HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:52:17 GMT
Subject: Re: Another missed slam
Organization: Princeton University
X-Subliminal-Message: You can quit reading news anytime you want.

In article <1992Aug24.145317.11125@linus.mitre.org> bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:

|:When is it considered "right" to open 5422 with 1NT?
| 
|You've got it backward. The right question is: when is it wrong?
|
|It is wrong when your short suits are weak. It is wrong when your
|hand is 'aces and spaces'. Here, your values are soft [except for
|AK spades which is in a SHORT suit], and you have tenaces. This
|hand is very notrump oriented.
|
|
|5422 is not and should not be a reason for not opening 1NT. How
|do you handle 2335 hands? 
|
|If the doubletons are weak by all means open in a suit.

At the risk of possibly starting a flame war, I'd like to point out that
it's a matter of partnership style whether to favor strict distributional
correctness or proper suit strength.  The former type are likely to open 1H
on 23456 in hearts but not AKQJ, whereas the latter may do just the
opposite.  The former will open 1N on any 5332 hand of the right strength
(w/o a 5-card major, of course), even if the doubleton is worthless, while
the latter will not, but may open 1N on 5422.

ben
--

Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Life Master ?= expert
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:34:48 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Steve Willner <willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu> writes:
>For the truly depraved, the full auction was 3C-3S-4C-4D-(x)-4S-(x).
>This went off 1100 for a zero, my hand being K5 96 T2 KQJT976.

This seems like a pretty clear 4S bid over 3S.  Isn't K5 very good
support for spades on this auction?

                                        David desJardins
From: ding@msc.cornell.edu (Gary Ding)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Precision
Date: 4 Sep 92 00:08:02 GMT
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center

In article <9209031540.aa11178@Paris.ics.uci.edu> kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler) writes:
>
> I'm considering switching from 2/1 to Precision, a system
>I've only read about. My attraction to Precision is
>the closer specification of non 1-club opening hands
>and what appears to be a fairly simple bidding structure.
>Would people with experience comment on the deficits
>of Precision?

	I personally strongly prefer Precision to 2/1,  the non-1C
hands has a narrower range, as commented by many in the net earlier with
nearly universal understanding that it is a net gain.  Many raised the issue
that 1C invites gabbage overcalls or two suited-calls, and claimed that 1C
is the weak spot in precision.  I believe it is only true on highly
distributional hands where opponents have a fit, for example 1C 2S X 4S,
by the time it gets back to you, you know partner has a reasonably
good hand and none of you bid anything real!  Obviously it is a problem
and you have to take a wild stab once in a while. On the other hand,
if opponent is silent after your 1C, chances are you would land in the
optimal contract, especially on those borderline game/slam decisions.
	Also, the nebulous (2+) 1D opening in "MP precision" is troublesome,
but then again, there are other systems in which 1D promises only 0+D.
with my regular partners, I always insist on real (4+) D suit, at least in 1st
or 2nd seat.  The intermediate 2c opening is clearly a winner.  While the 
2D opening (4414 or better, D short) in its original form is probably a
waste, if not a joke, you would be far better off devising something 
more useful. 1NT opening of 13-15 gives you an edge most of the time,
but it will come back and hit you with a huge penalty once every few 
months, even if you create a runout system after 1NTX.
	That's my 1.95-cent worth.  Be a precisionist now!  :)

Gary
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao)
Subject: Re: Precision, anyone?
Reply-To: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:45:58 GMT

asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.163952.9341@ariel.ec.usf.edu> pollock@eggo.tmc.edu (Wayne Pollock) writes:
>>SA, 2/1, or Precision and hear the auction preceed 1-diamond, 2-spades, ???
>>The major weakness in Precision is the 1-club opening bid; now that opponents

>I think this is absolutely backwards.  (I've played a strong club system
>for a year or two and 2/1 for the rest of my natural bridge life) (well,
>ok and 4 card majors too).

Disagreeing with Asya twice in one day -- my death wish must be
kicking into overtime :-)

>If 1 club is the *weakness* of a strong club system, then it would be
>pretty idiotic to play it, since the whole system is built around the
>concept of precise bidding over a strong artificial opening bid which
>preserves the most amount of room.

Now, I do agree that calling 1C the "weakness" of a strong club system
is extreme, but IMveryHO the greatest strength of a strong club system
occurs when you DON'T open 1C, enabling you much greater latitude and
judgement in the part-score battles.  What you say is certainly true,
but nowadays the 1C opener is a red flag, inviting preemption.  Many
of the world's top players use a strong club system, so it can't hurt
a whole lot:-), but I would be interested in what these players
believe are the greatest strengths of the strong club.  Perhaps Dr.
martle could comment....

In fact, I believe that because of this reason strong club systems
would be absolutely murderous at matchpoints (where partscores tell
the entire story) and relatively less effective at IMPs (where slam
and game bidding have more importance t han at MPs).

>"In nature there are no rewards or punishments, only consequences"

OK - I am a ready... :-)

>Asya Kamsky	      e-mail: asya@ux5.lbl.gov                   Go Red Sox

Bharat

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: olle@astro.uu.se (Olof Morell)
Subject: Re: Precision, anyone?
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala, Sweden
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:12:43 GMT

In article <17jrdkINNqhl@overload.lbl.gov>, asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky) writes:
|> Maybe I'm a sample size of 5 (me and the partners I've played Big Clubs with)
|> but part score battles have not been much of strong points of a big club.
|> By definition, I would think a natural system would prevail.

Perhaps you do not gain so much in partscore battles, but well in 
contructive bidding after 1x.

E.g. 
1H - 1S
rebids as I play:
     2NT      = 4+ support OR a normal 3H rebid with max 1 spade
                (3C relay asks for what -> 3H: heart suit, 3S 4522,
                 new suit (3NT) shows singelton with support.)

     3H       = hearts and 2-3 spades, easing pressure on partner
                whether to act with medioker values without a heart
                fit.

Freeing bids like 2NT for other stuff than 18-19 NT helps constructive 
bidding a lot. The fact that you may show your values within 16 hcp is
hardly new, but great anyway...

Here in Sweden more and more people play a two way club, e.g. 11-13 NT
or 17+ any distr. This scares away the psyches and gives you a five
card major system for free, all balanced hands are opened with 1C or NT.
You lose slightly in the constructiveness in the strong club bidding,
but not that much. Less enemy preempting compensates well for that.


Opening 2C is of course a pain in the butt. :-) You're much too high.

*** Olle ***
----------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail - Olle.Morell@astro.uu.se

Snail Mail - Astronomical Observatory, Box 515, 751 20 Uppsala, Sweden
From: olle@astro.uu.se (Olof Morell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: what went wrong?
Date: 27 Aug 92 11:20:00 GMT
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala, Sweden

In article <1992Aug26.220901.24946@ramon.bgu.ac.il>, avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira) writes:
|> sperbr@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Ron E Sperber) writes:
|> : KQxxx
|> : KQTx
|> : x
|> : xxx
|> :
|> : Partner in first seat opens 1H and with the opponents silent the auction
|> : proceeds:
|> :
|> : 1H   1S(1)
|> : 2N   3H
|> : 3S   4H
|> : P
[deleted]
|> I think that you should bid 4H and not 3, unless you play that 3H is stronger
|> than 4H.

3H should certainly be forcing and stronger in this bidding, almost regardless
of system. With a weak hand with support you should raise immediately,
and otherwise you belong in game (supposing 2NT is approx 18 or so).

As soon as a gameforce is established, the immediate game bids are the
weakest, and supporting under game is either a slam try, or uncertainty of
strain, depending on situation (four or five card openings and so on.)

Playing four card majors this sequence is forcing, showing three card 
support.

*** Olle ***
----------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail - Olle.Morell@astro.uu.se

Snail Mail - Astronomical Observatory, Box 515, 751 20 Uppsala, Sweden
From: bmw@austin.ibm.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Slam, another one missed
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:18:03 GMT
Followup-To: bmw@dce.austin.ibm.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM Austin
Originator: bmw@yale.austin.ibm.com


The following hand came up last night at duplicate with almost everyone
in 4S making 6. How would you bid this?

North Dealer      East                   West

                  10x                    AKxxxxx
                  Axx                    x
                  xx                     AK
                  AQ10xxx                Jxx

Our auction started:
          N    E    S    W
         -------------------
          P    P    P    1S
          2H
From: spencer@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Try this one
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:14:48 GMT
Reply-To: spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun)
Organization: Live Organ Transplants

In article <1992Aug26.173046.14500@linus.mitre.org>, bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.162310.20713@Princeton.EDU> spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) writes:
> 
>Let's not have another debate over whether answering "You bid 'y',
>what's the problem?" is belligerent.  Some questions ARE like asking
>"what is 1+1", and it IS appropriate to then ask "why is this a problem?"

If I saw "what is 1+1" on a math newsgroup I'd ignore it (sort of like
you ignore the questions "How do I remove a file with [some special
character] in its name?" on the comp.unix groups).  Or e-mail the reply
(which I sometimes do, and if I do, I word it politely).

Just a different approach, but that's life.

----------- 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)
There comes a time when all the cosmic tumblers have clicked into place,
and the universe opens itself up for a few seconds to show you what's
possible.  [Terence Mann (James Earl Jones), Field of Dreams]
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: Brynjulv.Hauksson@nr.no (Brynjulv Hauksson)
Subject: Re: Strong opening?
Organization: Norsk Regnesentral, Oslo, Norway
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:00:53 GMT

In article <eleitv.714915954@rw6.urc.tue.nl> eleitv@rw6.urc.tue.nl (Thijs Veugen) writes:
>   KQ9xx
>   xxx
>   T
>   JTxx
>
>   Ax
>   J9
>   AKQJ9xxx
>   8
>
>   The bidding went:
>   W     N     E     S
>   -     -     -     2D(1)
>   P     2H(2) 3C    3D(3)
>   5C    D     P     6D
>   P     P     P
>
>   (1) Weak two in hearts or a semi/game force opening in diamonds
>   (2) Weak relay, 0-14 HCP
>   (3) Semi force in diamonds (8/9 tricks)

>   1. Should South open his hand with a preempt because of his little
>      defensive force?

I would open this hand with 1D, although I may regret not having opened 
an atypical 5D. If your agreements (and of course your alerts and 
explanations!) cover this sort of semi-psychic 2D opening I see 
nothing wrong with that opening.

>   2. Is North's double ok?

Unless you have very peculiar agreements about what a double shows
in this position, it looks perfect.

>   3. Is 6D a realistic try or just a stupid bid?

I think it's a *very* optimistic bid (stupid actually).
--
Brynjulv Hauksson       |  snail: Boks 114 Blindern, N-0314 Oslo, Norway
Norsk Regnesentral      |  X.400: G=Brynjulv;S=Hauksson;O=nr;P=uninett;C=no
voice: +47-2-453608     |  inet:  Brynjulv.Hauksson@nr.no

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Myerson)
Subject: Re: bidding problem
Keywords: precision
Organization: Raytheon Company, Portsmouth, RI
Distribution: rec
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:50:51 GMT

In article <BtK2Dy.2ut@me.utoronto.ca> Xiaodong Zhang writes:

* South hand: S:X H:AQJxxx D:T9XXX C:x
* 
* The bidding is:
* 
* North	East	South	West
*                          1S
*  X      Pass      ???
* 
* What should south bid? 3h 4h or 2s? I bid 4h, and the bidding is:

4H seems like a fine bid.

*  N	E	S	W
* 			1S
*  X	P	4h	P
*  P	X	P	P
*  5C	X	5D	X
*  P	P	P
* 
* The hand are:
* 
* 		North S:KJx
* 		      H:x
* 		      D:Axx
* 		      C:AKQxxx
* 
* East  S:AQXXXX			West S:xxx
*       H:xx			     H:KTxx
*       D:KQx			     D:Jx
*       C:Jx			     C:Txxx
* 
* 		South S:x
* 		      H:AQJxxx
* 		      D:T9xxx
* 		      C:x
* 
* 
* How can NS bid 3nt? What's wrong in NS's bidding?

North gets the charge on this one.
The problem is that North made an incorrect takeout double.
North has no support for the unbid major.

There are two choices for North.

1. Bid 2C. This may be a bit of an understatement,
   but assuming the bidding doesn't die,
   North can rebid the clubs, showing a better than average overcall.

2. Bid 1N. I know, the singleton heart is a problem,
   but the bid does get across two points - the spade
   stopper and the point count. It's not a perfect world.

Over 2C, South has an easy 2H bid, and North, with the
previously hidden strength, can take a shot at 3N.

Over 1N, South can bid a forcing 3H, and again North can bid 3N.

Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ted@sage0.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying)
Subject: Re: Was this bid ridiculous ?
Organization: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:09:53 GMT

> bdsokolo@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Bernd Sokolowsky) writes:
>>
>>A few hands later, my partner opened 1nt in second seat, promising
>>12-14 hcp (sometimes as few as 11), and i had to look twice on my cards
>>to believe what i saw. But it was true, i held
>>
>>                    A, Axx, Atx, AKQJxx
>>
>>This was the hand of my partner:
>>
>>                    KQ, KJx, Qxxxx, xxx
>>
>>Our conclusion was, that the blame had to be divided. Partner, for
>>opening such a hand, and me for my quick bidding. Do you agree ? 
>>
	Pretty nice way to divide the blame, but I think that most
	of the blame should go to partner for opening that hand.
	KQ tight of spades is not 5 points and shouldn't be counted
	as 5.  Note that had partner had KQx or spades or QJxxx of
	diamonds (both making the hand a more reasonable weak NT
	opening) then the hand at least has a 50-50 chance to make.

	As a general rule, I don't stretch to make the bottom of a
	bid.  This is why I play 11+ to 14 when I can.  I really want
	something to wink at me about a hand before I open 11 count
	hands.  A/AK or otherwise 2.5 QT is sufficient or a good 11
	count with a five card suit.  The above hand just doesn't
	count for an opener.  If partner had passed like a normal
	human being, then you probably would have ended up in the
	safer and more normal contract of 6NT.

	Ted Ying			ted@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov
	Hughes/STX			Goddard Space Flight Center
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: spencer@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: Try this one
Reply-To: spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun)
Organization: Live Organ Transplants
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:08:48 GMT

By the way, maybe others have noticed this, but I find it curious to see
so many posts that say "Assign the blame" or "Whose fault is this?"
I'd be more inclined to word it "How could we have bid/played this to
achieve a better result?"

OK, perhaps not much difference in meaning, but I think it speaks
volumes about people's attitudes, especially their attitude towards
their partner.

----------- 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)
There comes a time when all the cosmic tumblers have clicked into place,
and the universe opens itself up for a few seconds to show you what's
possible.  [Terence Mann (James Earl Jones), Field of Dreams]

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: satadd00@nx02.mik.uky.edu (scott andrew taddiken)
Subject: reverses
Keywords: reverse, Culbertson lives!
Summary: According to Encyclopedia ala Truscott
Organization: University of Kentucky
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:41:06 GMT

It's been a while since the flame war regarding the definition of reverse
(which I didn't follow all that closely).  I took the trouble to look it up
in Truscott and Frey's 'Official Encyclopedia of Bridge'.  It said that the
original definition of reverse was due to Good Old Ely Culbertson, who said
that it was the rebid of any suit higher than the opening bid.  This made

   1d-1h
   1s

a reverse.  This particular "reverse" did not imply extra values.  It was only
those "reverses" which would cause responder to give preference to the original
suit at the level of three which showed extra values.

This was confusing to the general public.  Culbertson later modified his
definition to include only those rebids of a higher suit which cause responder
to prefer at the three level.

An interesting side note: in England, according to Truscott, a bid at the three
level which causes responder to prefer at the three level:

   1s-2d
   3c

is called a "high reverse" which adds to the confusion.

Sorry if somebody else already looked this up and posted it, but 'nuff said,
I think.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott A. Taddiken       University of Kentucky
From: willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: bidding
Date: 31 Aug 92 13:30:31 GMT
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


In article <16397@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, martel@spider.cs.ucdavis.edu
(Chip Martel) writes: 
> A first class pair will be very successful with any decent system they
> know well.

This statement may even be an underbid.  Consider how well Branco-
Chagas-Forrester-Robson have done with no conventions except Blackwood
and takeout double.

(Something tells me I'm remembering one of the names wrong, but I don't
have a reference here.  Of course I'm referring not only to the recent
"Scientist-Traditionalist" match against Hamman-Wolff-Meckstroth-Rodwell
but to preceding tournaments in which the traditionalist pairs did well
using their natural system.)
-- 
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: rainbow@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rob Buchner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: how would you rule
Keywords: safe, not even close
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:09:30 GMT
Organization: St Barts


>> 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.

The director/kibitzer, obviously noticing your failure to make any
effort to stop the impropriety before it happens, quickly acted on
your behalf on the assumption you were mentally incapacitated.
The director/kibitzer deserves a big thank you for his/her actions.
After all, if you weren't "injured", you would have done so yourself.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: k36793l@saha.hut.fi (Pekka Viitasalo)
Subject: Re: Splinters w/ A, K -RE: What to bid?
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 07:22:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.182052.28661@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> milord@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Brian Bankler) writes:
>
>	What is the r.g.b.consensus (is there) on splintering with
>
>	a) Stiff Ace
>
>	b) Stiff King
>
>	c) Void
>
>	I know some people who refuse to splinter on a,b or c.  I know the
>(vague) reasons, but what are your thoughts?
>

I try to avoid a) and b) but would happily splinter with c) if using
standard methods.

In uncontested auctions to 1M-opening (11-15, 5+) our methods are:
  2NT = at least a limit raise with 4+ support
  1H-3S/1S-3NT = any singleton splinter, limited
  1H-3NT,4C,4D = void, either limited or good enough to take control later
  1S-4C,4D,4H =  --- " ---

We keep our splinters very clean, so with a) and b) we would bid 2NT.
In contested auctions a), b) and c) are possible if there is no other
good bid available (and normally the singleton honor is in the oppo's
suit, so misinformation is not very likely).

As opener a splinter with a singleton honor is very unlikely because
in a limited opening structure a hand with a singleton honor is very
seldom worth a splinter.

Pekka Viitasalo
piv@cctap.carel.fi
From: h75@nikhefh.nikhef.nl (Henk Uijterwaal)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Friday's results from Salsomaggiore
Date: 29 Aug 92 09:45:08 GMT
Reply-To: h75@nikhefh.nikhef.nl (Henk Uijterwaal)
Distribution: world
Organization: Nikhef-H, Amsterdam (the Netherlands).

Men 
===

    Group A                              Group B
    =======                              =======
 1. Denmark            17-323 VP's    1. USA              17-325 VP's    
 2. Austria               310         2. THE NETHERLANDS     318.5
 3. Belgium               308         3. Turkey              306
 4. Hong Kong             305         4. Sweden              303
 5. Brazil                296         5. France              301
 6. Israel                291         6. Norway              293
 7. Japan                 286            Pakistan            293
 8. Egypt                 278         8. Iceland             288.5
         
Women
=====

   Group A                               Group B
   =======                               =======
1. Germany             22-417 VP's    1. Great Britain    22-436 VP's
2. Austria                404         2. Sweden              423
3. China                  396         3. Canada              419  
4. THE NETHERLANDS        389         4. France              417 
5. Israel                 376         5. Denmark             404
6. Japan                  361         6. Australia           400
7. USA                    353.5       7. Argentinia          367
8. New Zealand            344.5       8. Greece              364
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge