HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: NT with a partial stopper
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:00:31 GMT
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


In article <1560@idacrd.UUCP>, desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
[most of article deleted.]
>   The hand is AK/Jxx/AKxx/KQT9 and the auction is 1H-?.
>  Everyone (even Bob, I think?) would agree on double after 1H-P-P-?.

Don't be so sure about the last.  Followup over 1S is still a big
problem.  Sure, you cue bid, but what do you do when partner persists
with 2S?  Pass I suppose, but it could easily be a 4-2 (or 3-2?) fit.
Didn't your first cue guarantee three card spade support?  Or maybe
you bid 2C instead of cue and risk playing in the 4-2 (or 4-1?) fit.

Many systems, including Bridge World Standard, use a balancing jump
to 2NT as natural showing 18-19 or 18-20 points.  Of course, it
should show a stopper, but how likely is it that _when partner
raises_ there won't be a stopper in the combined hands?  2NT is not a
delight, but it shows the character of the hand and bypasses the
problems of double.  Even if result is not optimum, it shouldn't be
ridiculous.

Don't get me wrong - I think double is probably the better call.
After all, partner may not say 1S, and then we have no problem.  But
I'm fairly sure some would bid 2NT instead of double, and even pass
might have its advocates.

This might be a good hand for a simulation.
-- 
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: spencer@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: cue-bidding question
Reply-To: spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun)
Organization: Live Organ Transplants
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:56:27 GMT

for unknown reasons this seems not to have made it out the first time.
Apologies if this is a duplicate message...

When cue-bidding, if one has multiple potential cue-bids, is there any
particular rule you can use as to which one to bid first, or do you sort
of just play it by ear... (if you consider this a stupid, flame-worthy
question, I'll be happy to accept it in e-mail so that it doesn't
pollute the newsgroup).

The reason I ask is because while playing okbridge tonight, we bid and
made 6S, but only because the opponents didn't make the correct lead.
I'm wondering how the bidding might have gone if certain cards had been
different.  Here's the deal:

          AT954
          Q92
          KQ94
          A

J                   32
AT875               K43
J652                T83
T52                 Q8764

          KQ876
          J6
          A7
          KJ93 

The bidding was, I think, fairly straightforward.  Duplicate scoring,
both vul, dealer north (my partner).  Opponents were silent throughout
the auction.  It went...

   1S - 2N (Jacoby)
   3C - 3D
   3S - 4C
   4N - 5S (RKC)
   6S - all pass
	
opponents did not lead a heart for unknown reasons (it's the only unbid
suit) and the contract makes (my partner was aware he was bidding a slam
that goes down with the correct lead, but bid it anyway, dunno why)

Commentary on the hand thus far is welcome, but my real question is,
suppose either of us had held the HA?  If I have it, then at round two, do
I show DA or HA first?  How about round 3, do I show CK or the other ace
first?  Are there any sort of guidelines or do you just wing it...

Thanks in advance for any helpful advice.

----------- The opinions expressed in this article are solely mine. -----------
<Insert lame attempt at disclaimer humor>
sss/PU'94 Dept of CS (spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu)/JvNCnet (spencer@jvnc.net)
Two For America -- Bill 'n' Opus '92 -- This time, why not the worst?

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: jhaywood@ms.uky.edu (Joel D Haywood)
Subject: Try this one
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 05:36:02 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

My partner had this hand in a club game last night.  I'd like to see how others
would bid it.

You have K 8 6 3 2
         ---
         A 3
         A K Q 8 5 3
None vulnerable at pairs (not the greatest field)

Partner opens a second seat 1D (playing strong NT), you bid 1S, and, then,
partner raises to 2S.  Now what is your bidding plan?

The result was a bit surprising (at least to me), and I will give the answer
she gave after about two weeks.

Have fun.
-- 
********************************************************************************                                                                                Joel D. Haywood                         jhaywood@ms.uky.edu                     (606) 231-9083                          jhaywood@ukma.bitnet                                                                                                    ********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From:  (martino@courier6.aero.org(Nick Martino))
Subject: Re: Appeals Committee ruling
Followup-To: rec.games.bridge
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:28:13 GMT

In article <ted.714063980@sage0>, ted@sage0.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) wrote:
> 
>           S: -
>           H: KQJT6
>           D: T82                      Board 11
>           C: Q9432                    None Vul
>                                       Dealer South
> S: 85                S: T9642
> H: 8                 H: 742           South  West   North  East
> D: AKQJ9764          D: 3             ----------------------------
> C: 87                C: AJT6          1S     3S     P      3NT
>                                       X      4D     X      P
>           S: AKQJ73                   P      P
>           H: A953
>           D: 5
>           C: K5
>
> 
> After the hand was played out (4D-X, off 1).  West had thought that his
> bid was just a gambling 3NT type hand with a running minor and not just
> requesting a spade stopper.  North-South thought that West's run to 4D was
> based off an inference taken from the answer given about the 3S bid.  The
> director was called to the table.
>	
I'm a little curious what prompted WEST to offer that he thought his 3S bid
denied anything but a running minor.  Otherwise, how could NS possibly
think they were damaged ?  Given that he did volunteer that information
after the hand was played (or bid), I would have to conclude that either
he's honest by nature or a masochist.  Presuming the former, I would be at
least a little bit inclined to believe that he *was* intending to bid 4D,
if doubled.  After all, how sure could he be of his partner's understanding
of the 3S bid. 

That said, I also admire the director's ruling to decide in favor of the
non-offending side.  On committee, I would rule A- to EW and leave NS with
their  justly-deserved +100.  I just don't see how any misinformation
*they* were given in the bidding affected their actions.  Certainly, EAST's
statement that they hadn't played together much should have warned NS to
bid according to their own values, not to play WEST for a big hand.
 

  	


*******************************************************************************
                                                                          
*                                                                          
          
*    martino@courier6.Aero.org (Nick Martino)                           
    *    
*    The Aerospace Corporation                                             
 *
*                                                                          
 * 
******************************************************************************

 
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao)
Subject: Re: A Matchpoint Decision
Reply-To: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:47:03 GMT

sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Myerson) writes:
>Matchpoints. None Vulnerable.

>  Dummy:  Tx, Kx,  Kxx, KJxxxx
>  You:    xx, Axx, QJx, AQxxx

>You, as dealer, opened 1N (13-16). 
>LHO passed and partner invited with 2N.
>RHO, you, and LHO all passed.

>The opening lead is a small heart.
>You win in dummy and lead a club towards your hand.
>Your RHO shows out, discarding an extremely encouraging spade.

>At this point, you realize the opponents can make 3 or 4 spades,
>as your only tricks are two hearts and possibly 2 diamonds.
>Your first thought is to cash out for +120,
>to beat all the pairs going -140, -170, -420 defending against spades,
>or possibly +50 for beating 4S.

>Then the realization hits that 3C or 4C will make +130,
>so +120 may not be enough.

One key principle in matchpoints, is never to try and gild the lily.
Be satisfied with good scores, and don't risk them by shooting for a
top (the reverse applies when you are heading for a bad score -- then
shoot away).  You said it best below...

>You also know that this bidding sequence will
>probably not be duplicated at other tables.

Right, so +120 rates to be an excellent score -- not a top, but in the
65-80% range.  Cash out like a lamb.

>The question: Should you cash out for +120,
>or try to sneak a diamond through for +150?

Incidentally, if I were in 3NT, the decision would be a lot harder --
it is unclear how good -50 will be, but it may be decent.  A -150 or
-200 is guaranteed to be horrendous.....  I think I would cash out
there as well, and hope to get 50%, as the likelihood of opponents not
cashing spades is remote (however, if they are 5-4 and RHO pitched
from 5, then it can't hurt..).

>Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)

Bharat
From: varis@zoyd.ae.utexas.edu (Varis (Carey))
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bid this monster
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:13:11 GMT
Organization: CFD Lab, Dept ASE-EM, University of Texas at Austin
In-reply-to: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com's message of 18 Aug 92 15:01:14 GMT


Well, with the south hand I would shrug, comment about the imperfect
world we live in, and bid 6H.  The partnership in question, as well as
most in the bridge community, do not have the science available to get
to 7H.

I would have invited with the N cards.  Has to much defense against
diamond contracts. (ideally a jump cue to show a dist limit raise, or
even more preferred, a 3H call to show a limit raise)  Opponents will not
outbid us as they are vulnerable.

Superscience asking bids or some wierd form of denial cues could get
to 7H, but most legitimate trials will not.

I am suprised that North did not bid 5D on his cards, almost as much
as norths failure to bid 4S.

You generally do not have many aces for a 4H call, so showing KQ or K
work well also.

--
_____________________________________________________________________________
|"Kojiro had put his confidence in the sword of strength and skill. Musashi |
| trusted in the sword of the spirit.  That was the only difference between |
| them."  From Eiji Yoshikawa's "The Way of Life and Death"		    |
|				KILLER CLOWN				    |
| email: varis@cfdlab.ae.utexas.edu					    |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: holzsche@prl.philips.nl (Con Holzscherer)
Subject: Re: you be the judge
Organization: Philips Research Laboratories, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 09:50:02 GMT

In article <matthew.713298019@base.cs.ucla.edu> Matthew Merzbacher writes:
> karlton@fudge.asd.sgi.com (Phil Karlton) writes:

>>     (N)
>>    AKQJT	    Neither side vulnerable
>>    x
>>    Jxx
>>    Axxx
>>    
>>     (S)
>>    98xxx
>>    AQTx
>>    QT
>>    Qx
>
>> The bidding went
>
>>   N	 E    S   W
>>  1S   p   4S

> couple of posters have pointed out that South doesn't have a 4S bid.  
> 4S should show the "weak freak" with fewer "points" and more distribution.

   This a question of agreement. What should one bid with a game-going
hand with 4 or more spades and no shortness (e.g. AJxxx Qtxx Kx Kx)?
Some people bid a non-standard 2C or 2H, others use an artificial 3 NT
bid and some bid 4S directly....

>I agree that South shouldn't bid 4S, but I'm curious to know what people
>think South should bid.

   If one uses limit bids, the South hand is a 3S bid.

>The hand has sufficient values to go to game,

   I disagree! North can have lots of even non-minimum hands with which
a game (or at least 4S) is pretty bad. For instance: AKQJt Kxx Jx xxx;
worse, partner can have a minimum hand that needs a finesse for 3S:
AKQxx xx Jxx Jxx.



-- 
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Con Holzscherer | phone +31-40-744431 | Internet: holzsche@prl.philips.nl  |
| Philips Research,  PO-box 80000, 5600 JA  Eindhoven, The Netherlands       |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: milord@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Brian Bankler)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bid this one for me
Date: 21 Aug 92 23:57:31 GMT
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore

In article <5808@transfer.stratus.com> tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.110226.1660@gacvx2.gac.edu>, jengelha@nic.gac.edu (Jeff Engelhardt) writes:
>> North dealing
>> 
>> N:	A K Q J 9 6 5 3 2
>> 	4
>> 	J 9
>> 	4
>> 
>> S:	T
>> 	A K 8 3
>> 	A 7 6 5
>> 	A K Q T
>
>As Bob pointed out, this is the hand Namyats was invented for.  But, if we
>don't happen to be playing Namyats, the opening alternatives are 1S, 2C, and
>4NT (Blackwood).
>
>I think 4NT is the best choice because it has a good chance of shutting the
>opponents out and getting precisely the info we need.  4NT obviously works
>out fine in this case (4NT-5S-5NT-6H-7S-7NT).  It also works out fine if
>partner has 0 or 1 ace (if we can't make 5S, they can likely make 5 of some
>other suit).  If partner has two aces, we'll try 6S, but we might come up
>short a trick.  Oh, well.
>
>On the other hand, either 1S or 2C begins to misdescribe our hand, isn't
>likely to extract the info we need from partner, and gives the opponents
>plenty of room to discover whether they have a good game or sacrifice (or
>maybe even a slam).
>
>- Tim

I didn't see Bob's post, but I have to think that Namyats (if you play it)
or simply 4S is better than 4NT.  After all, you aren't (as you noticed) very
well placed after a 2 Ace response.  And even if partner only has 1 ace,
you might be one level too high.  The fact that they might make something
is just a guess.  In fact, pard might be void in spades, and you take
two spades (2-2 break) and partners ace for down one.  Of course, the spade
break is good for defense, but, barring that, partner is quite likely to
have more than just 4 points (after all, there are 30 real points floating
around...)

4S (or Namyats) is almost as preemptive as 4N and gives you better room
to stop.  4S would be my choice Vul, although I respect those who think
that non-vul 1S is better.  After all, pard will probably not expect
me to have 9 tricks off the top non-vul (esp against vul).  More like
7-8.  Non-vul would depend on style, table presence (Who am I playing),
scoring and agreements.

There are more points and possible distributions than you have time to 
worry about them, so instead of asking for aces (which will only
help you if partner has all three and a king, which is what you need
to be reasonably certain that a grand exists...I say reasonably because
in 7N partner might have a spade and i 7S there might be a ruff)       
and guessing, why not give partner a fairly good (if not great)
idea of what you have?          


				Brian Bankler

 
-- 
Crowley -- An Angel who did not so much Fall as Saunter Vaguely Downwards
	*** Brian Bankler milord@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu ***
From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Appeals Committee ruling
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:34:42 GMT
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA
Zpath: willner


In article <Bt769z.5w3@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R.
Bharat Rao) writes: 
[discussing a case of unauthorized information]
>   The point is
> not whether West could work it out to pull the double by himself ---
> but whether his partner's explanation could have helped -- not "DID
> help him" but "could have helped" him.

This is correct as far as it goes, but it is only part of the
decision process.  There are really three questions to answer.

1.  Was unauthorized information transmitted?  Clearly yes, since
there is no doubt East gave an explanation that West heard.

2.  Could this information suggest one option over another?  Again
clearly yes, as RBR states.

3.  Would the option not suggested (pass in this case) be a "logical
option?"   The ACBL interprets this to mean, "Given only authorized
information, would at least 25% of equivalent players choose to
pass?"  I think this is a very close question, since West knows that
his 3S bid may have been misunderstood.  On the other hand, West's
testimony, as quoted, is not very convincing.

Incidentally, if the score is adjusted, it probably should not be to
-1100 in 3NTx.  East hardly has the promised spade stopper and thus
has good cause to run.  And EW deserve a procedural penalty for
East's improper explanation.  East should explain the EW agreement
("No agreement, we've seldom played together.") rather than how he
himself plans to interpret the bid.  It was the improper explanation
that caused the whole problem.

>  And it is completely improper for you to assume that this
> ruling casts any aspersion on anyone's character.

Absolutely correct.  The infraction alleged is purely technical, like
a lead out of turn.  We don't want to go back to the bad old days
when every score adjustment was considered a decision that someone
was unethical.
-- 
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
From: kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler)
Subject: Missing Slam
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: 15 Aug 92 15:08:42 GMT


Suggestions  on how to bid this will be appreciated.

 North: xxx, Jxx, xxx, AQxx

 South: Ax, AKQxxxx, Kx, Kx

The bidding:

   East   South    West    North
    1d     x        p       2c
    2d     3d       p       3h*
    p      4h**     p       p***
    p



I expect that the unstarred bids are routine.

*   Should North bid 4d to show  values?
**  Should  South bid 4d to push auction in to cue bidding?
*** Should North cue 5 clubs?

dennis
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Myerson)
Subject: A Matchpoint Decision
Organization: Raytheon Company
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 14:55:34 GMT

Matchpoints. None Vulnerable.

  Dummy:  Tx, Kx,  Kxx, KJxxxx
  You:    xx, Axx, QJx, AQxxx

You, as dealer, opened 1N (13-16). 
LHO passed and partner invited with 2N.
RHO, you, and LHO all passed.

The opening lead is a small heart.
You win in dummy and lead a club towards your hand.
Your RHO shows out, discarding an extremely encouraging spade.

At this point, you realize the opponents can make 3 or 4 spades,
as your only tricks are two hearts and possibly 2 diamonds.
Your first thought is to cash out for +120,
to beat all the pairs going -140, -170, -420 defending against spades,
or possibly +50 for beating 4S.

Then the realization hits that 3C or 4C will make +130,
so +120 may not be enough.

You also know that this bidding sequence will
probably not be duplicated at other tables.

The question: Should you cash out for +120,
or try to sneak a diamond through for +150?

Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: How to bid this one?
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:36:43 GMT

In article <karel.713695419@galaxy> karel@ph.tn.tudelft.nl (Karel Strasters) writes:
:bs@faron.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
:
 
stuff deleted...

:>:>It is a clear 7C, but how to get there? (keep in mind that this hand
:> 
:>How about a simple:
:
:>1H       1NT(forcing)
:>3C (GF)  4C (extras; 5C is signoff)
:>5D (1)   5H
:>5S       5NT (2)
:>7C
:
:>(1) Void showing splinter [remember 4D would show control as well]
:>    Implies at least 2nd round spade control since it forces to 6C
:
:>5H shows a heart card, 5S is a cuebid, 5NT is trump asking.
:
:I hace doubts about the 4C bid in a pair's event. Do you want to pass the
:3NT level on that hand? Partner is showing (at least) a 17+ 5-5 or a 

Passing 3NT is not a problem because it is not difficult to stop in 4NT.
Having made a 4C bid [inviting slam], responder can now bid 4NT over
any 4 level cuebid to show values [but soft values] with diamonds well
stopped.  4NT is NOT Blackwood once the partnership has started a cuebid
sequence.

Responder shows slam interest with the 4C bid, and then signs off in 4NT.
It is then up to opener to continue.
--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: karel@ph.tn.tudelft.nl (Karel Strasters)
Subject: How to bid this one?
Organization: Delft University of Technology
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 09:47:34 GMT

Last night (pairs event) i got the following west hand, N dealer , All:

AT9
AKJ92
-
AKQ75

Bidding starts of with (surpise) 3 passes.

How to open this one (we're playing dutch acol, but i'm 
interested in any natural system) ?

And how to respond with the following east hand:

QJ3
Q
QJ95
T8643

It is a clear 7C, but how to get there? (keep in mind that this hand
came up during a pairs event!)

-- 
========================================================================
Karel C. Strasters (karel@ph.tn.tudelft.nl)
Pattern Recognition Group,  Faculty of Applied Physics,
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.
From: taylor@foraker.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Eric Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: No-trump indicates stopper, but--!
Keywords: double, shape, power, stopper.
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:59:36 GMT

|> The Master Solvers Club is full of experts who opt for stopperless
|> no-trumps.  Miles is just one example.  Kit Woolsey is another.  They do
|> not seem to have too many problems finding partners in general.


I think this is out of context.  Bidding stopperless NT's is
ok when you can reasonably expect partner to have one.

With LHO openings and you having a 20 points hand, you can expect
your partner to have 1 ace or 1 king 50% of the time.  And the lead
will be from the dangerous side.  I would guess that a NT contract would go
down more than 50% of the time with a lead of the original bid suit.

Part of the problem is with methods.  There is no way to show a strong
balanced hand without a stopper in the opponents suit.  If the auction does
1H - P - P - P   (which it should around 70% of the time here) I doubt
you are going to get a very good score with 20 points in the second seat.
From: taylor@foraker.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Eric Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: you be the judge
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:21:14 GMT

In article <VARIS.92Aug11214228@trillian.ae.utexas.edu>, varis@trillian.ae.utexas.edu (Varis (Carey)) writes:
|> 
|> Well, just to add my 5c.
|> 
|> 98xxx AQTx QT Qx is better than a limit raise.  LTC is the way to go, guys.
|> Nuff said there.

Subtracting 1/2 loser for each Queen more than Aces, you have
a 9 loser hand.

Just out of curiosity, would anyone consider trying to buy the hand
in 3 NT given a suitable hand from partner?  (IMPS or PAIRS)

Since you have all of the tenaces, would you try NT immediately or
would you start with some forcing bid first and risk not being
declarer?  You certainly don't want to put your hand down
for fear of blowing partner's cool before than hand has been played :-)