HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: What would you bid?
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:25:50 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Eric Taylor <taylor@foraker.tivoli.com> writes:
>xx
>KQx
>AKQxxxx
>A

>You        Partner
>1D         1H
>??

>I would like to be in a heart game.

Do you really want to play hearts if partner has four small hearts and a
spade stopper?  That doesn't sound so great to me.

What you really want to do is make a forcing rebid showing three trumps.
As is well understood, many common systems don't provide an adequate way
to do this.  One idea would be to steal the 3S bid for this purpose.

Personally, I probably would have opened the above hand 2C,
notwithstanding the recent discussion about 2C openers with marginal
defense.  At least I have a place to play the hand, and while of course
I may be guessing, I can always choose to play diamonds at any level.
And I avoid this rebid problem, and I probably get to some slams that
you miss.

                                        David desJardins
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: what went wrong?
Date: 28 Aug 1992 14:26:52 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In article <ted.715016216@sage0> ted@sage0.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) writes:
>sperbr@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Ron E Sperber) writes:

>Poster: 	KQxxx / KQTx / x / xxx
>Partner:	AJ / Axxxx / KQJ / Axx

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

>>(1) promises 5 spades
>>this proved to not be the optimal contract as we were +480 missing a 
>>nearly cold slam...

>	2NT was a good bid to show the values of the hand and 3H is
>	a forward-going bid (at least a mild slam try).  Most people
>	play that 2NT is game-forcing there 

Hold it.  *Nobody* I know of plays 2NT here as game-forcing.
The three styles I know of for bidding over 2NT, bearing in
mind that Pass is quite possible:

1. In old-fashioned Acol I think 3H and 3S are nonforcing.
   At least 3S is.  Other bids are forcing.
2. In old-fashioned Standard American all bids over 2NT are
   forcing.  To escape below game responder passes.
3. Wolff Signoffs use 3C as a puppet to 3D (although in many
   versions opener may bid something else) and all other
   bids are forcing.  [Historical question: Does anyone know 
   whether Bobby Wolff invented this convention before or 
   after it became a standard part of K-S?]
*. Some have suggested using 3C as checkback, although I
   never seen it recommended by an expert and see no use for
   it.

>       and as such, 4H should
>	be weaker than 3H and hence 3H a mild slam try.  

Even given the above, this statement may still be true.
Although 2NT is not a game force, 3H is.

[much deleted]

How would others interpret the auction 1H-1S; 2NT-4D?  If
it's a splinter in support of hearts it's to be considered.
A problem with this hand is that in the usual style of
cuebidding, after 1H-1S; 2NT-3H; 3S, responder's only
cuebid that doesn't promise a 1st-round control is 4S.
Still, with three second-round controls responder's hand
seems worth that bid.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao)
Subject: Need another partnership for a team game.
Originator: daveshao@leland.Stanford.EDU
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: ca
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 07:36:00 GMT

Morris Jones (known as mojo in okbridge) and I (known as dshao) are
seeking another partnership to complete a team for the Bracketed
Knockout Teams at the Santa Clara Regional.  This event starts
Thursday morning 8:30am and lasts at most four rounds, one round apiece each
consecutive morning.  The event is being held at the Westin Hotel
and Santa Clara Convention Center (near the Great America Park).
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: RGB Etiquette (WAS: Try this one)
From: avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:05:55 GMT
Organization: Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

 (martino@courier6.aero.org(Nick Martino)) writes:
: In article <1992Aug24.223338.14575@ramon.bgu.ac.il>, avir@chen.bgu.ac.il
: (Avi
: Roy Shapira) wrote:	
:
: > [...numerous flames extinguished...]
: >

The reaction to my flaming attack of Wing's post force me to explain myself
better.

Mr. Wing suggested that it is inapropriate to describe a bid as 5NT. Instead
he suggested that Bob Silverman say: "5NT, Grand Slam Force". Mr. Wing's
argument was that there MIGHT be a system where the jump to 5NT is not used
as the GSF, and that novices may therefore be confused by the plain 5NT.

I want to explain why Mr. Wing's message had ignited my flame thrower,(a first
time for me).

I have nothing against beginners on r.g.b. On the contrary, my point that a
call for r.g.b.novices will fail was to emphasize that I think that r.g.b is
for all bridge lovers, old and new.

I think that when beginners do not understand a bid or a term, they have every
right to write a private note to the poster and ask. I have received many such
requests (indicating that perhaps I am not all that clear at times) and have
always replied to such questions quickly and politely.

But Mr. Wing is no novice. He knew well what the GSF is, and his argument does
not address the needs of the novice. Since even experts are not aware of
a system without the GSF, beginners are even less likely to be confused by the
bid.

Furthermore, his suggested format: "5NT, Grand Slam Force" does nothing to help
the beginner. To really help a beginner, you need to say something like:
"5NT, Grand Slam Force, a.k.a Josephine (asks partner to bid 7 with 2 of the
3 top honors in the agreed trump suit)"  which is what I'll reply to anyone
who asks about the meaning of 5NT, but never dream of posting on r.g.b

Consequently, I felt that Mr. Wing had another agenda: "Bash Bob".

I think that anyone who reads Mr. Wing's message carefuly, will see that
I am right.

I don't always agree with Bob, nor with his style, but I resent the attacks on
him by self proclaimed champions of some unknown beginners, particularly when
the attack has no merit whatsoever, even more so when the attacker tries to
hide his agneda with "concern" for the poor novices.

I am sorry if my post offended anyone, and I hope I have made myself clear.

Avi
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Question about opening 1nt
From: bclaus@cs.wright.edu (Brian Clausing)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:41:56 GMT
Organization: Wright State University

From article <1992Aug29.002038.18352@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, by dberman@cs.washington.edu (Deborah Berman):
> I usually play 15-17 nt.  Now, obviously it is nice to hold tenaces
> and suits with inner texture when being the nt bidder if you eventually
> are going to get to a nt contract.  So, my question is, what to do with
> balanced 15-17 hands, with only aces and kings.  Like, a 4-4-3-2 hand
> with 4 aces and all other cards are little.  Or 3 aces and a King, no
> queens/jacks/tens/nines?
> 
> The main problem I've seen with shying away from nt is the rebid is a
> problem and also nt tends to be somewhat preemptive, which can shut up
> the competition.  (of course, if you fail to open 1nt with a hand
> like this *and* a worthless doubleton, the opponents' interference may
> point to your unprotected suit, and you might be happy to have 
> avoided nt.  Don't get me wrong, I will usually open 1nt with a 
> worthless doubleton, but not necessarily with a hand like Axx AKx xx Axxxx.)
> 
> I also like 1nt with any 15-17pt balanced hand b/c it is so descriptive
> of your hand.

Some players play the hand first and the system second; others, otherwise.
The Flint-Pender system employed a 1NT rebid of 13-17 with conventional
followups.  This is not without its problems, of course, but it does
give the opener leeway to pick and choose notrump openings.

Brian Clausing
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell)
Subject: Re: Question about opening 1nt
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 04:00:26 GMT

In <1992Aug29.002038.18352@beaver.cs.washington.edu> dberman@cs.washington.edu (Deborah Berman) writes:

:I usually play 15-17 nt.  Now, obviously it is nice to hold tenaces
:and suits with inner texture when being the nt bidder if you eventually
:are going to get to a nt contract.  So, my question is, what to do with
:balanced 15-17 hands, with only aces and kings.  Like, a 4-4-3-2 hand
:with 4 aces and all other cards are little.  Or 3 aces and a King, no
:queens/jacks/tens/nines?

I much prefer a weak notrump (11-14HCP) having been strongly influenced 
by Kaplan-Scheinwald.  It solves many problems that other bidding
methods have with the weaker hands and no decent 5-card major.

:The main problem I've seen with shying away from nt is the rebid is a
:problem and also nt tends to be somewhat preemptive, which can shut up
:the competition.  (of course, if you fail to open 1nt with a hand

There's really no problem for the opener on rebidding since their
partner knows within very close limits what their hand is.  The
opener's partner will generally decide where the hand should be
played.  The opener will simply respond to partner's bid:
	2c	Stayman -- 4 card major or 2d.
	2x	Anything but clubs -- pass.
	3M	Major Suit -- bid 4 if you have 3 of the suit, otherwise 3NT
	2NT	3NT only if on the top of the opening bid.

The partner may take it beyond game in some cases, but these are rare.

This makes it very easy for a partnership to reach a makeable
part score or game contract.  It's also easy for the responding
partner to sit quietly with a fairly strong hand waiting for the
opponents to stick their heads on the chopping block.

The pre-emptive nature of the bid is one of the strongest points
of the weak no-trump in combination with the ease of getting to
good part scores at the two level.  It's amazing how many times a
two-bid making gives a good result where opponents get to three
on the same hands going down one.

:like this *and* a worthless doubleton, the opponents' interference may
:point to your unprotected suit, and you might be happy to have 
:avoided nt.  Don't get me wrong, I will usually open 1nt with a 
:worthless doubleton, but not necessarily with a hand like Axx AKx xx Axxxx.)

:I also like 1nt with any 15-17pt balanced hand b/c it is so descriptive
:of your hand.

We open the strong 15+ point hands with no five card major with a
minor suit, rebidding in no-trump to indicate the strong no-trump
openers.  Thus a minor suit opening promises a strong 15+ point
hand since we would open 1nt with ANY balanced (no singleton or
void) with no 5-card major.  Another advantage is that the minor
suit opening gives more room to explore on strong hands.

Bill
-- 
INTERNET:  bill@Celestial.COM   Bill Campbell; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!bill   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!bill   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
SPEED COSTS MONEY -- HOW FAST DO YOU WANT TO GO?
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: The Butler Scoring Method (was Re: Toronto Nationals selection #1)
From: grabiner@math.harvard.edu (David Grabiner)
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:40:30 EDT
Organization: Harvard University Dept. of Mathematics
In-reply-to: grabiner@math.harvard.edu's message of 25 Aug 92 19:57:24 EDT

In article <GRABINER.92Aug25195838@zariski.harvard.edu>, I wrote:

> The median will not make a good par because many boards have two or
> three principal results.  For example, if everyone in the room is in 4S,
> but only four of thirteen pairs make it, neither +620 nor -100 is a good
> par.

The following discussion seems to have led to some confusion.  What I
meant is not that these results would be unrealistic in a team game, but
that they would skew the scores.  If the IMP par is -100, then four N-S
pairs are +13 and the others are zero.  If you compare N-S and E-W
scores, or play a Howell so that you cannot separate them, this creates
unfair comparisons.  It would seem that you could fix this problem by
subtracting the average IMPs on the boards played by each pair.

The median can also cause another problem.  Suppose that there are six
-100's and seven +620's; the median is +620, so the difference between
making and going down is 13.  But if there are six +620's, six -100's,
and one pair stope is 3S for +170, that becomes the median, +620 scores
+10, and -100 scores -7, for a difference of 17.  The result of a single
pair should not skew the results so much.

--
David Grabiner, grabiner@zariski.harvard.edu
"We are sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary."
"Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again."
Disclaimer: I speak for no one and no one speaks for me.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sater@cs.vu.nl (Hans van Staveren)
Subject: Wednesdays results from Salsomaggiore
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 07:16:17 GMT

Quarterfinals open:
Netherlands - Israel	130 - 121
US - Egypt		225 - 154
Poland - Sweden		 98 - 179
France - Denmark	145 - 143

In the seminfinals the Netherlands will play France, and the US Sweden.

Women Semifinals: (after 48 of 64 boards)

Germany - GB		149 - 175
France - Austria	121 - 135
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: rainbow@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rob Buchner)
Subject: Re: what went wrong
Organization: St Barts
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 09:05:57 GMT
Keywords: partner fell asleep


> KQxxx
> KQTx
> x
> xxx
>
> 1H   1S(1)	(1) 5 spades
> 2N   3H
> 3S   4H
> P
>
> Partner held:
> AJ
> Axxxx
> KQJ
> Axx
>
> for *480. Where did the auction go wrong?

Given you play flannery with the agreement that a
1S response promises at least 5 cards, you have a
good suit which is a primary feature of your hand,
you might as well show it at a convenient level.
Anything weaker and I would show support first.
Once partner bids 2NT, your hand becomes enormous
in trick taking potential. My first call would be
3H which must be forward going with slam interest.
A bad hand with support would not first bid spades.
In any case, a non-slamish hand would jump to 4H.
At this point partner with all their controls is going
to get very excited. The 3S cue-bid over 3H confirms 
the solid spade suit. It is hard to imagine either hand
now signing off anywhere below 6H, let alone both hands.
Over 3S, cue-bidding your diamond control seems reasonable.
Even if you don't, I expect partner to keycard at this point.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised to hear keycard over 3H.
Partner did not properly evaluate (ie trust) the auction.
Partner failed to envision spade discards for his clubs.
Failure to cue-bid a minor on your part over 3S pinpoints
your hand as exactly KQxxx of spades and KQx of hearts.
No other possible holding would justify the auction.
Partner can just bid 6H now, keycard is redundant.
Well, I suppose it is possible the QH is missing...
From: eleitv@rw6.urc.tue.nl (Thijs Veugen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Strong opening?
Date: 27 Aug 92 11:45:54 GMT
Reply-To: eleitv@urc.tue.nl

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)

6D went one down after a trumplead.

I have some questions about this biddingsequence:
1. Should South open his hand with a preempt because of his little
   defensive force?
2. Is North's double ok?
3. Is 6D a realistic try or just a stupid bid?

If anyone could give me some answers I would be very pleased.




Thijs Veugen
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: What would you bid?
Date: 1 Sep 1992 19:00:40 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: cypress.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1596@idacrd.UUCP> desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
>Eric Taylor <taylor@foraker.tivoli.com> writes:
>>xx
>>KQx
>>AKQxxxx
>>A

>>You        Partner
>>1D         1H
>>??

>>I would like to be in a heart game.

>Do you really want to play hearts if partner has four small hearts and a
>spade stopper?  That doesn't sound so great to me.

I assure you, my friend and frequent partner Eric *does* want to 
play hearts.  His idea of a fun evening is playing lots of 4-3
fits.  He didn't say he thought 4H was necessarily the best
contract.  8^)

>What you really want to do is make a forcing rebid showing three trumps.
>As is well understood, many common systems don't provide an adequate way
>to do this.  One idea would be to steal the 3S bid for this purpose.

At the expense of the splinter, of course.

>Personally, I probably would have opened the above hand 2C,
>notwithstanding the recent discussion about 2C openers with marginal
>defense.  At least I have a place to play the hand, and while of course
>I may be guessing, I can always choose to play diamonds at any level.
>And I avoid this rebid problem, and I probably get to some slams that
>you miss.

I'm less worried about the defense (4 QT is marginal, and AK in
a 7-card suit shouldn't really count as 2) than about the 3 fast
losers.  If the suit were a major I would have no problem, if
playing a system (such as K-S) that recognizes this sort of hand
as a 2C opener.  And I have to say that opening this hand 2C and
rebidding 3D seems a lot less of a distortion than any rebid
after 1D-1H.

Speaking of K-S, there is no rebid problem there.  3D handles
this perfectly.  Of course, with x KQx xx AKQJxx we see the other
side of the coin.  3C is a significant overbid, since it shows a
hand on the order of the one above.  Kaplan recommended 2D, "but
I would hate it".  No free lunch.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: dave@silver.sni.ca (Dave Till)
Subject: Re: of buttons and flames (plus: a question re dummy play books)
Keywords: open forum, net-life
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf, Sietec Open Systems, Toronto, Canada
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:30:05 GMT

A question, before I drift off into metadiscussion:  can anyone recommend
a really good book on improving one's dummy play?

Thanks!

******

In article <1992Aug27.095827.29320@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rainbow@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rob Buchner) writes:
>> Well, if they are told where to look up the basics, since THIS
>> isn't the appropriate place, and they don't, well they are wasting
>> people's time then, deliberately, and I can see how that would
>> push some people's buttons.
>
>I could agree with that, ie people's buttons being pushed by
>triviality that it drives them to condescending attitudes...
>But who is to say that this isn't the appropriate place
>for all levels of questions? Sure they could go elsewhere,
>but this is an open forum, not a restrictive audience.

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.flight_a_teams, etc.

to allow groups of people to gang up on each other,

	rec.games.bridge.side_game

for discussions of obscure arcana, and

	rec.games.bridge.midnight_zip

for those rambling 2 a.m. posts.  "Stratified" posts could be handled
by crossposting to multiple groups:

	rec.games.bridge.flight_a,rec.games.bridge.flight_b

And metadiscussions, flames, etc., could be included in the ever-popular

	rec.games.bridge.postmortem

Whaddaya think?

[A slightly more serious idea:  why not attempt to set up a system of
classification for posts?  If a subject line contained headings such
as QUESTION (for a question addressed to the general audience), or perhaps
NOVICE ("I'm new at this; don't beat up on me, please"), no one would be
forced to waste his or her time reading posts which are either too
obscure or too trivial for their tastes.]
-- 
--Dave Till ("dave@silver.sni.ca", or try "dave@snitor.uucp"; as a last resort,
try "dwtill@watyew.waterloo.edu").  * My Canada includes the World Series. *
"Take it from me, a veteran.  The indicators of mental health in this country
are sleeping habits, hair length and beards." -- from *Whale Music*
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 11:18:05 EDT
From: <GUF@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Bridge Games for IBM PC

As a new bridge player, I am considering purchasing either "Grand
Slam Bridge" from Electronic Arts, or "Omar Sharif on Bridge" from
Interplay.  I would appreciate any commentary on either of these
two programs; or any other discussion of alternatives for the IBM.
Thanks.  Send to Gil Gall (guf@psuvm.psu.edu).
From: maillist@base.cs.ucla.edu (Generic Mailing List ID (Guest))
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: It's back - PSP #20 - The Problems!
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:28:11 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department

maillist@base.cs.ucla.edu (Generic Mailing List ID (Guest)) writes:

>Problem 2.
>IMPS (Calcutta)
>Both Vulnerable
>Dealer West

>You, South, hold, S-void H-AKQ62 D-AQJ32 C-Q72

>South  West   North  East
>       Pass   1NT(1) 3S  
>4S     Pass   5C     Pass
>5S     Pass   5NT    Pass
>?

>What call do you make?

As usual, I put in a footnote (1) without explanation.  It's a 15-17 
notrump.  Actually, that shouldn't even be footnoted.  I'm a dope.

At least I didn't include any 14-card hands this time...

Response to this PSP is poor (thusfar).  Is it too easy, too hard,
too long, or are people just fed up with the PSP entirely (don't
answer this one, Eddie, if you're out there).
--

Matthew Merzbacher	ARPA:	matthew@CS.UCLA.EDU
Moo - Moo Moo  		UUCP:	...!{uunet|rutgers|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!matthew
               		This time, *with* the oys
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Myerson)
Subject: Re: Michaels without a c(l)ue--assign the blame
Organization: Raytheon Company, Portsmouth, RI
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:00:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.185540.12225@beaver.cs.washington.edu> dberman@cs.washington.edu (Deborah Berman) writes:

* In article <BtKn5r.2vp@ais.org> hampton@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.

* West is to blame.  Michaels indicates at least 5-5 in the
* majors.  West should bid 2H or 2S (I suppose spades are a tiny bit
* better).  3c is a very odd bid.  West was lucky to find East with
* 2 clubs.  East could easily have 1 or 0 with his bid.  

This may be your interpretation, but it isn't mine.

The 2D bid shows 5-5, but West does not have support for either suit.
West should have at least 3 to support, unless there is no alternative.
In this case, there is an alternative - 3C.
It shows a decent 6 card or longer suit and denies support for either major.
This is exactly what West has.

Yes, East could have 1 or 0 clubs, but imagine playing 2major
from the West side with East having a club void.

How many tricks will the West hand produce?
None unless the opponents lead a club.
(Yes, the observant reader will note that the ten of spades is an entry,
but no one could possibly know that at the time of the 2D call.)

How many tricks will the West hand produce in a club contract?
Four, if the suit breaks somewhat evenly.

Had the West hand been T 7,  9 2,  9 7 5 3,  A K 7 4 2,
then I would say West must bid 2 of a major,
as the clubs just aren't long or good enough.

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