HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: geppo@spot.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi)
Subject: Re: Position varying of opening bids
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:22:12 GMT

In article <1bjq83INN215@corax.udac.uu.se> olle@astro.uu.se (Olof Morell) writes:
>A while ago Giuseppe  (Sorry if I misspell your name :-)) asked
>about the rules for e.g. different NT ranges in 1/2 - 3/4 seat.
>
>I asked Hans-Olof Hallen, the Swedish guru on The Laws, and one of the
>best directors of Europe, and he claimed that this was not a
>problem. You may vary your system according to position and zones
>as much as you like.
>
> [ ...]
>

Thank you very much for such answer: I feel better!! 

Actually I don't think Italy has different rules with EBL, thus ....

... thus I suspect that the answer to the letter I've talked about in the 
previous posting was just a *bad* attempt to justify an *unfortunate*
director decision ...

Anyway if you (or somebody else) have some more specific details from the
EBL rules, please send them to me, so that I can manage to send a letter
to the journal and ask further explanation.

>I was afraid for a while, but bridge is still alive in the EBL! :-)

Agree!! and we have to wait some more time before finding an ACBL rule 
*illegal* in europe :-)

>
>*** Olle ***

Thanx
Giuseppe
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 12:57:09 EDT
From: <GUF@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Grand Slam Bridge II

Has anyone used Grand Slam Bridge II for the ibmpc?  Just saw it
at the software store yesterday . . . How does it compare with
GS Bridge I?  Any published reviews anywhere?
Gil Gall (guf@psuvm.psu.edu)
From: kgs@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com (Ken Salter)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: 4 lead problems
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:53:59 GMT
Organization: Unisys Corporation, Tredyffrin

In article <1992Oct14.143304.12985@eua.ericsson.se> ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se asks:
>What do you lead (and why)?
>
>You hold QT/QT9x/Qxx/QJxx
>No-one is vulnerable and the bidding is;
>
>A)	LHO	PART	RHO	YOU
>	1C=17+	P	7S	P
>	P	P

JC.  Only deceptive lead I can find.


>B)	LHO	PART	RHO	YOU
>	1C=17+	P	7S	P
>	P	D

QC.  Following orders, more or less.


>C)	LHO	PART	RHO	YOU
>	1C=17+	1H	7S	P
>	P	P

QH.  Seems safe to lead a heart.  Leading the queen may avoid
     a squeeze.


>D)	LHO	PART	RHO	YOU
>	1C=17+	1H	7S	P
>	P	D

QC, again.


Ken Salter
From: gonzo@ntb.apple.com (Ed Rotberg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Defensive falsecard.
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:30:55 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1

taddiken@ms.uky.edu (scott taddiken)

In article <1992Oct8.211955.22014@ms.uky.edu> scott taddiken,
taddiken@ms.uky.edu writes:
>You are in 3NT, holding:
>
>         DUMMY: JT987
>                3                 The bidding was, perhaps, optimistic:
>                6432              V vs NV, opps pass throughout:
>                QT9               2c(strong and artificial) 2d (neg) 
>                                  2h  2s 
>         YOU:   AK                2nt 3nt
>                KJT82             All pass.
>                AK95
>                A2
>
>LHO leads 5c.  You play the 9c, RHO the K, and you take with the A.
>The advised line in the text which contained this problem (which I will
>keep secret for a day or two) was to unblock the s's, then play off the
>A and K of d to see if d's will provide another entry to get the s's.
>
>My problem is this.  It is just possible that RHO holds the protected Qs,
>and the d's break 4-1, and when RHO gets in, he will present us with a 
>guess (at best) in h's.  Those are, perhaps, long odds.  But at the club
>where I play, there are very few RHO's who, holding KJ4 of c's, won't
>play the J at the first trick.  So an ironclad method of making (except
>against a couple of the better players) is to use the Qc and Tc as your
>entries to get the s's.
>
>Question for those of you who defend well:
>Were I playing against you, for MPs or $, how likely would it be that
>you put up the Kc from KJ4?  From other combinations?

What is the point of falscarding in this situation?  As a defender, I
don't think it would present ANY advantage except to create an entry to
an otherwise unreachable dummy (declarer is HIGHLY unlikely to have more
than 2 spades on the auction).

Also, you only have ONE entry in clubs as declarer only oild two clubs,
and you can't continue to count on the good graces of the defense, so
that while you can SAFELY finesse the J of clubs, there is still only one
entry in clubs.  The advised line makes sense, as a 3-2 split in d's will
net another entry, and if LHO holds the 3 d's you are home free,
no-sweat.  Even if RHO holds the long diamond you make as long as the
diamonds split 3-2 (defense gets 1 s, 2 h, and 1 d).  If the diamonds
split 4-1 or 5-0 you have a much tougher time.

Ed Rotberg                 "Just remember...
Professor of Gonzo          a waist is a terrible
Apple Computer, Inc.        thing to mind"
From: taylor@foraker.tivoli.com (Eric Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Funny story
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:50:16 GMT

White vs White, Playing in a local sectional I pick up:

K1098
QJxx
AQx
xx

Like it or not you open 1D.  Partner responds 2C which you alert
as game forcing with real clubs.  RHO bids 3S.   You double, all float.

In all seriousness, RHO then informs me that she thought
2C was forcing to game!!  While I am fumbling for words, partner
says, "It certainly does not rule out doubling the opponents."
RHO grumbles and says we should start giving complete explanations
of our bidding.

Well the obvious happened.  I made a mistake and did not lead a trump
allowing them to escape -800.   Next time I will make sure I give
complete explanations of 2/1.  :-)
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Defense to fert
Date: 7 Oct 1992 12:30:40 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: cypress.cs.utexas.edu


Received from Bo-Yin Yang:

Please post for me to r.g.b.

SWEDISH Standard Defense (used by the Carotti Team and several other
Swedish teams, and in modified form by English and Danish teams):

(1D)-
        X=      BAL OR DIAMONDS
        1
M=      NAT and limited
        1N=     CLUBS
        2C=     STRONG with HEARTS
        2D=     STRONG with SPADES
        2H=     Weak take-out against DIAMONDS
        2S=     STRONG take-out against DIAMONDS
        2N=     STRONG 1-suited clubs with side stoppers.
        3C+ normal preempts

Over the double and pass (usually showing length) PASS= penalty (FP to 2D)
else 1HSN= weak (0-9) with 2C by doubler an artificial force
     2C=   Staymanish with 10+ (2DHS=min. 2N= 16+ BAL 3C+= 16+ with D)
     2D=   GF Staymanish
     2M=   GF long suit, 4-steps asking bid a la Roman.
     2N=   Gf with stiff or void diamonds slammish takeout
     3x=   NAT invitational with long suit and little else.

If they runout over a double, direct doubles are for penalties, doubler
not to pull unless void (usually).  Re-opening X by doubler is co-op.

Over 1M "overcall" normal methods are used.
Over 1N (clubs) 2D is a general direction ask.  2N is forcing ask looking for
stoppers, other responses constructive not forcing.
Over 2C and 2D:  NEXT step= fit, perhaps weak.  Take transfer= neg. no fit.
                 anything else is NAT and forcing.
Over 2H: 2N is the only response with relay-style shape showing.
Over 2S: 2N is Lebensohlish (cue is in diamonds).
Over 2N: Like Blue Team's 3C, 3DHS ask for stoppers.

Much infrastructure is possible over many of the sketched defense, the
details of which should be worked out by each partnership.
From: thomaso@centerline.com (Thomas Andrews)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Sheinwold on bridge flub...
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:49:06 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.21

Today's Sheinwold column has a travesty of a bidding suggestion.
Here is the problem. You hold:

        AQ983 KQ7 T AJ97

You open 1S, partner bids 2H.  Your call.

Alfy's answer is to bid 4H(!)

Well, I don't know how partner is supposed to know the slam potential
of this hand.  I would bid 3C after 2H, planning to bid 4H.

I know Sheinwold is writing for mama-and-papa bridge players, but
really!  I ran a quick simulation, having a computer deal 10 hands
with partner responding 2H.  Two of the hands dealt for partner
were:


                  K72 AT543 876 K6

and

                  KT6 A8632 K8 852

The first hand I'd be happy to be in slam.  The second hand is
uncomfortable at the 5 level.  How is he supposed to know?
--
Thomas Andrews
CenterLine Software
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: davidm@voltaire.Rational.COM (David Moore)
Subject: Re: Slam bidding over interference.
Organization: Rational
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:27:02 GMT

taylor@foraker.tivoli.com (Eric Taylor) writes:


>Red vs. Red, IMPS, South, you hold :

>AQJ9xxx
>QJxx
>x
>A

>Bidding proceeds
>North         East         South        West
>1D            3C           3S           P
>4D            P            4H           P
>4S            P            5C           P
>5D            P            5H           X
>P             P            5S           All Pass

>Should 5H be construed as control asking or control showing
>in the absence of any particular agreement?

I would play this as control showing. I would not get to
bid 5H here. 

Did you remember to thank West for his
fatuous double? He may have kept you out of
a bad slam. Surely partner is denying the spade K
on this sequence. West presumably expects to cash AK hearts.

I would just have bid 5S over 5D. The fact that partner chose to
show his Diamond Ace, which you would expect him to have from his 4D bid, 
rather than his heart ace suggests he does not have the latter. If he
has the two major Kings, he should go on over 5S anyway, since
these are extra cards that you cannot expect him to hold on the
preceding bidding.
From: henk@pdsf.ssc.gov (Henk Uijterwaal)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: A Question!
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:49:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: sunova.1992Oct13.164925.20943
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory

Sajid Zia writes:

+> So Far I had known that Black Wood Convention means, you have
+> to bid 4NT to ask for aces. But recently I saw in the bridge section
+> of newspaper, bidding 4 Clubs may also means asking for aces. Could
+> somebody clarify when it happens, and what are the other possibilities
+> for asking for aces? thanks, sajid

4 C asking for aces is called Gerber (since it was John Gerber who invented the
convention (or at least first described it in print)). Responses are in the
same style as in Blackwood (that convention was named after Easley Blackwood
who invented it): 4D = 0 or 4, 4 H = 1, 4 S = 2, 4 NT= 3.

Gerber is usually used only after a direct 1 or 2NT opening, e.g. 1NT-4C
and 2NT-4C. This works fine for hands strong balanced hands and slam-going
single suited hands. With hands playable in more suits/levels, a slow 
approach is better.

One can play Gerber in other auctions as well but it has 2 major disadvantages
and therefore almost nobody uses Gerber other than after 1/2NT-4C:

a) The number of hands were you only want to know the number of aces is
   very limited. The 4-level can be much better used for cue-bids in order
   to find out if all suits are controlled before asking for aces.

b) If clubs have been bid as a real suit, one often wants to bid them
   again or support partners suit with 4C. This may create confusion
   in less straigthforward auctions. 

Henk.

ps. If you'd ask me: don't play Gerber at all. The number of hands which
are suitable for 1/2NT-4C is so limited that you better give it another
meaning.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                                      Email: henk@pdsf.ssc.gov 
SSC-labs, MS 2005.                                          46082::henk
Building 4, room F-428
2550 Beckleymeade Av.
Dallas, TX 75237                                     Phone: 1-214-708-6192
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Do you go on?
Keywords: perspective
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:24:23 GMT
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


> N-S vul      AKxx            N   E   S   W    
> Matchpoints  AQTxx           P   1D  1H  1S   
>              xxx             P   2C  P   P    
>              K               2H  P   P   3C   
>                              P   P   ?        

In article <1992Oct11.142249.8201@galois.mit.edu>, Professor WHO? writes:
> Yes, it is commonly ACCEPTED practice to raise on 95% of hands with 4 card
> heart support, but this particular north may not be such a playr.

Since I was North, let me comment on this.  The original article
noted that we play our overcalls as constructive.  This means that
the immediate single raise has to be somewhat disciplined, say 6 to
10 support points.  We also have a preemptive raise to 3H available.
With five card support, I would normally 3H (if not 4H), but with a
zero-count, I might pass because of the vulnerability.  With that
hand, I would probably pass out 2C for fear the opponents had game,
but there is some chance I would reopen 2H.

While we don't make four-card overcalls as freely as some pairs, we
would overcall in preference to an off-shape takeout double.  This
means that bidding 2H on a doubleton is fairly dangerous.  I might
psyche it some year, but I wouldn't expect partner to field it.

What all this means is that North probably has 3 or 4 hearts and 3 to
5 points.  There is a much smaller but non-zero probability that
North has five hearts and (effectively) a zero count.  The hand 
xxx Jx xxxx Qxxx somebody else suggested is not worth considering.

Now do you bid pass, bid 3H, or make an action double?  I think two
of the possibilities are quite close with the remaining one trailing,
but I may be influenced by the actual result.
-- 
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: maillist@base.cs.ucla.edu (Generic Mailing List ID (Guest))
Subject: PSP #21 coming soon!
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:18:31 GMT

Responses to PSP #21 are still trickling in, so I haven't compiled
the results or posted them.  Rest assured that I will "real soon now 
(TM)".  

If you haven't sent in your results yet, you probably should get
cracking.
--

Matthew Merzbacher	ARPA:	matthew@CS.UCLA.EDU
Moo - Moo Moo  		UUCP:	...!{uunet|rutgers|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!matthew
               		This time, *with* the oys
From: brl@kopasker.is (Bjorgvin Runar Leifsson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Assign the blame
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:06:48 GMT
Reply-To: brl@kopasker.is (Bjorgvin Runar Leifsson)
Organization: Kopasker Primary, Iceland

Hi everyone.

This hand came up tonight when I was playing with my new partner:

Me:          Partner:

S Ax         Qx
H QJTx       Ax
D KTxxxx     Axxx
C K          Axxxx

The bidding (playing Precision):

Me    Opp    Partner    Opp

1D    1S      2C        p
2D    p       3D        p
p     p

With the king of hearts on the right side I made 13 tricks.  Now, 2C promises
at least 11 hcp and 5+ clubs.  2D promises at least 5 diamonds and 11-13 hcp.
Partner said that if he had minimum he would have passed 2D, and that he 
didn't want to bypass 3NT if I had the spades well stopped.  My opinion is
that with this diamond support he should have bid, say, 4D, and that with
a minimum he should not pass as I might well have 13 hcp.  Anyway, of
course my 2D bid may well be an underbid, and perhaps I didn't show much
card sense by passing 3D.  What is your opinion?

Bjorgvin R. Leifsson
brl@kopasker.is

One beer in hand is better than six in the fridge
From: grove@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Eddie Grove)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Cole
Date: 14 Oct 1992 19:02:40 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: triangle.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct7.170320.1872@odin.diku.dk> turin@diku.dk (S|ren Turin) writes:
>
>Hi netters. 
>In the world championship book from Yokohama 1991 a convention called
>Cole is mentioned. Does any of you know of this creature? I can't find
>it right now, but i think the bidding went 1C-1S-2C.

I am sure there are other netters who know this better, but they
haven't responded.

Cole was described in detail in some Bridge World magazine in the past
year or two, I think.

Essentially, after a minor suit opening, a 2C rebid is artificial
and tends to show exactly 3 card support for partner's suit.  Responder
generally rebids 2D to let opener complete hir message.

There may be some sequences that don't promise support, and I don't
remember what you are supposed to do with a minimum opening with
long clubs.

You give up the natural 2C rebid in order to have two ways to raise
partner or jump rebid 3D or 2N.  There is also the question of a
direct vs delayed jump raise, though it is hard to see how either
of these should be done with fewer than 4 card support.

Eddie Grove
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Do you go on?
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:46:21 GMT
Organization: Irvine Compiler Corp., Irvine, California, USA

In article <1992Oct12.142654.23763@dg-rtp.dg.com> hamilton@robin.rtp.dg.com 
(Eric Hamilton) writes:

> > 
> > North dealer, N-S vulnerable, matchpoints.  Sitting South, you hold:
> > 
> > AKxx
> > AQTxx
> > xxx
> > K
> > 
> > N   E   S   W
> > P   1D  1H  1S
> > P   2C  P   P
> > 2H  P   P   3C
> > P   P   ?
> > 
>  It's not at all hard to construct hands in which partner has a doubleton
>  heart and 3C goes down a few.  The opponents may well be in an eight-card
>  fit, in violation of the law themselves, and if RHO holds the heart king
>  and partner holds something like QTxx of clubs, they will be hurting.
>  Thus, I won't argue with a double, but I try not to make partner regret
>  having balanced.  I'd be happier with an unambiguous penalty double than
>  an action double here.
> 
With the hand Mr. Hamilton describes, something like this:
    xxx Kx 7xxx QTxx
I don't think you should ever balance with 2H, especially vulnerable.  You
do have only two-card support (even though it is good), and your clubs are
great for defense against 2C but wasted on offense, since partner must be
short.  Many of the posts I've seen about this bidding problem have reasoned 
that partner is likely to have only 2-card support since he didn't raise
immediately.  I disagree.  If partner has only 2 hearts, he is very likely
to have 4 clubs, and on most such hands defending 2C is better than 
balancing with 2H.  (If you give partner 2 hearts and only 3 clubs, and if
you give opener 5 diamonds, then one of the opponents has to have a void.)
I originally thought partner was likely to have 4 hearts;  I'm not so sure 
about that any more.  The more I think about this, the more I think partner
most likely has 3 hearts and a flattish, weak hand, probably about 5 HCP.
                                -- Adam
From: reiss@husc11.harvard.edu (Peter Reiss)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: North American Collegiate Bridge Championship
Date: 16 Oct 92 06:41:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc11.REISS.92Oct15234143
Organization: Harvard Arts and Sciences Computer Services, Cambridge, MA

I am posting this at the request of the ACBL Educational Department.

On Tuesday, November 10th, the ACBL will hold the North American
Collegiate Bridge Championship (NACBC), a nation-wide
Instant-Matchpoint event.  Any colleges are allowed to have such a
game on their campuses.  I believe the prize (if it is similar to last
year) is $500 to the winning pair in each (?) direction in scholarship
money. All entrants must be full-time students. If you do not have a 
director for the game, the ACBL will help you find one. For more
information or to sign up--do it soon--call Sandy or Jana in the ACBL
Educational Department at (901) 332-5586, ext. 264.

It's a lot of fun.

Peter Reiss
Harvard College
From: bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:44:14 GMT
Subject: Re: Slam bidding over interference.
Organization: Princeton University
X-Subliminal-Message: You can quit reading news anytime you want.

In article <4968@tivoli.UUCP> taylor@foraker.tivoli.com (Eric Taylor) writes:
|
|Red vs. Red, IMPS, South, you hold :
|
|AQJ9xxx
|QJxx
|x
|A
|
|Bidding proceeds
|North         East         South        West
|1D            3C           3S           P
|4D            P            4H           P
|4S            P            5C           P
|5D            P            5H           X
|P             P            5S           All Pass
|
|Should 5H be construed as control asking or control showing
|in the absence of any particular agreement?
|

Once you've agreed upon a suit, all other suit bids are normally cuebids --
so 5H should be control-showing.  Instead of bidding 5H, just bid 5S; now
partner knows you lack heart controls.  (also, it sounds like partner has
lots of wasted diamond values, so slam might be off even with a heart
control.)

ben
--

Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
From: olle@astro.uu.se (Olof Morell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Sheinwold on bridge flub...
Date: 8 Oct 1992 10:14:26 GMT
Organization: Uppsala University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solaris.astro.uu.se

In article <1av4e2INN1cd@armory.centerline.com>, thomaso@centerline.com (Thomas Andrews) writes:
|> Here is the problem. You hold: 
|>         AQ983 KQ7 T AJ97
|> You open 1S, partner bids 2H.  Your call.
|> 
|> Alfy's answer is to bid 4H(!)
|> 
|> Well, I don't know how partner is supposed to know the slam potential
|> of this hand.  I would bid 3C after 2H, planning to bid 4H.
|> 
|> I know Sheinwold is writing for mama-and-papa bridge players, but
|> really!
[deleted simulations...]

For you guys playing 2/1 this must be a non-problem, I guess?
3H must then show extras and you have all the space in the world
to investigate. In fact a lot of Swedes play 1S - 2H - 3H as forcing
even if we don't play 2/1 gf, simply because you're so akwardly placed
after 1S - 2H - 4H.

On the above hand 4D must be the most descriptive, as have already
been suggested.

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

Snail Mail - Astronomical Observatory, Box 515, 751 20 Uppsala, Sweden
From: pynq@quads.uchicago.edu (George Jetson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: A Question!
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:51:29 GMT
Reply-To: pynq@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: D. J. Dougherty & Associates

In article <davidm.719173442@voltaire> davidm@voltaire.Rational.COM (David Moore) writes:
>While Gerber is being discussed, perhaps someone can enlighten me.
>
>When I learnt to play Bridge back in the triassic, (early 70's)
>the king ask over Gerber was the next suit up. A lot of people here 
>in the US play 5C as asking for kings and I believe the Yellow card also 
>uses this version.

When I learned how to play bridge back in the pre-triassic (60's),
I read "Blackwood on Slams", in which it is recommended that the king
ask over Gerber be 5N, i.e., that you retreat to the author's own
convention to do the king ask.  The argument, valid at least as long as
the agreed suit is a major or NT (IMHO), is that you don't need the
bidding space - if you get enough kings, you are going to bid 7.
This certainly makes sense to me.

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

	- pynq@quads.uchicago.edu, who is still costing the net
	  hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars, every time he posts -
************************************************************************