HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: j-grout@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (grout john robert)
Subject: Re: Bid these hands
Reply-To: j-grout@uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:25:09 GMT

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

>>If one is opening a balanced hand which doesn't qualify for a 1NT opening
>>(less than 15-16 if playing strong NTs, more than 14 if playing weak NTs),
>>Eddie Kantar (among others) advocates rebidding 1NT instead of 1S to allow
>>partner to use Checkback Stayman (an artificial 2C) or New Minor Forcing (an
>>artificial 2D): this allows partner to check for both four spades _and_ three
>>hearts with one bid.

>This works nicely when partner has enough strength 
>to checkback.  But hands such as this point out the big disadvantage.
>When partner is too weak to checkback, you lose your 4-4 spade fits
>and 5-3 heart fits.  Certainly South can't bid 2C over 1NT here,
>when partner could have a 3244 12-count.

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)... 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.

Now, given that North doesn't have a weak balanced 12 count, I think it is
clear to check-back with the example hand... you have at least 22 points, so
2NT shouldn't be impossible... I agree I'd rather be in 1NT than 2NT opposite
a 3244 13-count, but that is an extreme case.

>When South is strong, there is plenty of room to explore, but when he
>is weak, it is necessary to find the suits at a low level. Rebidding
>1NT gains very little on strong hands and loses a lot on the weak
>ones -- doesn't sound like a good bid to me.

I don't agree... I think this argument puts excessive emphasis on part-score
accuracy.  Checkback (or New Minor Forcing) is designed for finding the right
strain at a low level and is designed to improve the accuracy of game and slam
bidding, at a cost of sacrificing some part-score accuracy (of strain or
level... e.g., you might end up in 1NT or 3C instead of a perfect 2C).  This
argument is parallel to that which Kaplan makes for inverted minors...  the
important hands are given more room to bid.
-- 
John R. Grout			| INTERNET: j-grout@uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: mojo@Caere.COM (Morris Jones)
Subject: Seeking team for Santa Clara Regionals
Organization: Caere Corp.
Distribution: ca
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:38:20 GMT

I know I'm asking late.  I'd love to find a team to play in the
Bracketed Knockouts this week at the Santa Clara Regional.  My wife
won't commit to play because of her work schedule.  I haven't found a
regular partner who can play either.

Round 1 starts Thursday morning at 8:30.  Round 2 is Friday morning.

I know the chances aren't great with pick-up teammates, but it's my
only chance to get into the event right now.  The odds are probably
next to nothing at the partnership desk.  If I just found a partner,
we'd at least stand a chance of finding another pair for a team.

I currently have 34 masterpoints, with a smattering of all colors.

Pam and I had an interesting experience during Bridge Week in LA over
the 4th of July weekend.  We wanted to enter the Midnight Zip Swiss and
were lurking by the entry desk for teammates.  One potential pair
passed us up hoping to find a more experienced team.  We did eventually
find some teammates for the game and went 4-0 to win the event.

The lost opportunity was to go visit the pair who passed us up and say,
"Well, how'd you do?"  :)

Mojo
-- 
Morris Jones
Caere Corp.
mojo@caere.com
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: of buttons and flames (plus: a question re dummy play books)
Date: 27 Aug 1992 17:03:25 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
Keywords: open forum, net-life

In article <1992Aug27.143005.4858@sni.ca> dave@silver.sni.ca (Dave Till) writes:

>I've got an idea:  let's have flighted r.g.b newsgroups!  I can see it now:

>	rec.games.bridge.flight_a
>	rec.games.bridge.flight_b
>	rec.games.bridge.flight_c
>	rec.games.bridge.zero_to_99

>and so on.  You could also have

[...]
>	rec.games.bridge.midnight_zip

>for those rambling 2 a.m. posts.

Flames!  Flames!  I'm being flamed!!!

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
From: mclegg@cs.ucsd.edu (Matthew Clegg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Problems with OKBridge
Keywords: help
Date: 30 Aug 92 20:47:21 GMT

In <Btt63w.AF9@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> esutherl@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (EC Sutherland) writes:

>Hi there. I have a problem. I am trying to get OKBridge to run on my machine,
>but there is a problem of not enough memory. I have 1.5 Megs available. 
>Can someone out there please help me get all the necessary files so I can 
>run it?

Several people have run into this problem before.  At the moment,
OKbridge requires slightly over 2 Megabytes of temporary space on a
Sun 4 in order to compile, but the stripped executable is only about
200K.  The best solution which I have found is to download the package
into the /tmp or /usr/tmp directory of your local system.  You can
then compile the program, installing the executable and helpfile in
your home directory.  After you have finished, remember to delete the
files which you have left in /tmp (or /usr/tmp).

-- 
Matthew Clegg, Gradual Student  (619) 558-3408            mclegg@cs.ucsd.edu
UCSD, Computer Science                             Jettison the Afterburners!
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: Professor WHO?
Subject: BOREL
Summary: Cheap ad and general comment
Originator: boyiny@kovalevskaya
Reply-To: yangboy@math.ntu.edu.tw (Bo-Yin Yang)
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
X-Subliminal-Message: Cyborg knows best!
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 18:50:20 GMT


Please send mail to boyiny@math.mit.edu before Tuesday.

Just acquired BOREL, John Lowenthal's widely acclaimed hand generator.
BTW, those interested in the product should write to Mr. John Lowenthal
himself for details.  The price is $200.  According to the reviews, well
worth the price.

Computers is fast becoming the newest fad in bridge-- what with Bridge Base
III and Borel, I already have $400 of bridge software (!).

Simulation in general is a hard subject and any small omission or
simplification in the conditions could lead to a "junk" simulation with
little value.  Hopefully, I will be able to report on my experiences with
BOREL after a couple of weeks of tryouts.  I have already skimmed the
manual which in effect describes a specialised programming language that
enables the user to describe a set of constraints for almost any given
circumstances. 

	
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: zhang@me.utoronto.ca (Xiaodong Zhang)
Subject: bidding problem
Summary: none
Keywords: precision
Organization: UofT Mechanical Engineering
Distribution: rec
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:03:34 GMT

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:

 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?


Xiaodong Zhang
zhang@me.toronto.edu

Organization: Freshman, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:47:38 -0400 
From: Julian D Lighton <jl8e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: latest version of okbridge?

Does anybody know where i can ftp it?

_______________________________________________________________________________
|Julian Lighton     jl8e@andrew.cmu.edu |   :-)   | It is not I who is
crazy, |
|---------------------------------------|---------| it is I who am MAD!!!!!   |
|"Sleep my friend and you will see, that dream is | --Ren                     |
|my reality. They keep me locked up in this cage, |---------------------------|
|can't they see it's why my brain says rage-Metallica-Welcome Home(Sanitarium)|
|_____________________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ted@sage0.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying)
Subject: Re: Michaels without a c(l)ue--assign the blame
Organization: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:57:19 GMT

sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Myerson) writes:

>In article <BtKn5r.2vp@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.

>Ideally, this would be a bid of 3D, but some would play
>that as a Western cue, asking for a diamond stopper.
>If this is a new partnership, this sequence probably hasn't been discussed.

	So...isn't that alright as well?  Partner has shown a decent
	self-sufficient club suit, I have the K of diamonds.  If partner
	shows up with a diamond stopper (QJx, Ax or better) don't you
	think we have a good shot at 3NT?  I have 5 spade tricks, 1 or
	2 diamond tricks and hopefully can set up partner's clubs or
	my hearts for the remaining tricks.

>If East thinks that 3D will not be interpreted correctly,
>East should bid 3H, offering West a choice.

	I think that 3D is a nice multi-purpose bid.  It doesn't matter
	how partner interprets it, you come out ahead.  Either partner
	will pick a major (fine), or partner will bid 3NT with a diamond
	stopper (again fine), or run to a major or rebid his very strong
	club suit without a diamond stopper (again fine).

	Ted Ying			ted@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov
	Hughes/STX			Goddard Space Flight Center
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: rainbow@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rob Buchner)
Subject: Re: how would you rule
Organization: St Barts
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:55:26 GMT
Keywords: club games


>>>> 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.

> I believe that this kibitzer, like all kibitzers everywhere,
> should keep his mouth shut.

I suppose you are the type of person that in a club game wouldn't
tell your opponents to hold their cards back if you can see them?
I suppose you are the type of person who calls for a committee
at a club game based on an auction containing a hesitation?
I guess those section scratches at your local club are important.
Much more important than developing and keeping friendships...
I wouldn't want to play bridge with you, nor socialize with you.
People expect club games to be social/friendly, not ruthless/cutthroat.
If you see someone about to lead out of turn, by all means stop
them, otherwise you will be disliked by all and labelled a jerk.
From: dif@bhprtc.scpd.oz.au (David Faulkner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Preempt, how big?!
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:49:21 GMT
Organization: BHP Steel, Sheet & Coil, Research & Technology Centre

At favourable vul, you hold

S  x
H  -
D  KTxxx
C  QT98xxx

RHO opens 1S.
What do you bid?

(By the way, rather than preempting in clubs, as I did, should I
consider overcalling 2NT for the minors?)

  -dif-
-- 
Dave Faulkner, Research Engineer                    (dif@bhprtc.scpd.oz.au)
BHP Coated Products Division, Research and Technology Centre
Port Kembla, New South Wales, Australia.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: rainbow@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rob Buchner)
Subject: Re: fast arrival
Organization: St Barts
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:19:32 GMT
Keywords: KQxxx-KQxx-x-xxx


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

> I do not believe that 3H should necessarily be stronger 
> than 4H, but 4H ought to be more descriptive.

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.

There is an inference that partner chose to bid spades instead of raising
hearts immediately as they would have with a weak hand containing support.

> Although 3H is logically constructive, responder apparently
> has no means to show his great trump support.

Given that partner has limited their hand, 3H is very much forward
going, it says I have a great hand for you, it says I am interested
in more than just game, it implies decent hearts. Failure to cue-bid
a minor over 3S confirms very good hearts to justify the first bid.
3H allows room for a very descriptive auction to now take place.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: hampton@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik)
Subject: Michaels without a c(l)ue--assign the blame
Summary: When 5-2 is better than 6-2...
Organization: UMCC
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 03:32:11 GMT

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.

-- 
Kevin J. Podsiadlik         | "A recent survey has revealed that, if the
Vaporware Engineer          | election were to be held tomorrow, a whopping
2nd class                   | 98% of those polled would be glad it came
E-mail: hampton@ais.org     | early this year." -- Thomas Sowell (paraphrased)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ding@msc.cornell.edu (Gary Ding)
Subject: Re: Need some help
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:00:44 GMT

In article <laaa6vINN213@notrees.cs.utexas.edu> varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) writes:

>I had something like the following conversation on OKBridge the
>other day, where "D" is me and "P" is partner.
Stuff deleted,
>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.

	First of all, let me say that obridge is a great program
and I am a happy user and there are quite a few good players in the net,
including several that played on an okbridge team with me with fairly
respectable results at happier times when there were formally
organized weekly matches.  However, the quality of a match in a
random drawing of players is so unpredictable that it really gets
annoying when your friendly new partner keeps escaping into NT
contracts when doubled, even though you never entered a bid, and it is
really no fun making arrangements with your regular partner Kkm's away, 
only to sit there and beat up random opponents with ZERO partnership.
	Matt, could you organize some official weekly matches?
that would encourage a lot of serious players, including my former
teammates who are semi-retiring from okbridge for the lack of cutthroat
competition.
From: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Precision, anyone?
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:17:54 GMT
Reply-To: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: ux5.lbl.gov

In article <1992Aug26.163952.9341@ariel.ec.usf.edu> pollock@eggo.tmc.edu (Wayne Pollock) writes:
>of competitive bids are decreased.  For example, would you rather be playing
>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).

Auctions that start with 1 diamond are the weakness and preempts are just
as effective if not more so against it as against a semi-natural 1D.
In strong club your shape maybe anything from ?-?-2-4 (2-5 if you don't
open 2C with 3325, 1-4 if you don't play 2D as short diamond) to 
?-?-5-4 or 4-5 or ?-?-7-?  in standard or 2/1 you have 4 diamonds, unless
you are exactly 4-4-3-2.  You don't have clubs.  And your point range
is wider, but he low end of it, you won't be bidding again in either system.

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

Asya Kamsky	      e-mail: asya@ux5.lbl.gov                   Go Red Sox
"In order to command you must first learn to submit" - chinese fortune cookie
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: satadd00@nx02.mik.uky.edu (scott andrew taddiken)
Subject: obstructive value of wide opening bids
Keywords: opening bids, double, negative double
Summary: questions regarding 'On Bidding'
Organization: University of Kentucky
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:40:07 GMT

I was down at the bookstore recently and I came across Truscott's new version
of Morehead's 'On Bidding'.  Glancing through it for neat stuff, I came across
a section in which he sung the praises of the wide range which many "natural"
systems give to a 1 of a suit opening bid.  He said that they have "obstructive
value", which I interpreted to mean that the opponents are less likely to
intervene if the range of your opening is very wide.  It is not at all clear
to me that he is right.  Would anybody care to argue from a) experience,
b) probability (fudge a little, if you like), or c) pure reason, to say that
he is right/wrong?

It seems to me that issues involved are:

1) How worried are you that you might get doubled and crushed?
2) How much do you want to give certain info to partner in case the hand
   belongs to the opponents?
3) How worried are you that the info might be more useful to the opponents than
   to partner?

In principal, I sort of get what Truscott is driving at.  With more uncertainty
in the auction, the opponents are less likely to know what to do.  They will
probably take the better part of valor.  On the other hand, it is my experience
(from playing against variable club systems, for instance) that people are not
at all unwilling to bid when it is not totally clear what is going on.

A related topic: I understand that an argument of the usefulness of penalty
                 doubles vs. negative doubles involves a other things besides
                 the frequency that juicy penalties are inflicted.  That being
                 said, how much more effective do you suppose penalty doubles
                 are than negative doubles in getting those juicy penalties?
                 (I am talking about a penalty double which partner is free to
                 take out.  You should have 4 cards in the opps suit.  With 5,
                 you pass as in a neg x auction and hope to leave partner's
                 takeout x in for penalties.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott A. Taddiken       University of Kentucky
From: doug@cm.deakin.OZ.AU (Douglas Newlands)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Precision, anyone?
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:23:32 GMT
Organization: Deakin University, Geelong, Australia

In article <17j68iINNmdq@overload.lbl.gov: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky) writes:
:In article <1992Aug26.163952.9341@ariel.ec.usf.edu> pollock@eggo.tmc.edu (Wayne Pollock) writes:
:>The major weakness in Precision is the 1-club opening bid; now that opponents
:
:Auctions that start with 1 diamond are the weakness and preempts are just
:as effective if not more so against it as against a semi-natural 1D.

This is definitely correct, down here at least you see a fair number
of precision pairs playing 12-15 1NT so that 1D will promise 4 cards
just so that they can compete sensibly after interference over 1D.
(and get more 1NT openings in which is great for teams).


doug.
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: fast arrival
Date: 28 Aug 1992 17:07:30 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: bovina.cs.utexas.edu
Keywords: KQxxx-KQxx-x-xxx

In article <1992Aug28.201932.10588@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rainbow@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rob Buchner) writes:

>>> KQxxx
>>> KQTx
>>> x
>>> xxx

>>> 1H   1S(1)
>>> 2N   3H
>>> 3S   4H
>>> P

>> I do not believe that 3H should necessarily be stronger 
>> than 4H, but 4H ought to be more descriptive.

>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.

*IF* you use the principle of fast arrival.  Not everyone is
a true believer.

For the record, I think this is a situation where fast arrival
is fine, and would expect 4H to be exactly that.  I am much
less impressed with fast arrival over an unlimited bid, but
the 2NT rebid is limited.

Jumps in forcing situations may either be fast arrival or
"picture bids" -- very descriptive bids that generally *deny*
particular values while guaranteeing others.  This enables the
unlimited hand to make a good decision on whether to continue
most of the time.  The picture bid interpretation here would
be denying controls outside of hearts and spades.  I would be
worried about the stiff diamond.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
From: zilch@planb.Eng.Sun.COM (John Hoffman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Splinters w/ A, K -RE: What to bid?
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:01:41 GMT
Reply-To: zilch@planb.Eng.Sun.COM
Distribution: world
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: planb

> What is the r.g.b.consensus (is there) on splintering with
>    a) Stiff Ace
>    b) Stiff King
>    c) Void

In general, splintering is OK with any of the above.

As we often hear, a stiff ace is usually not worth as
much as a small stiff with the ace in a longer suit.
For this reason, I would not stretch for a splinter
bid with a stiff ace, but I would certainly do it
when in the normal range.  Similarly with a stiff king.

With a void, I go out of my way to splinter, especially
as responder.  If normal splinter range is agreed to be
about 9-14 HCP, I will do it with a void and as little
as the right 7 HCP.