HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: Some questions about 2 over 1.
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:08:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.133457.26361@odin.diku.dk> turin@diku.dk (S|ren Turin) writes:
 
In reply I post what *I* usually play.

>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
 
The way I play it shows real support, but is limited to 3 cards.
I use a jump to 3S to show 4 card support. It also shows EXTRAS.
[as does 3S]. A jump to 4S shows a balanced minimum.
 
Over 2S, a jump to 4S by opener shows a balanced minimum.
A 3S bid would show extra length and invites cuebidding. 
2NT would initiate a series of relays/asking bids starting with
control asking. 3NT is natural, clearly shows a NT oriented hand
(tenaced) and is probably 5332 with 2 card support for partner,
or maybe 5341. 3 of a suit is natural and shows extras. 4 of
your second suit shows 55. 4 of a new suit is a SPLINTER in support
of clubs, e.g. 5413 or 5143.


>1S-2C-2D/H-2S-X-3/4S
 
See above.

>1S-2C-2S-3S and 1S-2C-2D/H-3S
 
The second I discussed above. The first shows 3 card or better support
and extras. Note that 1S-2C-2S  GUARANTEES at least 6 spades.
 
>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?
 
I'm not sure I understand the question. Its shows a control. If below
game it can be 1st or 2nd round. If above game and it's a 1st time cuebid
it shows 1st round.

Responder has already shown a slam try.

>1S-2C-2S-4S and 1S-2C-2D/H-4S
 
Balanced minimums.

>Are these fast arrival (non-slammish minimum) or descriptive (good
 
Fast arrival.

>1S-2C-2D-3D
 
Simply descriptive. shows at least 5 clubs, at least 4 diamonds,  and
the way I play shows a MINIMUM.  4D would show extras.


>1S-2C-2D-4D
>Does this sequence exist?
 
Yep. just above.

>1S-2C-2H-3/4H
 
4H = balanced min. Either 2425, 2434, or (rarely) 3424.
3H = extras

>1S-2C-3C
 
Unbalanced minimum with club support or balanced min with neither red
suit stopped. 

Note that 1S-2C-2D  can be a fragment bid for 5233 or 5332 hands.
i.e. it can be a 3 card suit.


After 1S-2C

3NT shows 15-17 with both red suits stopped.
2NT shows 12-14 or 18+  with  at least hearts stopped. Responder can bid 3D to
ask about diamonds.
 
>Is this completely unlimited showing any hand with support?
 
Not the way I play. It definitely shows a min.
A jump to 4C would show a balanced hand with extras, a splinter
unbalanced with extras.


>1S-2H-3/4H
 
4H fast arrival.
3H extras.
--
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: bidding after a t/o double
Organization: Rational
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:53:54 GMT

rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) writes:

>In article <lm8apcINN16p@cypress.cs.utexas.edu> varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan25.071235.14923@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:

>>>[Assuming that 2S is a cue bid.]  On the sequence 2H-2S-3H you have a
>>>fair presumption that partner has 5H,

>Good point.  If those are your methods then there is no inference.  It
>may be antique but I much prefer NT as the bailout.  E.g. 1S x p 1NT
>and 1S x p 2H, p 2S p 2NT; I would rather give up NT than lie about my
>distribution in a competitive auction.  Be that as it may, it is 
>certainly true that one can't make inferences without prior discussion.

I think you are not distinguishing the hand where partne makes a cue
bid from the hand where partner bids a new suit.

When partner makes a cue bid, the presumption is that it is on support
of your suit - or, in other words, that you have found a fit. Only
if partner has a self-sufficient suit can he cue bid without a fit.

So, in this case hearts is the "agreed" suit and 3H is weaker than
2NT. 2NT should be showing general values. 

If 2S was a new suit, not a cue bid, then indeed 3H should be showing
5, and 2NT would be the ick bid.


Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se (Lars Andersson)
Subject: Re: Some questions about 2 over 1.
Reply-To: ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 07:11:14 GMT

In article 20795@wuecl.wustl.edu, geppo@spot.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi) writes:
>(Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>>>>Jacoby with a good biddable 5 card suit? Never. e.g.
>With lack of particular agreements, that hand *must* be bid 2C.
>
>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!

Give partner AQJxx/xxx/AJx/xx and it is 4S or 7S.

>After a Jacoby response, you can find yourself at the level of 5
>without knowing anything about the CK!

I suggest;
a) You start playing something sensible after 1MAJ-2NT so that you can find out
   about the king of clubs even below 4S. This is very simple.

b) If you know partner lacks 4-card support when s/he does not respond 2NT you
   are much better of in ALL constructive auctions.

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

Sensible, what are your experiences of this?

>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.

Why? Describe the problems of bidding 2NT for me. Show me some examples where
a 2/1 response works better.


--Lars



Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: rudy@netcom.com (Rudy)
Subject: Re: bidding after a t/o double
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 05:10:48 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     ?

Actually my partner held this hand.  I held, as I frequently do:
  JT9x  9876  T9x  72

My partner bid 2S over 3H 4C and over 4H made another try for slam.
5 was 1 too high and I gracefully went down one wondering why my
partner is such an optimist.

I would disagree with anyone who wouldn't investigate with 4C.
Partner can't know that KC along with QH makes slam gin.  However,
after 4C the only hand you are paying off to is any Qxxxx(x) any xx(x)
With the heart entry to hand, you need one or two finesses, and that's
not a bad slam to miss.

From email and posts, the consensus seems to be not to hang partner.
Thanks :)
From: jose@duke.edu (Greg Lawler)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: 2/1 question
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:21:23 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.
Originator: jose@markov.math.duke.edu


I noticed that some people were discussing what to bid playing 2/1
over a one spade opener with

    K x x x   A x   x x  A K Q x x


Excuse me for suggesting a reactionary idea, but how about a jump shift
in clubs (strong) followed by a raise in spades.


I am a strong believer that strong jump shifts are more useful than
preemptive.  I play them in the modern way where one only jump shifts
on two types of hands

----- Strong one-suited hands that don't need trump support

----- Hands with strong support for partner and a side suit

With this hand one can bid 3c and then support spades and get the
whole hand out of one's system.  


I have other opinions

---- Partner of the jump-shifter always raises the jump-shift with
one of the top three honors and never raises without one.  Therefore

K Q x x   A x  x x  A Q J T x

would be strong enough to jumpshift in clubs and you immediately find out
if partner has the king of clubs.


I know that strong jumpshifts are popular among ``scientific'' bidders,
but I really think they make a lot of hands easier to bid.  It also
has the advantage of not allowing partner to make preemptive jump shifts
on who knows what!


(By the way, I play jump shifts are good hands  with support by passed
hands
    
     K x x x   x x  A Q J x x   x x

would be a jumpshift to 3 diamonds over 1 spade if this hand passed initially.0


Greg Lawler
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: boyiny@noether.mit.edu (Professor Who?)
Subject: Big Club Systems are Harder
Summary: Intervention makes it complicated.
Keywords: bidding, play, defense.
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
X-Subliminal-Message: Speak Softly and Carry a Big Club!
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 11:41:39 GMT
Old_subject: Re: Big Club-Not Precision

brl@kopasker.is (Bjorgvin Runar Leifsson) writes:
>Professor Who? writes:
>>[Bob S.:]
>>>Expecting that mediocre players are going to improve their game by
>>>switching to a more difficult bidding system is laughable.
>>Perhaps not, but I would expect any pair to show a profit by switching
>>to a substantially better/more-thought-out system, providing that
>>there is no memory overload-- no?  

>Agree and furthermore:  Do strong club systems need to be more difficult than
>natural systems, like those played in North-America?  The blue club is not so
>complicated and there is a booklet called simplified Precision, which proposes
>a strong club system, which is so simple that even beginners can use it
>without more than usual beginner difficulties.  And on the other hand, there 
>are many variations on Standard American, which are at least as difficult as
>standard Precision.

To show that I am not really trying to vendetta Bob, I should insert my
NT$0.5 (note, the current exchange rate is about 1:25) here:

Strong club systems _NEED_ to be more difficult than "natural" systems, in
the sense that more discussion and theory work is needed to make it
workable in the "everyday" sense--- not Bob's interesting Aces Points vs.
Neapolitan Controls problem, IMHO (few people really use the Aces/Schenken
points) but in the sense of dealing with various modes of intervention and
the strategic and tactical problems posed by nebulous diamonds or
space-consuming 2C openings, if you use a 5-card major model.

The Blue Team Club really is a good system requiring rather little in the
way of excess memorisation and I recommend BTC for those who is learning it
as an experience..... but only if you are open-minded about concepts of
bidding, of course.
From: nimrod@black.bgu.ac.il (nimrod gal-oz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: What's the best bid?
Date: 24 Jan 93 14:59:29 GMT
Organization: Ben-Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson) writes:
: In article <1j7csaINNocu@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) writes:
: >   S: --   H: Q x x   D: A x x   C: A 9 6 5 4 3 2
: >Partner opens the bidding:
: >   Pard   RHO    Me     LHO
: >   1C(1)  Pass   2C(2)  2D
: >   2H(3)  Pass   3D     Pass
: >   3NT    Pass   ??
: >
: >(1) Will never be 12-14 balanced.
: >(2) Inverted.  In principle 9+ HCP, but frequently shaded because
: >    of exciting distribution.  Kaplan's rule is, would you rather
: >    be in game or not opposite a strong notrump?
: >(3) Heart stopper, 15+ HCP, 4+ clubs.
: >
: >... What do you bid?  Why?  Does it matter if you're 1/3 of the way into the
: >session and estimate that you're about a board over average?  How
: >do you think the field will bid the hand if partner opens a strong
: >NT?
:
: With a partnership on firmer ground I'd bid a forcing 4C (a grand is still a
: possibility although fairly unlikely). Under the circumstances described
: where the partnership is already a little uncertain as to exactly what
: various bids mean I'll just bid what I think I can make, 6C. This will range
: from having no play (very rare) to having a decent play for 7 (also rare).
: I figure that it will make at least 12 tricks far more than 50% of the time
: (the lead is running up to partners hand which should be to the good).
:

On what grounds do you base your assumption that the you have at least 12 tricks
on far more then 50% of the time?
what about this hand ( and many more )?

KQJ
AKx
QJx
Jxxx

pard had strongly indicated some values in spades with his 3NT bid. I don't think
You would like to play a slam in this case.

nimrod.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: jbaron@higgs.ssc.gov (Jeff Baron)
Subject: Re: two simple sequences
Reply-To: jbaron@higgs.ssc.gov (Jeff Baron)
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Lab
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:29:30 GMT

In article <1k1fcj$96i@agate.berkeley.edu>, 
				grove@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Eddie Grove) writes:
- 
- Consider the defensive bidding sequence
- 
- (1D) - 1S -  P - 2D*
-        2H        2N
- 
- * in the modern style, new suits are not forcing, so 2D is used
- for most decent hands
- 
- How does this differ from an immediate 2N?  Is it a difference
- of hcp?  Are the points the same, but direct 2N shows better
- diamonds?  Does either sequence promise or deny 2 spades or
- 3 spades?

I'd think that an immediate 2NT would guarantee a stopper in each
of the other three suits.  Especially considering the (not posted)
vulnerability, the 1 spade bidder could have AKxxx and an outside Q.
Would you want to be in 2NT with 2-2-4-5 distribution and 14 points?
Not so much that you'd bid it right off.  Also, with this 2-2-4-5
hand, if partner rebids spades, you might consider 3 or 4 spades.
I think that 2D is a "tell me more bid" and that this delayed 2NT 
would show the same point count as an immediate 2NT. 
For example, with 1-4-4-4 and a well rounded 13, I'd bid 2D, while
with 1-3-4-5, I'd probably bid an immediate 2NT.  In either case, I
think that the bids are *both* invitational.

- Consider this offensive sequence
- 
- 1N - 2C
- 2S - 3S
- 
- Responder, when bidding 2C, needed to have enough strength
- to play in 2N if s/he did not find a fit.  When you add a
- 4-4 fit to the strength to play 2N, it seems to me that
- you have the strength to play game in the major.

Except, of course, when responder knows that there is a fit; say,
he's 5-4-3-1.  With Axxxx, KJxx, xxx, x, I'd bid 3S over 2S,
but over 2D I'd bid 2S. 

--
Jeff Baron
jbaron@gauss.ssc.gov
From: bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: 22 Jan 93 01:29:25 GMT
Subject: Re: How should this be bid?
Distribution: world
Organization: Princeton University
X-Subliminal-Message: You can quit reading news anytime you want.

In article <lltu4aINN4l3@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> zilch@planb.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
|
|oops, let's try that splinter sequence again...
|
|1S - 4C; 4H - 4S; pass                 splinter, Q bid, give up now
|or
|1S - 4C; 4H - 5C; 5S - pass            splinter, Q bid, one more try, give up

Actually I think 1s - 4c - 4s is the most reasonable.  Why would opener
cue-bid when his AK of clubs looks to be wasted?  "A working EIGHT-COUNT," as
Bob Silverman would say ...  If anything, the sequence ought to go,

1s - 4c - 4s - 5c - 5s - p.

Responder, with 7-4-2-0, has a very good hand and is willing to go on
despite opener's sign-off.  Hearing 5c only makes opener more discouraged,
though, so he signs off again.

As to responder bidding Jacoby 2N ...  usually Jacoby promises a _balanced_
hand, otherwise you splinter (or perhaps 2/1 with a good outside suit).

ben


--

"Can't we all just get along?"
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ry@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark)
Subject: Re: bridge for the blind
Organization: UNIX System Laboratories, Summit, NJ
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 04:22:28 GMT


I assume the blindness is complete?  I flew down to Orlando for the nationals
just for the hell of it and spent half my time in the novice events wondering
why I was here, and the other half in the side game getting creamed, but
learning, with a delightful partner Mary Allen who was almost completely
blind.  She used a BIG magnifying glass for her hand, but I had to call all
the other cards for her.  She was quite the LOL, but I enjoyed it, well, 
except for scoring 35% games :-(, but put me in a field with sheinwold and
steward and I thought it was ok.  I think some of the other suggestions
are good, and speaking from my experience, the opponents were understanding
and supportive, though that might have been because we wandered the field
passing out tops.  I encourage you to work on this.  I suspect that if you
contact the ACBL, they might be willing to offer some assistance, seems
like one of those nice publicity things that they seem to like.

Ry Schwark
ry@usl.com
From: tac6189@hertz.njit.edu (Tom Carmichael                                                  )
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: What to do when the rules conflict?
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:58:36 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1jml68INNdr7@transfer.stratus.com> tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill) writes:
>
>I suppose you have agreements concerning at least these three auctions:
>
>     1C-2C(natural)-P
>     1C-2C(majors)-P
>     1C-2C(no agreement)-P
>
>I also gather that the meanings of pass in those three auctions are
>overlapping but not identical.  If so, partner gave you the unauthorized
>information that he has a pass in any of these auctions, so your future
>bids and plays are restricted by Law 16A!  In any case, you should alert the
>pass and tell her what it means in all three auctions.  Finding out their
>agreement concerning 2C would help to explain your agreement concerning pass
>only if partner had somehow known about their agreement at the time he passed!

I'm not sure I agree with this.  There is no reason to assume that partner is
not aware of what there bids mean.  He may have (perhaps without you 
noticing or when he/she sat down at the table) looked at there conv. card
and is aware of what the opponents are playing.  There is no reason to assume
otherwise and _certainly_ no reason to assign a penalty simply because 
partner did not invoke an _option_ of his to look at the opponents card.
In point of fact, the way the problem was stated, he _could_ have looked at
the card and then made his call.  I don't see a problem here at all.

Incidentally, the original problem is a tough one, one I have encountered 
myself.  I, fortunately, didn't have the problem of the opponents refusing
to tell me what their bids meant so I could explain mine.  I really don't 
have a solution for you, just muddle through as best you can.

Tom Carmichael
From: mbrgw@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk (R.G. Walters)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Is this an infraction?
Date: 25 Jan 1993 13:01:04 -0000
Organization: Daresbury Lab., Warrington, U.K.
NNTP-Posting-Host: seqnet.dl.ac.uk

In article <C1C78v.KAu@ais.org> hampton@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik) writes:
>A hypothetical question on the Laws:
> 
>After West makes the opening lead to a hand, and while declarer is studying
>the dummy, East notices something very wrong.  Dummy's diamond holding
>appears to include the ace, and yet East is staring at the ace of diamonds
>in his own hand.  "Wait a minute," says East, who then shuffles through
>dummy's diamonds to reveal that the ace among them is in fact the ace of
>HEARTS.

[stuff deleted]
 
>Were East actions a violation of the Law?
>
Yes. He touched dummy's cards, something only dummy is allowed to do.


Robin Walters.                      Robert Hill Institute, Sheffield UK.

These opinions are not necessarily those of the Robert Hill Institute.
They may not even be my opinions; perhaps I should give the matter some thought.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: lopez@news.ils.nwu.edu (Chris Lopez)
Subject: Re: Calling for Participants, 1993 Intercollegiate Regional
Reply-To: lopez@ils.nwu.edu
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:19:12 GMT

Feng Lu (lufeng@vis.toronto.edu) wrote:
: 
: Attention college bridge players:
: 
: The Association of College Unions - International (ACU-I) and the ACBL offer
: a bridge championship at the 1993 ACU-I Intercollegiate Regional Tournaments.
: College bridge players can win a trip to Memphis in May to play in the 1993
: ACBL/ACU-I National Bridge Team Championship by winning their ACU-I Regional
: Bridge Championship event of at least two schools.
: 
: We are especially calling for participants in Region 2 (consists of Southern
: Ontario, Quebec, New York State). We need at least another team to have a
: tournament! Come to Rochester on Feb. 6-7 and we are ready to challenge any
: of your teams.
: 
: Please contact the coordinator of Region 2: Jim Davidson, (518) 276-6500.
: 
: ---
: Feng Lu, University of Toronto

The director of Region 2 (all of Illinois and Indiana EXCEPT cook county) has
said that they are also in need of atleast one more team.  The game is
Feb 20-21.  

Contact:
Steve Lawson
(217) 333-6122
lawson@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: dcleal@is.morgan.com (David Cleal)
Subject: Re: Ready for Flight A ?
Organization: Morgan Stanley - IS
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 12:21:08 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.211902.5314@head-cfa.harvard.edu>, willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) writes:
|> 
|> Here's an interesting play problem from a recent sectional Flight B Swiss.
|> 
|> The bidding has gone:
|>       W     N     E     S
|>      1C     P     P    2NT (=18-20 balanced)
|>       P    3NT   all pass
|> 
|> EW are playing a generic five-card major bidding system with 15-17
|> notrump.  The minor suit opening promised three cards.
|> 
|> The opening lead is the K of hearts, and you see:
|> 
|>         65   J93  AKQ5  9643
|> 
|>         AKQ3 82   T63   AKJ7
|> 
|> West proceeds to cash four rounds of hearts, having started with
|> AKQT.  What do you discard on the hearts, and how do you play to make
|> 3NT?  West will not lead a club into your tenace.
|>

I think the hand always makes if West has 3 or more clubs:

Discard 2 clubs from hand, a club from table.  Win the switch, cash two
diamonds and two clubs, finishing in hand to leave:

          65   -    Q5    9

          AKQ3 -    T     -

If West has turned up with 4 diamonds, three rounds of spades will squeeze
him in the minors.  If East has turned up with four diamonds, a diamond to
the queen will leave no-one able to retain 4 spades.

|> 
|> When this hand is presented as a problem, it's pretty easy to make
|> against the actual distribution.  West was 3424, so you are bound to
|> make as long as you play to squeeze East in the pointed suits.  You
|> mustn't discard two diamonds, though, or a diamond lead will destroy
|> your entry position.  At the table, both declarers took a club
|> finesse for down one.  :-(
|> 
|> I think the best line of play makes as long as West does not have
|> more diamonds than clubs.  (It works even if West is 1444; this was
|> the hardest part for me.)  If you can routinely find the correct play
|> _at the table_, you are ready for Flight A.  (If you can routinely
|> judge when West has opened a 2443 hand with 1C, you will be _winning_
|> flight A.  Or is there a "sure trick" line?)
|> 
|> For extra credit, where did the defense go wrong?

Well, as it turned out, they shouldn't have rectified the count.  I presume
'Flight B Swiss' is some sort of US teams event (?): at pairs, I reckon they
did the right thing.

-- Dave Cleal
 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu
|>   member, League for Programming Freedom; contact league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge