HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kgreen@ee.rochester.edu (Kenton A. Green)
Subject: computer bridge question and a general comment
Summary: is Bridge Pal any good?  Even beginners can post
Keywords: BridgePal FAQ FBI KGB Cryptology
Organization: Univ of Rochester, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: rec.games.bridge
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 08:26:16 GMT

OK, first the general comments, then the question:

I enthusiastically support the poster offering to create a FAQ.  I
am a beginner at bridge, and would find it extremely helpful.  By
beginner, I mean I am on Day 7 of Sheinwolds "Five Weeks To Winning
Bridge".  Consequently 90% of the stuff on this group is foreign
to me, but I am eager to learn, and so I have been watching and
struggling to understand this group for about three weeks now.

OK, with that as background, let me say that Bob Silverman's postings
have made me very averse to posting.  It has taken no small
amount of courage to do this, fearing that I will be told to "take up
knitting".  If that is what he intended, and if the net concurs, then 
please let me know and you will not see another post from me until I
am a much better player.

However, I hope it is not the general consensus of this group that
only very good players such as Bob S., Bharat R., etc can post.  I 
hope instead that the abovementioned, and every one else, will tolerate
a little bit (alot?) of "noise" from us novices.  I see groups that
get contributions from all levels, and although one has to wade through
a fair amount, by and large it is informative.  I also see groups that
are essentially just an insult forum, and others with postings from only
a few people, which makes me think "why don't they just email one
another?"  I would like to see this group fall into the first category.

Now, after all that bandwidth, here is my question:

Is the shareware (semi-free) program for MS-DOS called Bridge Pal
useful for a beginner?  By that I mean, does the computer in the
other three positions bid acceptably?  Does it play the hands reason-
ably?  I have tried it, and it sometimes does things that confuse me,
so I don't know if I should quit using it because I will gain bad
habits, or if I should use it and learn from it.  (One example: I
bid 1 NT w/ 16-18 pts and balance, and my partner passes with 8 points.
Thats not usually correct on his part, is it?)

Please excuse the long-winded post!  Comments to:

Kenton Green
kgreen@ee.rochester.edu


Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: reha@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (reha.gur)
Subject: Bob S
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:52:35 GMT
Keywords: FAQ

Maybe Bob should be mentioned in the FAQ for this newsgroup; his
posting style does seem to come up often and it can be a turn off for
either new readers (bad) or people that post nonsense (good).

And now some bridge....
playing 2/1 GF (no inverted minors, limit raises in minors,
invitational NT over minors (2N = 11-12, 3N = 13-15))

MATCHPOINTS, vul vs not vul.
partner opens 1d - pass to you:

your hand: A x x / A K / K J x x / x x x x

what is your bid? 

reha gur
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao)
Subject: Re: Reading List?
Keywords: books
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:27:44 GMT

In article <davidm.726179093@questor>, davidm@questor.Rational.COM (David Moore) writes:

|> I have not read Kantar's book, but I have read a number of Kelsey's, and
|> his original "Killing Defense at Bridge" is the bridge book on defense in
|> my view. It is not for the beginner, since it assumes a knowledge of
|> basic technique. It is also somewhat oriented to Acol - or at least
|> natural bidding. It is also oriented rather more to teams than pairs, since
|> the goal is usually to defeat the contract rather than avoid giving away
|> overtricks. 

Kelsey's book is absolutely fantastic, but IMHO you should not even
consider it until you are very familiar with much of the bridge basics.
It is definitely for the intermediate to advanced player, and even
experts can get a fair amount from it.
 
|> The book heavilly emphasises counting.

Actually, that is pretty much what 90% of bridge comes down to; counting 
plus visualization.  Counting is perhaps the most important single "must" 
in 2 of the 3 aspects of bridge (declaring and defense).  Counting and 
placing the opponents and partners cards is also very important in 
bidding but other notions are perhaps more important here.

As for bidding, one book which I found very interesting is "On Bidding"
originally published by Moorehead in 1947.  That classic has a section
on hand evaluation that is the best I have ever read, and is as relevant
today as it was when it came out.  And there is a recent edition, which 
was revised by Truscott in 1990 (or thereabouts) so that the bidding is
modern -- a definite recommendation.

Another book that you MUST read once you feel you have gone past novice
and are firmly in the intermediate category is S.J. SImons "Why you lose
at bridge".  At the very least it is great fun, and also contains some
simple advice on how to get the most from your cards.  It is set up
for rubber bridge (so if you plan to play that for $$s read it NOW)
but the lessons apply to duplicate and tournament play as well for the
most part...

Also, I think the FAQ for bridge contains much of these recommendations..

My compact set of books that you should get over the next year -- Shienwold's
"5 Weeks to Winning Bridge" (this will get you most of the way), a SIMPLE
book on modern bidding (to be read AFTER finishing 5 Weeks) like "Common-
Sense Bidding" (I think Lawrence or Hardy should wait for the second year),

For play you cannot go wrong with Watson's "Play of the Hand".

I would not recommend any defense book other than Kelsey's and "Dynamic
Defense" by Lawrence (IMO), but those too should wait until year 2.  
So Pick up Kantar's book on defense from your local library or buy it...

Hope this helps...

Bharat
-- 
R. Bharat Rao                         E-mail: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu
AI Group, Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology
405 N. Mathews, Urbana, IL 61801   (217)-333-5978 (O), 337-6498(H)
Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Yet another place the blame.
Date: 5 Jan 1993 16:56:17 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: latexo.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1icv0sINNg2f@transfer.stratus.com> tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill) writes:
|In article <1ick0sINN76p@agate.berkeley.edu>, grove@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Eddie Grove) writes:
|> In article <1i9cflINNb99@transfer.stratus.com> tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill) writes:
|> >In article <1993Jan3.202515.27062@midway.uchicago.edu>, pynq@quads.uchicago.edu (Jeremy Mathers) writes:
 
|> >> Vulnerability: Unknown.  Imps, [South] dealer.
  
|> >                    x
|> >                    AKJx
|> >                    Axxx
|> >                    Axxx
|> >          AJxx                Kxxxxx
|> >          xxx                 xxx
|> >          Qxxxx               x
|> >          J                   Qxx
|> >                    Qx
|> >                    Qxx
|> >                    KJx
|> >                    Kxxxx
 
|> The blame goes to the poster!  6C is not a bad contract,
|> certainly not bad enough to warrant a posting asking who
|> is to blame.  In a later post, it was made clear that the
|> declaring side held the CT.  [and C9]

|Yes, it is a good slam.

No.  It is not a bad slam.  In the absence of any other
information this card combination is 46%.  Even with the
(false) inference that overcaller has more spades than
overcaller's partner (which isn't all that clear) it's
not much better than 50%.  There is also the (slight)
danger of a red-suit ruff.  This is a slam you shouldn't
mind missing at any scoring.

For some reason there seems to be a widespread belief
that KTxxx opposite A9xx plays for no loser most of the
time.  Absent information from the bidding or the play of
other suits that is not the case.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
From: mbrgw@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk (R.G. Walters)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Arggggh!
Date: 7 Jan 1993 13:52:36 -0000
Organization: Daresbury Lab., Warrington, U.K.
NNTP-Posting-Host: seqnet.dl.ac.uk
Keywords: true, ouch


In case we've forgotten where the flames came from, here's the "offending"
posting with some explanatory comments.


>What is the net's opinion of the best way to cope with interference of
>this sort - e.g. after the auctions
>
>2C (or 2D or whatever, strong)    (4S)     ?
>
>or
>
>2C         (4S)          Pass     (Pass)
>?
>
>What do Dbl, 4NT, 5 level bids etc. mean?
>What if the 2C opener was is 3rd position (i.e. after 2 passes)?
>What effect does vulnerability have?

Could this be any clearer? I'm trying to start a discussion on the most
appropriate methods to cope with this sort of interference. AND I have
most definitely NOT excluded discussion of what responder's bids mean.

>This came up last night:
>
>Vul. vs not, you deal.
>
   vvv - 13th card :-)
>S  9                    You open 1NT (20+, any shape), and LHO leaps in
>H  K Q T                with 4S, passed round to you.
>D  K Q J 9 8
>C  A K Q 2              Pick a bid.

And here's a hand people might like to consider when discussing it. I _know_
I said nothing about what partner's pass meant, but that's part of the
discussion.  To rail against me for not describing our methods is, I still
think, way beyond what was necessary. (OK: 1NT is our strongest opener, but
did you really think otherwise?).

Now then. Somewhere in amongst Bob Silverman's postings, there was some 
worthwhile contribution.  Now where was it....? :-)

Robin.
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: FAQ (not)
Date: 5 Jan 1993 03:27:21 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: latexo.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1993Jan5.072108.25364@cs.wright.edu> bclaus@cs.wright.edu (Brian Clausing) writes:

>Now that everyone has had the pleasure of posting on this subject at
>least once, may I suggest that further recommendations be sent to FAQ.

As far as I know, there is no FAQ for this group, and won't be until
somebody creates one.

The routine for creating one is, as far as I know, to announce that
that's what you're doing, put together a FAQ largely out of stuff that's
been posted (such as the recent summary of recommended books), and
put it in a ftp-able location.  Periodically either the FAQ itself or
a table of contents with directions for getting a copy should be posted.

I will not maintain the FAQ myself.  Some time back I thought somebody
else was doing so and wrote some stuff intended for it, but as far as
I can tell it sank without a bubble.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Vienna System
Date: 7 Jan 1993 14:27:31 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: im4u.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1993Jan7.142424.12316@linus.mitre.org> bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>In article <1ih6saINNr45@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk> mbrgw@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk (R.G. Walters) writes:

>stuff deleted....

>>>But he asked about some strange 20+ 1NT opening. This is not the same as 2C.

>>"Strange"?  It's Vienna (only a bit stronger), and we use it precisely to be 

>But it is not Vienna, because you play it a bit stronger. Isn't Vienna
>17-20? The fact that you don't play it as standard Vienna DOES make it strange.
>And Vienna still isn't widely played, even in Europe.

17-20 balanced is Roman.  Vienna is more closely related to Arno
(Little Roman).  According to the _Encyclopedia_, 1NT in Vienna is
artifial, forcing, and shows 18+ HCP.  It's the only strong opening.
1C is forcing but limited to 17 HCP or less, with no 5-card suit
other than clubs.  Given that structure the rest is pretty natural 
(not canape').  2-bids are specialized asking bids.

Little Roman uses Roman's canape' and distributional 2-bids and
raises the strength required for the forcing 1NT to essentially 
the usual requirements for 2C.  It differs from Roman in that
the 17-20 HCP balanced hands are opened 1C and the game-forcing
hands are opened 1NT.  There are probably other differences, as
well.

The system in question here sounds like a variation on Vienna where
the requirements for 1NT are raised by 2 HCP.  I'm inclined to 
believe that's an improvement.  Maybe not enough of one.  I've 
never played Vienna, but opening all 18+HCP hands 1NT strikes me 
as terribly unwieldy.  Even a Romex 1NT can be troublesome on
occasion, and it's a *lot* more limited than this one.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Dr. Roth
Date: 10 Jan 1993 12:55:12 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: im4u.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1993Jan10.165022.3164@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> reha@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (reha.gur) writes:

>Has anybody read his "Picture Bidding" book?  I recently have
>and I have a question: 

>	Is Roth senile? Or is he such a great genious that what is in the
>	book will be standard 20 years from now?

With the new year, we have all of the old standards.  First,
a Bob Silverman Festival.  Now an Al Roth Foodfight.

I seriously doubt that Roth is senile.  He is one of the great 
thinkers of the game.  Since many of the ideas in _Picture
Bidding_ were first introduced 40 years ago and haven't caught
on, there is no reason to believe they will ever be standard.

>I won't quote from the book but I did not agree with 80% of the book.

I would say that's about normal.

>The examples also looked "candied" up to put his ideas in the best light.

They are.  Try playing them for a while.  They are playable but
will give you no great advantage.  Top bridge players really
would adopt anything that was demonstrably better than what
they are currently using.  Compare Roth and Bergen some time.
Roth is oriented more and more toward constructive bidding.
Bergen is more obstructive and I think more grounded in the
realities of the situation.  This is particularly clear in the
systems used over a 1NT opening.  Bergen recognizes that all
1NT openings are unsound in the sense that you can occasionally
be penalized more than the value of what the opponents can make
and that the opponents are well placed to take advantage.
Bergen has a structure for finding a suit fit at the two-level
over a 1NT opener.  Roth uses many of the same bids as slam
tries.  *My* suspicion is that Bergen's approach is better at
all forms of scoring, but I know of no way to establish that.

>So should I study this book and be ready for the coming revolution or throw it
>in the trash?

Neither.  Study it and try to understand how Roth's mind works.
Consider the concepts behind his bidding methods.  The particular
methods are less important.

IMHO there are few things worse than a Roth true believer.
(How's that for setting off a flamefest?)

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
From: olivier@lise.paris.sgi.com (Olivier David)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bidding Opinions Sought
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:31:37 GMT
Reply-To: olivier@paris.sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics France


In article <1993Jan11.105742.28162@cenatls.cena.dgac.fr>,
courtel@cenatls.cena.dgac.fr (Nicolas Courtel) writes:
>>>>> On Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:53:49 GMT, jbaron@higgs.ssc.gov (Jeff Baron) said:

> JB> Nicolas Courtel writes:
> JB> - 
> JB> - KK> IMPs, White/White, Dealer: West
> JB> - KK> You sit South holding:
> JB> - KK> 	s x
> JB> - KK> 	h JTxx
> JB> - KK> 	d KJxxxxx
> JB> - KK> 	c x
> JB> - 
> JB> - KK> The auction start out:
> JB> - KK> 	W	N	E	S
> JB> - KK> 	p	1NT	p	?
> JB> - 
> JB> - KK> What's the best reponse?  
> JB> - KK> What's the best way to proceed for each of the probable rebids by
> JB> - KK> opener?
> JB> - 
> JB> - Playing strong NT, I bid 2C and then 3D, to play 4H, 5D, or
possibly 6D (not 6H)
> JB> - if partner looks *very* proud of his hand; he might have for example:
> JB> - 
> JB> -         S - J x x x
> JB> -         H - A K
> JB> -         D - A x x x
> JB> -         C - A x x
> 
> JB> How fortunate that partner has only *1* of his 16 points in spades, 
> JB> all primary cards, 4 diamonds, and NO SMALL HEARTS.  
> JB> At least he had the spade jack and not the diamond queen.  That
> JB> would be piggish, I suppose.  Not to mention wasted.
> 
> Of course it is! That's why I said partner should be *very* proud of
his hand. I
> just wanted to point out that, as there are hands for partner that make a
> lay-down slam, I want to play game with this hand.
> 
> JB> I'd calculate the odds of partner holding this hand to be about
> JB> 1 in a gazillion.
> 
> I'm not accustomed to US units :-). I would give the following
percentages (no
> calculations or statistics, just nose:
> 
> - Slam (6D) makes about 10 % of the time; it may need a few finesses and good
> breaks, though, so I don't want to call it that often.
> - Game (4H or 5D) makes about 50 % of the time (including slams), and
goes down
> the other 50 %
> 
> Now if opponents don't overcall, partner probably has points in the
black suits,
> and I will probably play a bad 3NT. That's life...
> 

Hey Nicolas,
Good to hear about you in this thread !

I recognize your optimism in your nosy statistics, but i will even go farther
than you. I'll say that even when partner has points in black suits, you may
end playing a bad 3NT considering both hands, but opponents will not know
before seeing the dummy and if they choose the wrong black suit to lead, you
could end with 9 tricks very easily.
Of course, if you miss the diamonds, you will severely go down, but non
vulnerable, who cares ?


   Olivier
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Olivier David   SGI Paris (FRANCE)   | Tel : (33) 1 34.88.80.00
                                     | Fax : (33) 1 34.65.96.19 
Fnet :     olivier@supsgi.sgi.fr     | Voice mail : #8944 
internet : olivier@paris.sgi.com     | M/S : IFR-340
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Arggggh!
Keywords: true, ouch
Date: 7 Jan 93 00:09:06 GMT
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA

In article <1ifn8mINNc5t@transfer.stratus.com> tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill) writes:
:Dear Bob,
:
:     I'm sorry if you're having a bad day, but would you please stop wasting
:network bandwidth with your flame thrower and offer us some of your wisdom
 
Why? Most of you don't listen anyway. See below.

:on the subject Robin raised?
:
:     Playing your favorite methods with your favorite partner, if you open
:2C in third seat (Chicago, they're vulnerable with 60 on) and LHO overcalls 4S,
 
But he asked about some strange 20+ 1NT opening. This is not the same as 2C.

:what are your partner's options?  In particular, what would pass, double, and
: 4NT show?
 
(1) Pass is forcing. It shows a good hand.
(2) Double is penalty. It shows either a bad balanced weak hand or one
that is not suited for offense in a suit other than spades.
It is the most discouraging bid you can make.
(3) 4NT is takeout and promises some values with reasonable support for
at least 2 suits other than spades. It shows somewhere around 4-7 HCP.
A typical hand will be balanced with at least 3 card support for all suits
or at least 4-4 in two suits other than spades.
(4) 5 of new suit shows a decent 6-bagger. It shows a minimal HCP, but
decent suit equivalent of a weak 2-bid.
:
:     If your partner and RHO pass, what would you call with:
:
:     9
:     KQT
:     KQJ98
:     AKQ2
 
I do not open 2C on this hand. I would not open 2C if you held a gun to
my head. This hand has between 8 and 9 playing tricks, 3 losers and
some eventual losers as well. It is not anywhere close to opening 2C
then rebidding in a minor. It takes a lot better hand to open 2C
when intending to show a minor suit, than it does when holding a major.
I have said this repeatedly in this forum, but somehow the message just
doesn't seem to get through. This is what I meant above about people not 
listening. No matter how many times I say it, I still get people (like you)
who think random 20 counts not suited to open 2NT should be opened 2C.
Do you really think this hand is even close to having a game in a minor?
:
:How 'bout with:
:
:     K4
:     A62
:     A
:     AKQJ743
:
:(You would open both these hands with 2C, wouldn't you?)

Over 2C-4S-P-P, I bid a simple 5C. Why is this a problem? It's the
value bid on the hand; you have a minimum. The next move is up
to partner.


--
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"
From: jschuler@dcs.simpact.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Dr. Roth
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:40:31 GMT
Organization: Simpact Associates, San Diego CA

In article <1993Jan10.165022.3164@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>, reha@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (reha.gur) writes:
> 
> Has anybody read his "Picture Bidding" book?  I recently have
> and I have a question: 
> 
> 	Is Roth senile? Or is he such a great genious that what is in the
> 	book will be standard 20 years from now?
> 

Definitely not senile. I doubt very much that the methods described
in the book will be standard, ever.

The advice that he offers along the lines of "If you can't be great,
be different" IS sound advice. You will sometimes win a regional
event because your methods happened to fit, on that day. I am not referring
so much as to specific conventions or treatments, but more to STYLE -
very sound opening bids, etc.

> I won't quote from the book but I did not agree with 80% of the book.

No problem. If you disagree with his advice, you are not likely to
be effective implementing it.

> The examples also looked "candied" up to put his ideas in the best light.
> 

Of course. Every book does this, though I agree that Roth broke new 
ground here.

> So should I study this book and be ready for the coming revolution or throw it
> in the trash?
> 

If you have an open minded and disciplined partner, try his ideas for a
few sessions. It MAY make you a better bridge player, much the same as
dropping Blackwood while bidding a set of slam/near slam hands will.

Happy (initial) passing,
John Schuler

P.S.
I don't think I will pre-balance against your 1 Major - 2 Major auctions...
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Preemptive jump shifts
Date: 9 Jan 93 10:03:17 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <C0KFDq.Bts@irvine.com> adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) writes:
>
>A couple of posters lately have said they use 1D-2S as a forcing raise
>in diamonds, forgoing the preemptive jump shift in that case.  This
>raises a question that I'm really interested in hearing about.  Does
>the net think that preemptive jump shifts (with no interference) are
>useful?  Why or why not?

It depends on your methods.  The point is that they are informative
rather pre-emptive.  If you use "sound" opening bids and 2/1 then the
need for jump shifts as a forcing bid is minimal.  For "sound" bidders
the weak jump shift precisely identifies the responders hand.  Compare
the sequences 1S-!NT-2C-2D and 1S-3D.  In both cases the responder is
weak, but the hand patterns are different and it is best if the opener
knows it.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.