HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: turin@diku.dk (S|ren Turin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Some questions about 2 over 1.
Date: 22 Jan 93 13:34:57 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

I must admit, i'm confused. Having read Mike Lawrence's 2-o-1 Cookbook
and followed the recent discussion in r.g.b. about developements of 2
over 1 sequences and fast arrival, it seems to me that there are a lot
of different opinions about this. So i've come up with some of the
more basic sequences, and would like the views of the net. My
impression is that are there different schools of thought among the
North American bridge community. Unfortunately, on this side of the
Atlantic we rarely hear the views of American experts.
  I don't think any of these sequences depend on whether you play 2
over 1 as absolutely forcing to game or it's possible to stop at the 3
level, but i may be wrong (it would'nt be the first time.)


1S-2C-2D/H-2S
Is this merely a preference or does it show real spade support.  If it
shows support, whats the difference between openers 3 and 4 spade
rebid (fast arrival/descriptive/slam-invitational?)


1S-2C-2D/H-2S-X-3/4S
Depending on openers rebid X, whats the difference between 3 and 4
spades? If i remember correctly i have seen the sequence ...-3S-cue-4S
as the way to show a minimum hand with spade support; hmm, could aptly
be called the principle of slow arrival.


1S-2C-2S-3S and 1S-2C-2D/H-3S
Are these slaminvitational or showing a minimum raise (or just showing
a hand unsuitable for 2/4S)?


1S-2C-2D/H-3S-cue and 1S-2C-2S-3S-cue
Depending on the meaning of 3S, what does a cue from *responder* now
show?


1S-2C-2S-4S and 1S-2C-2D/H-4S
Are these fast arrival (non-slammish minimum) or descriptive (good
spades, good clubs, little else)?


1S-2C-2D-3D
Does 3D cover all responding hands with support. If so, continuations
seem to be difficult with 2 completely unlimited hands trying to sort
out heart stopper(s), strength, and slam suitability. 


1S-2C-2D-4D
Does this sequence exist?


1S-2C-2H-3/4H
Anyone for fast arrival here?


1S-2C-3C
Is this completely unlimited showing any hand with support?


1S-2C-4C
Does this sequence exist?


1S-2H-3/4H
Again, fast arival?




I'd prefer email responses and will post a summary if there is enough
interest.


Thanks a lot for your time.
Soren 

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
turin@freja.diku.dk aka Soren Turin 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: davidm@questor.Rational.COM (David Moore)
Subject: Re: Offshape doubles
Keywords: double, free bid.
Organization: Rational
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 00:57:39 GMT

boyiny@polya.mit.edu (Professor Who?) writes:

>hampton@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik) writes:

>>[Matchpts. South dlr., E-W game]
>>          West               East
>>          AQ94               3
>>          AQT9               62
>>          K                  QT9865
>>          A642               9853
>> 
>>                   (P)       P
>> (1H)     X        (2H)      3D
>>          3NT                4D
>>          4S                 5C
>>          P        (X)*

>IMNSHO, East shoulders most of the blame for 3D.

NOT! A number of people have blamed East for his 3D bid. 
His 4D and 5C bids are heinous, but the 3d bid is a good practical
effort. If partner has his double, this hand is worth 4 or 5 tricks.

The only thing that could suggest not bidding 3D with this hand is
the doubleton heart. This is the worst holding you can have in
this situation. You would rather have 1 or 3. You expect 3D to
be away 1, but you do not expect to be doubled (especially as
double by LHO is probably a game try)

Once partner has doubled, he cannot come back in without 
extras. Hence, your bid here is really a re-opening bid. If the
bidding went 1H - -, I think you would bid 2D on this hand. 

The trouble started on this hand when West failed to consider
his rebid. He violated the principle of preparedness. Pass would
be a better bid than double on his hand, although most people
would bid 1S or 1NT (I would probably bid 1NT, but I think 1S is
the correct bid) 

I wonder what West would have done if 2H had come round to him?
Is this hand going to acquiesce to 2H (undoubled). If he starts with
1S or 1NT, he gets to double 2H for penalties.

Even if you play 1NT as 15-18, this is not an underbid
with this miserable 19 count. If you don't consider you
can bid 1NT because of the singleton, then you certainly
cannot double with the intention of bidding NT later.

West gets 70% of the blame for his double, and 30% of the blame
for 4S. East gets 50% of the blame for each of his 4D and 5C
bids. For a result this bad, assigning 200% of the blame seems 
about right. :-)
From: doug@cm.deakin.OZ.AU (Douglas Newlands)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: 7-5-1
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:51:24 GMT
Organization: Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: sauron.cm.deakin.oz.au

In article <9301251343.aa19238@Paris.ics.uci.edu: kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler) writes:
:Playing in a club game, the following
:You are South, vul against non-vul, and West is dealer.
:
:                North
:                 x
:                 Qx
:                 Qxxxxxx(7)
:                 xxx
:
:West                                East
:Kxxx                                x
:xxx                                 AJ10
:--                                  AKJ10x
:KJ10xxx(6)                          AQxx
:                 South(me)
:                 AQJ1098x(7)
:                 K9xxx
:                 x
:                 --
:
:The bidding:
:
:West     North    East   South
: P        P        1d     1s
: p        p        X      2s
: p        p        3c     3h
: 4c       p        p      p
:
:Another player suggested that I use Michaels over 1d,
:but I think the suits are two unequal in quality.

Partner has already passed so there is no practical danger of you making a
slam. The spades are so good that even if you have a heart fit it should make
little difference to the number of tricks available to you whichever suit you
play in.
I would just bid 4S first time round and be done with it. The worst that can
happen is 1S, 1D and 3 H losers for 2 off which is not as problem at teams and
only occurs in pairs when partner has nothing and they can probably make 6C
(although that may not be all that relevant).
I think any other bid probably either gives your side a problem or allows the
opponents to find their fit.

doug.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: locher@iastate.edu (Robert C Locher)
Subject: Re: Network bridge software
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 05:00:37 GMT

pseah@rambutan.orchid.tymnet.com (Paul Seah x-6315) writes:

>I've seen a UNIX bridge software that allows four players on a LAN to
>have a bridge game.  Does anyone know where this software may be FTPed
>from?

From an article posted recently:

>I'm happy to announce the release of version 1.8A of OKbridge.  I hope
>that current users (including the beta testers!) will upgrade to
>version 1.8 as soon as possible.  There are two ways of obtaining the
>latest copy of OKbridge.

>1.  Most people will probably prefer to upgrade by using one
>    of the following commands, as appropriate:
>
>     telnet 132.239.51.7 5332 | csh            (for Sun and NeXT users)
>     telnet 132.239.51.7 5332 | csh -sb -aix   (for AIX users)
>     telnet 132.239.51.7 5332 | csh -sb -hpux  (for HPUX users)
>
>2.  Or if you are familiar with ftp, you can obtain OKbridge
>    the "traditional" way from the following locations:
>
>                     West Coast                 East Coast
>                     ---- -----                 ---- -----
>      Machine Name   cs.ucsd.edu                suned.cs.yale.edu
>      IP Number      132.239.51.3               128.36.21.1
>      Directory      pub/clegg/bridge/okbridge  pub/okbridge
>      Filename       okbridge-1.8A.tar.Z        okbridge.tar.Z
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: jao@megatest.com (John Oswalt)
Subject: Re: bridge for the blind
Organization: Megatest Corporation
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:37:01 GMT

henri@zircon.PHYSICS.ORST.EDU (henri jansen) asks how his blind
friend can play in regular duplicate games.

He ought to go for it.  I have encountered several blind players
in tournaments.  With the co-operation of the other players and
the director, which I have never seen withheld, the game run
smoothly.

The blind players each have their own set of boards, which are
just like normal boards, and are filled with normal cards, except
that each card is braille embossed.

The blind player sits south.  The south player at the next higher
numbered table, who passes the boards to him, is asked to sort his
hands after he plays them.  When dummy comes down, unless this
is the blind player, he reads out his hand.  Play proceeds normally,
except that each player says his card out loud as he plays it.

One blind player who is a regular at west coast regionals, keeps
complete hand records and notes on a nifty little hand braille
writer he carries.
-- 

John Oswalt        jao@megatest.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: bidding after a t/o double
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:21:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.191124.5033@netcom.com> rudy@netcom.com (Rudy) writes:
>You hold:   AQ  AKTx  x  AQJT7x
>Matchpoints
>RHO  You  LHO  Pard
>1S    X    P    2H
>P     ?
>
>Your plan?  I don't want to hear if you didn't double the first time,
>because then you are playing in 2C and it's not even a play problem.
 
Now this hand and club suit IS good enough to double, then bid clubs
over a diamond response from partner. I absolutely agree with a double
here. Contrast it with the previous hand.

In any event, I now bid 4H. What's the problem? You certainly can't
be thinking of more with 4 losers. If partner has 2 or 3 cover cards
he will move over 4H.
--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: davidm@questor.Rational.COM (David Moore)
Subject: Re: Offshape doubles
Keywords: double, free bid.
Organization: Rational
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:57:53 GMT

bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao) writes:


>Why is 2 small the worst holding you could have?  Not even close --
>xxx is by far worse, especially since its very possible that they could 
>be on a 4-3 fit or a 5-2 (have you never raised 1H or 1S to 2 with
>a weak hand and a doubleton honor over an X).

2 is worst if they have 8 trumps because partner has 3. You neither
have the control of shortness in either hand, nor will you be
able to make tricks by ruffing in the short hand. In addition, with
trumps behaving for them, it is less likely you can push them one level too
high.

Of course, if they do only have 7 trumps, 3 is a worse holding,
but I don't think this will happen a lot (it did here, of course).


>In my post I advocated 1NT as an overcall, but this is by no means a 
>"miserable" 19 count.  yes, your stiff DK does not pull its weight
>by any means, but look at your heart holding of AQT9 -- that
>could quite easily be worth 3 trciks, especially if
>the opponents are kind enough to lead hearts

My opponents are never kind enough. They cotton on all too quickly.
AQT9 is a good holding, but there is a good chance you will have to
lead away from it. 

In general, strength in opponents suit is a bad
thing. I would devalue this 6 points because it is in the opponents
suit and then add it back on because its well placed.

However, when I have 19HCP and RHO opens, I know partner will be
weak. I cannot count on more than 1 entry to partner's hand, and
this hand is very susceptible to a lack of entrys because of
its tenaces and lack of a long suit. I would adjust this hand
to 16+ points. (Actually, at the table I tend not to think in
terms of points, except as a means to check my hand evaluation)

>I think 1NT is the best bid at MPs (as I said in my original
>reply), but it is a distinct underbid IMO -- not an evaluated
>18 count...

I agree that 1NT is best. The only other choice is 1S but, in my methods, if I
bid 1S I cannot double 2H for penalties, since that would be re-opening showing
minor tolerance. If I could bid 1S and penalty double 2H, I would incline
towards that.

While I wrote that pass is better than double on this hand, pass tends to
deny 4 spades in my opinion (I will quite happily overcall 4 card suits
with opening values)

As it happens, if it continues 1H - - ?,
partner will not re-open because he will expect the opponents to have a 9 card
spade fit and expects them to have a spade game, so pass gives too much away.

David
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: stan@NMC.ED.RAY.COM (Stan Schenker)
Subject: Re: Assess the blame
Organization: Equipment Division, Raytheon Company
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 19:05:54 GMT

In article <C1C646.K4J@ais.org> hampton@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik) writes:
>Whew!  I didn't quite expect *this* much of a firestorm over this one.
>Fortunately, my partner and I were able to say "It's only one board"
>when all was said and done.
>
>Interestingly, no one blamed the double.  West, as much of the net
>concurred, insisted East did not have a 3D bid.  East, meanwhile,
>was practically certain 3NT was not the right place to be, and
>went into a sort of "damage control" mode.  And it was pointed
>out to me...
>
>           AQ94               3
>           AQT9               62
>           K                  QT9865
>           A642               9853
>
>...stuff deleted

I have been lurking on this conversation for quite a while, and valid points have been
made about this hand.  I would overcall 1nt (1s if my spades were AQT4), but do not
object to either call.  I would ALWAYS call 3d with the weak hand.  You are just going
to be robbed blind in competitive auctions if you do not respond in a 6 card suit with 
minimal values.  I think the auction got out of control after the 3d call, but the
failure to bid 3d would show a genuine lack of partnership trust.

Stan Schenker
From: geppo@spot.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Some questions about 2 over 1.
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:36:40 GMT
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO

(Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>>>Jacoby with a good biddable 5 card suit? Never. e.g.
>> 
>>>Kxxx
>>>Ax
>>>xx
>>>AKQxx
>>>
>>>Should ALWAYS bid 2C to show the suit, then support spades. This is much
>>>more descriptive of the hand.
>>They are also not Hugh Kelsey's opinions, nor Marty Bergen's.
> 
>Kelsey? He is not a 2/1 GF guru and while Bergen might be considered to
>be, his bidding is not considered mainstream by many U.S. experts.
>Many of his ideas are SUPERB, and I have adopted many of them. Many
>of them I totally dislike. [Sort of like A. Roth, come to think of it!]
>
>The trick taking potential of a good 5 card side suit is enormous.

That's *absolutely true*.
With lack of particular agreements, that hand *must* be bid 2C.

In the given example the solidity of the side suit allows an easy hand
evaluation also with a (not recomended, IMHO) jacoby response (responder 
doesn't need to know any complement in his club suit).

But change the hand in 
Kxxx
Axx
x
AQJTx

and now the K of clubs can make the difference among 5S-1 and an
easy 6 or 7S! After a Jacoby response, you can find yourself at the level of 5
without knowing anything about the CK!

>Furthermore, 2NT takes up a lot of room, so I believe the more sharply
>you narrow its definition, the more useful I believe it will be.
>I believe it is best used as a balanced, forcing raise, always with
>4 card support AND it denies a good biddable 5-card side suit. Otherwise,
>you simply start with a 2/1 in that suit and support spades later.

On the other side I'm actually playing Bergen 2/1 style (i.e *never* 
4 card support after a 2/1 bid).

I've solved the problem of the 4 card support + 5+ side suit with 2+ top H
(let's call it SOT = source of tricks suit; exceptionally AJTxx)
giving multiple meaning to the bergen raises:

   3C =   nat. 6-9 p. 4 card raise 
             *or* 
          game forcing hand (9-12 p, say), 4 cards support, 5+ SOT side suit 

   3D =   nat. limit (10-11 p.) 4 card raise
             *or*
          slam try hand (say 13+ p) with side SOT suit

Those biddings are space consuming, thus the follow-up must be 
accurately planned in a partnership (one step relay catch-all forcing bid; 
askings bid after the responder declaration of his SOT suit should be 
recommended - for side singletons or SOT suit description, but 
I lived without much trouble for 3 years without them - playing mixed 
cues (singleton, Ks)).

Anyway, with all the drawbacks that you can find, those Bergen raises 
extensions  allow to have the cake and eat it too.

Giuseppe.

PS: I'm almost positive that when Bergen says: 2/1 denies 4 card support, 
he *has* in his private system some kind of conventional sistemation of 
the side SOT suit hands.
From: taylor@foraker.tivoli.com (Eric Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Alerting Bids
Date: 25 Jan 93 06:58:58 GMT

In a computer moderated game would it be desirable to
not communicate partner's alerts of your bids?

Carrying this a little further, would it be desirable
to alert your own bids and not have your alerts communicated
to partner?

Perhaps it should be required to have both parties alert the bid?
The damage to the opponents could then
be more accurately assessed in case
of a bid not being alerted.
From: mrl@nerus.pfc.mit.edu
Subject: RE: Some questions about 2 over 1.
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:49:33 GMT

In a previous article, grove@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Eddie Grove) wrote:
>In article <1993Jan24.014140.13052@linus.mitre.org> bs@fatima.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
> 
>[Talking about responder's rebid after 1S - 2C; 2D/2H - ?]
> 
>>:Another way to play it is that 3s shows 3 card support with extras.  If you had
>>:4 card support with extras, you would have bid Jacoby NT, Inverted Trump Swiss,
>  
>>Jacoby with a good biddable 5 card suit? Never. e.g.
> 
>>Kxxx
>>Ax
>>xx
>>AKQxx
>>
>>Should ALWAYS bid 2C to show the suit, then support spades. This is much
>>more descriptive of the hand.
>>--
>In his excellent book on Slam Bidding, Kelsey points out the dangers
>of suppressing a trump fit, and recommends a strong jump shift on
>this kind of hand, or an artificial raise if SJS not available.
> 
>Eddie Grove
> 
>P.S. As for my personal view, I would not like a system that forced me to 
>bid Jac2N and suppress the club suit.

I'm just echoing Hardy's system, it's not to say I support it.  Since he plays
5cm, you have a good fit already.  If opener does have 5c in clubs, he will
bid it in response to Jacoby NT, so that fit gets found anyway.  I would think
it would more important to find out if opener has a stopper in diamonds, so
probing for a singleton in diamonds is useful.

Mark London
MRL@NERUS.PFC.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sp@bibhs.no (Svein Parnas)
Subject: Another card evaluation
Organization: Statens Bibliotek- og Informasjonshogskole
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 10:52:58 GMT

A lot of people are complaining about the 4-3-2-1-way of evaluating cards.
This is the way my team evaluates hands:

A = 11
K =  7
Q =  4
J =  2
T =  1
K as second best honour: +2
Q as second best honour: +2
J as second best honour: +2
5. ,6. and 7. card in a suit: +2
4333: -1
honour combination without any cards following it: -1
K,Q or J single : -2
singleton : +2
void : +3

Opening : 34+
Game: 65
Slam : 84 (without any special fit)

This system is very good for (not) bidding games with balanced hands.

How manage to count all this? After some time you learn the combinations, e.g

AKxx = 20
AQxx = 17

The evaluation is quit close to honour tricks. "Long-suit-points" are added.
Together with a system that is good at showing short suits, it is fantastic!
Try it, I think even very good players will find it better than their own
"intuition".


Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: bidding after a t/o double
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 12:23:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.053742.28067@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
 
stuff deleted....
:>>2H-4H?  If not, do you feel that this is a slam "well worth missing"?
:
:>Yes. Even if it makes, I feel this is a slam well worth missing.
:>Consider that while you may miss a slam, you may also find that 4H
:>is the limit of the hand should partner have, for example:
:
:>xxxx
:>Jxxx
:>KQx
:>xx
:
:You misaprehend.  I was referring to hands where partner rebids hearts.
 
If you force with 2S and partner rebids 3H he shows exactly NOTHING 
by his 3H response. You have FORCED him to bid. Indeed, on the hand
just above I would expect a 4H response to 2S, showing a real suit
and VALUES. If partner bids 3H over 2S he promises NOTHING. What do
you expect him to bid with:

xxxx
xxx
xxx
xxx

???

Your 2S bid has forced him to bid.

:If one raises to 4H directly, you foreclose the possibility of partner
:giving you that information.  On this type of hand, with a 2S bid, the
:bidding goes 2H-2S-2NT-4H and that is the end of the matter.
 
2NT with 4 small spades? [and partner short!]. You must be joking.

After 1S-D-2H-P-4H  I expect *my* partners to bid again on Qxxxx and a
side kicker. You have jumped to game over a forced response and over
what could be a 3 card suit. This jump to game shows at WORST a 4-loser
9 winner hand. It is at worst about 1/2 trick short of a 2C opening
bid.

--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge