?
>I'm not exactly a neophyte, and *my* time would be better spent going
>through Kelsey's books on play and defense.  Not that studying arcane
>bidding systems isn't fun, of course.
>
>-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)

As I told Don in a letter, I don't actually mess around with Romex, I'm just
impressed with it.  I was trying to figure out how the auction would go using
the book, and ran into a snag (which I solved the same way Don did).  I just
wanted to be sure.  Maybe someday I'll start playing well enough to allow
myself to always bid to the right contract.  :-)

Kevin "Okay, neophyte may be understating things a bit" Likes

p.s. I agree totally about Kelsey, although you should always add Kantar,
especially when talking to neophytes. :-)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: hamilton@robin.rtp.dg.com (Eric Hamilton)
Subject: Re: What would you bid?
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 20:57:24 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <34823@cbmvax.commodore.com>, macon@gallifry.Berkeley.EDU (Glen Macon) 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.
|> 
|> au contraire, 3D is a point count bid (let alone the the power in D).
|> if your partner has the points, you should end up at game (looks like
|> a good 4H).
|> 
Well, of course it's a point count bid.  That's the problem.

Do you want to be counting points on a three-loser hand with KQx
as trump support?

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Hamilton				+1 919 248 6172
Data General Corporation		hamilton@dg-rtp.rtp.dg.com
62 Alexander Drive			...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!hamilton
Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: PSP #20.1
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:46:25 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Matthew Merzbacher <matthew@cs.ucla.edu> writes:
>[ This hand was an experiment.  I was somewhat curious to see how routine 
>  5C might be.  7 out of 27 doesn't seem to be "routine" to me.   Of course 
>  there were a couple of other panelists who might have bid 5C at favorable 
>  vulnerability, but LeBendig didn't give the vul.  ]

If faced with this ridiculous appeal, I'd be tempted to rule that South
would indeed have preempted if the double had been alerted, and adjust
the score to 7D making seven.  :-)

                                        David desJardins
From: ahollander@dcs.simpact.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Ethics questions
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:16:46 PDT
Organization: Simpact Associates, San Diego CA

In article <18quljINNa45@overload.lbl.gov>, asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky) writes:
> In article <1992Sep11.143903.17527@ms.uky.edu> jhaywood@ms.uky.edu (Joel D Haywood) writes:
>>>You look at your hand and realize that your ace-deuce doubleton of diamonds
>>>is the ace of diamonds and the deuce of hearts, and therefore that your call
>>>should have been 4H and that 3N is going to be a grossly inferior contract.
>>>1) Can you ethically correct 3N to 4H after partner's explanation?
> 
>>I really don't see why not.  Classically, the sequence 3H followed by 4H can be
> 
> My initial reaction was the same, however, thinking about some analogous
> cases for a moment, I believe that once you've misbid your hand, if partner
> correctly explained your bids you have to stick with the original sequence.
> 
> Analogy -- 1NT, you overcall 2H showing the majors.  Partner explains as
> such and bids 2S.  You look at your hand and suddenly realize that your
> spades are really all clubs.  Can you correct to 3C?  Of course not.

Of course you are allowed to bid 3C.  B U T, partner has to interpret it in 
the light of the 2H hand as showing the majors.

> For all we know you might have thought 2H showed hearts and a minor (esp
> if you have spade tolerance).  This is not _that_ different of a case.

If you bid in tempo everything is fine.  Out of tempo bids get you into the 
unauthorized information nightmare.  This means that you can make the 4H 
bid but partner has to bid according to your hand being one that fits the 
3H-4H sequence.  In pre-JTB days, that meant a slam try.

If partner evaluates opposite the PROMISED hand, everything is ok.  If 
partner gets lucky and passes a hand that should have made another bid, 
regardless of wheter you paused or not, then the Law of Coincidence 
applies.  ie, you can't land on your feet when both partners take 
anti-systemic actions.

>>>2) If you choose to correct, and it ends up in committee, should the result be
>>>   allowed to stand?

See previous comments.  I don't think any committee would think that you've 
been awakened by partner's explanation -- unless by some quirk you also 
have convention cards that don't match and that may account for the 
possibility of unauthorized information.  Now the problem is not what you 
do, but what partner does.  4H is a gamble hoping partner has a hand that 
can't accept a slam try.  If partner does something unusual no lawyer can 
save you.

yet another opinion from Al

<<remainder deleted>>

> "In order to command you must first learn to submit" - chinese fortune cookie

"Early rising may not be a vice, but it is certainly no virtue"
	Lazarus Long (a Robert Heinlein character)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: Professor WHO?
Subject: Re: Meckstroth-Rodwell book
Summary: Fun Story.
Originator: boyiny@kovalevskaya
Keywords: anecdote, system
Reply-To: maboyiny@ccvax.as.edu.tw (Dr. Weird)
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
X-Subliminal-Message: You can stop playing bridge any time you want.
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 01:33:40 GMT

[A. Hollander about the Meckwell system]
>I spoke with Jeff Meckstroth during the Pasadena nationals and it seems 
>clear that the only way the public will see these notes -- in any fashion 
>-- will be the opening of a time capsule.

According to Eric Rodwell, he would not mind writing up a book about it if
it could sell like "Five Weeks to Winning Bridge" or anything with a
circulation like Daniele Steele (he actually mentioned a different author,
but I forgot who), but otherwise ".... I WANT to let the world know about
my great theories, ______, but it will simply not be worth my time."

Forgive him--- he has to earn a living too.  :-( :-(

>With the exception of a few expert PAIRS that they have exchanged notes 
>with, the only people to see the notes are the folks that play it, 
>Meckstroth and Rodwell and their part-time partnerships and Marty Bergen 
>in his partnership with ?? (the fellow from Iceland or one of the 
>Scandinavian countries)

Herein lies a tale.

I was playing in Indianapolis, in the second session of the Reisinger.  The
highlight of the whole tournament was finishing two boards and a half in
front of the Zia team, who finished last in the section :-) :-)

I and Michael move to the last table to encounter Bergen and Fallenius.
Fallenius was away from the table and I mentioned that we had to skip
Meckwell in the same section ("I want my entry fee back!") and Marty bared
his teeth (that is, he tried to smile) and said that we will at least see
the system in action, as he shoved his conventioned card, with a whole
sheet about what they play on the opening lead, at me.  Sure enough, it
looked like the meckwell system, but....

The first board of the set, we had this auction:

Michael Fallenius  BY	Bergen
Pass	1D #	1S	2S #
Pass	2N			# Alerts

At this point I raised my eyebrows with a quizzical air.

Marty, observant as always, said in tempo:

"Well, yes, I made certain modifications to it...."

"What WAS it?"

"Game forcing with at least five hearts."

It went P-3N-all pass and we won the board on my lead (more or less lucky).

After the hand, Marty inquired:

"You actually KNOW what that was in the Meckwell system, hey?"

"Yes."

For those who are interested, that was supposed to show clubs in the early
1991 version of M-R, and 2N was a preaccept.  We won the round....

>Too bad, I think they'd still beat up on the world even if others studied, 
>and or played their system.

But it would be harder, I will venture to say.
From: brl@kopasker.is (Bjorgvin Runar Leifsson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Books on Precision
Date: 12 Sep 92 13:03:07 GMT
Reply-To: brl@kopasker.is (Bjorgvin Runar Leifsson)
Organization: Kopasker Primary, Iceland

After posting my article, which I called 'defence against defence against
precision 1C', I have received some e-mail where I am asked to post some
comments on books on Precision and various ways of defensive bidding against
the strong 1C opening and how the par playing Precision can defend against
these interferences.
The bidding methods have to wait a little but here are my humble comments
on Precision books.  Please nota that in no way I claim myself being an
expert on this subject but I have studied Precision variations for many
years now and hopefully my views can be of some help to somebody.  Those of
you who disagree with me will hopefully post your meanings as well.

To begin with, I must say that I am not very keen on Goren's books on the
subject, having read two of them.  My favourite book on Precision is
Terence Reese's 'Precision Bidding and Precision Play', which after my
meaning is one of the best for the average player to begin with if he/she
wants to change from, say, a natural system to a strong club system.

Those of you that are bridge beginners, there is a small booklet called
'Simplified Precision'.  It's been a long time since I saw it and I don't
recall the author's name, sorry.  I have used methods from that book,
however, to teach beginners and it has worked quie well so far.

Now, for those that are familiar with Precision and want to expand their
system, the best book I can recommend is 'Power Precision' by Alan Sontag,
which he wrote while playing with Peter Weichsel.  This system, which I
have played for a few years, is indeed complicated in some parts of it but
if you are familiar with the Italian style asking bids (the 'alpha', 'beta'
and 'gamma' system), you should quickly learn that in most parts it is very
simple.  And anyway, you don't have to adopt the whole system at once but
can simply use parts of it.
Now I understand that ABCL has some strict rules about artificial bid and
specially on multi-bids (please correct me if I am wrong) so perhaps some
parts of this system are not allowed in USA?  I find hard to believe, though,
as the authors are Americans and as a matter of fact used this system to
win the Cavendish Calcutta twice in a row back in the seventies.

Finally, I have had some questions about the world champions Jon Baldursson
and Adalsteinn Jorgensen's bidding system, which is based on relay bids.
I understand that it has been published by the British player Tony Sowter
but I do not know much about it.

In hope that these informations will be of some help to somebody,

Bjorgvin R. Leifsson
brl@kopasker.is
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: You pays your money ...
Date: 11 Sep 1992 15:12:28 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

... and you takes your choice.  My choices last night seemed never to 
work out, and I certainly paid my money.

Both vul, second seat, IMPs, what do you open with 

S:Kx H:x D:QJ C:AKQJxxxx?

If you open 1C, what do you bid over a 1D response with the opponents
(miraculously) silent?  If you open 2C (Gag!  4 fast losers in a minor-
suit hand and about one defensive trick) how do you plan to continue?
If you open 5C, do you expect partner to bid 6 with AK and A, hoping
they are the right ones?



At unfavorable, third seat, IMPs, partner passes and RHO opens 4C,
preemptive in clubs.  You hold

S:KQT9xxx H:Kx D:QJ9xx C:--

I presume you bid 4S.  LHO bids 5C and partner doubles.  Do you pull?



Finally, 3rd seat nobody vul, IMPs, partner bids 4S and RHO bids 5H.
Things haven't been going well, but you might make up some of the
difference by making the right choice on this hand:

S:KTxx H:AJx D:QJ9x C:Qx

Pass, bid, or double?  Assuming you pass or double, what do you lead?



Oh, yes.  And what do you say to your teammates when your opponents
bid and make 7NT while your teammates are playing a comfortable 5C?

Here's hoping you do better than I did.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: brl@kopasker.is (Bjorgvin Runar Leifsson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Defense against defense against Precision 1 club
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:33:02 GMT
Organization: Primary School of Kopasker, Iceland

Hi, bridge fans on the net!

In the first follow-up I saw to the article 'Precision anyone?', the writer
said that interference against the 1c opening usually is the big weakness
of the system, because many Precision players don't develop good enough
defense against these inteferences.  This is most true, but any strong club
player must be aware that almost no opponents keep silent after 1c anymore,
so if he still wants to keep his advantages, he must not forget the 'defense
against defense against 1c'.
Now, there are many ways of handling these interferences, both simple and
complicated.  Perhaps the simplest one is this:

A) 1C - dbl - ?

Pass = 0-4 hcp
1 D  = 5-7(8) hcp with no 4+ major
redbl = 5-7(8) hcp with at least on 4+ major
With 8(9)+ hcp: Bid as usual.


B) 1C - 1 of a suit - ?

Pass = 0-4 hcp
dbl = 5-7(8) hcp, no 5+card major
your suit = 5-7(8) hcp and 5+ in the suit
1NT = 5-7(8) hcp and stoppers in opponent's suit
With 8(9)+ hcp:  Bid one level more + cue-bids in opp's suit


This is simple and perhaps not the most effective way, but it is better than
sink in your chair anytime the opponents are cruel enough to enter the 
bidding after 1C opening.

As we all know, there are many types of defences against strong club openings.
Players that want to get far with their system must use more effective ways
than the above and be prepared for all kinds of preempts, transfer bids and
so on.  In 'Power Precision', Alan Sontag described no less than 8 different
defences against 1c and thus as many ways of defending against those
defences.

I would like to see more opinions on this matter on the net.  My partner and
I have played the Power Precision for a few years and we have both developed
defence against other's strong club openings and defence against those
boring opponents that dare to interfere with our 1c opening.  It would
also be nice to see what other people use.  Against precision 1c we use:

Pass:  I have absolutely nothing to say
1D:    Transfer to 1H (which can then be transferred to 1S if that is the 
       suit).  MAY BE PASSED if responder has long diamonds.  No more than 9
       hcp.
1H/1S: Good 6+ suit and 10-12 hcp
1NT:   3 4-card suits and 10-12 hcp
2C:    At least 5-4 in minors
2D:    At least 5-4 in reds
2H:    At least 5-4 in majors
2S:    At least 5-4 in blacks
DBL:   At least 13 good hcp usually with one 5+ suit

I'll wait to read about your methods

Bjorgvin R. Leifsson
brl@kopasker.is


Please don't flame me for my English.  There must be something worse than
that to flame :-)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: fishberg@cs.swarthmore.edu (Dylan Steinberg)
Subject: Re: assign the blame
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:47:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.140036.15400@walter.bellcore.com> mie@faline.bellcore.com (Martin I. Eiger) writes:
>Regular matchpoints game, NS vulnerable
>
>            S-A98753
>            H-3
>            D-654
>            C-T72                         W    N    E    S
>S-KQ642                 S-T              ---  ---  ---  ---
>H-J9742                 H-KQT86           P    P   1H    D
>D-2                     D-T9             4H   4S   5H    D
>C-86                    C-AKJ93           P   5S   P     P
>            S-J                           D    P   P     P
>            H-A5
>            D-AKQJ873
>            C-Q54
>
>Down three for minus 800 was a cold bottom for north and south.  5H
>doubled, going down 1, would have been better.
>
>North and south play 8-15 points for a simple overcall.  South claims
>that the first double, followed by a free bid in diamonds, was
>intended to show a strong one-suiter.  Unfortunately, the bidding got
>too high before south could bid the diamonds again.
>
>North claims that south should have made a 2D overcall instead of
>doubling.  North inferred that south had at least some tolerance for
>spades because of the double.
>
>South claims that north should have inferred from south's second
>double that south was prepared to defend against 5H and not prepared
>to play 5S, and that north therefore shouldn't have pulled the double
>of 5H.
>
>What's your opinion.  Who's to blame and why?
>
>                                            Martin Eiger
>                                            mie@thumper.bellcore.com

While it is true that south should have tolerance for spades to double,
north's 5S rebid seems much more blameworthy.  After the 4S bid, north has
already probably overestimated the worth of his/her hand.  If after hearing
that bid, south would rather play in 5H doubled (as is clear from south's
bid) then that is probably the better place to be.

--Dylan
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dylan Steinberg				"A foolish consistancy is the
Swarthmore College			hobgoblin of little minds."
Swarthmore, PA				    --Ralph Waldo Emerson
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: magnus@jaist-east.ac.jp (Magnus Halldorsson)
Subject: Re: assign the blame
Organization: School of Info Science, JAIST Hokuriku, Japan
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 06:20:45 GMT


   Regular matchpoints game, NS vulnerable

	       S-A98753
	       H-3
	       D-654
	       C-T72                         W    N    E    S
   S-KQ642                 S-T              ---  ---  ---  ---
   H-J9742                 H-KQT86           P    P   1H    D
   D-2                     D-T9             4H   4S   5H    D
   C-86                    C-AKJ93           P   5S   P     P
	       S-J                           D    P   P     P
	       H-A5
	       D-AKQJ873
	       C-Q54

The opening double is an unfortunate one, but not impossible.  As far
as I can see, the doubling of 5H pretty much closes the option for
North to bid 5S. Especially with this weak suit.

Magnus