HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Myerson)
Subject: Re: Michaels without a c(l)ue--assign the blame
Organization: Raytheon Company, Portsmouth, RI
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:26:02 GMT

In article <BtKn5r.2vp@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.

I think that East must complete the picture of his hand, somehow.

Ideally, this would be a bid of 3D, but some would play
that as a Western cue, asking for a diamond stopper.
If this is a new partnership, this sequence probably hasn't been discussed.

If East thinks that 3D will not be interpreted correctly,
East should bid 3H, offering West a choice.

The next question is, if 3H shows a strong Michaels,
just how strong could it be? What's the range?
I don't know what agreements you had.
The range would determine if West should raise or not.
Most likely, I would pass 3H as West
(or take a preference to 3H if East bid a pick-a-major 3D),
because the West hand could be just about useless
opposite a club void.

Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: what went wrong?
From: bclaus@cs.wright.edu (Brian Clausing)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 05:30:20 GMT
Organization: Wright State University

From article <1992Aug27.112000.9620@corax.udac.uu.se>, by olle@astro.uu.se (Olof Morell):
> In article <1992Aug26.220901.24946@ramon.bgu.ac.il>, avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira) writes:
> |> sperbr@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Ron E Sperber) writes:
> |> : KQxxx
> |> : KQTx
> |> : x
> |> : xxx
> |> :
> |> : Partner in first seat opens 1H and with the opponents silent the auction
> |> : proceeds:
> |> :
> |> : 1H   1S(1)
> |> : 2N   3H
> |> : 3S   4H
> |> : P
> [deleted]
> |> I think that you should bid 4H and not 3, unless you play that 3H is stronger
> |> than 4H.
> 
> 3H should certainly be forcing and stronger in this bidding, almost regardless
> of system. With a weak hand with support you should raise immediately,
> and otherwise you belong in game (supposing 2NT is approx 18 or so).
> 
> As soon as a gameforce is established, 
> weakest, and supporting under game is either a slam try, or uncertainty of
> strain, depending on situation (four or five card openings and so on.)
> 
> Playing four card majors this sequence is forcing, showing three card 
> support.

I do not believe that 3H should necessarily be stronger than
4H, but 4H ought to be more descriptive.
Some systems use the jump raise in situations such as this to
emphasize trump support and little outside of spades and hearts.
If this is understood, a 4H rebid would seem to be a good call
because it passes the initiative to the opener who knows whether
his hand is slammish.  Although 3H is logically constructive,
responder apparently has no means to show his great trump support.
And this is not the sort of hand where responder should want to
take control by minimum forcing bids.

No one has claimed that a jump to 4H is some kind of weak bid--
only that someone else might be using it--but the notion that
4H should be weak, given that 1S is constructive, makes no
sense to me.  As was said:  Then why didn't responder raise
immediately?

Brian Clausing
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Myerson)
Subject: Re: bidding
Organization: Raytheon Company, Portsmouth, RI
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:18:07 GMT

In article <17hi6bINNccj@overload.lbl.gov> Asya Kamsky writes:

* In article <1992Aug25.201830.17065@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> Brian Bankler writes:
* in response to article <16310@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> by Chip Martel.
* 
* >	And, as a final note, all systems are going to have "problem hands"
* >Yours, Mine, and Buddhas.  Really we just have to settle down and compare
* >which losses least (or gains the most).  

* Well, Brian, should we start comparing by seeing how many world championships
* your system has won or loss as compared to Chip's?

Chip Martel has not won world championships due solely to his bidding system.
If that were the case, we would all adopt his system,
and we'd soon all be world champions.  Bridge is more than just bidding.

If Chip is playing 4H and I'm playing 4H, but he finds a squeeze for
an overtrick, it's not his bidding system that gives him a good score,
it's the fact that his declarer is better than mine.

If, after hearing 1N-3N, Chip leads the 2H from JT98/Q742/83/852
and holds declarer to 10 tricks, but I lead the JS and declarer
takes 12 tricks, it's certainly not Chip's bidding system
that gives him a good score.

And yes, there will be some hands that Chip bids to slam because
he can find out his partner has some precise distribution,
and I can't find out that information because my system doesn't have
provide me with the means.

Brian was just making a statement that no matter what bidding system
you use, there will be problem hands. I don't think anyone who
has played bridge for a while will dispute that.

And Chip, have there ever been any hands that your bidding system
had trouble with?

* Asya Kamsky	      e-mail: asya@ux5.lbl.gov                   Go Red Sox
                                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^

They've fallen, and they can't get up!

Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)
From: h75@nikhefh.nikhef.nl (Henk Uijterwaal)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Tuesday's results from Salsomaggiore
Date: 2 Sep 92 08:07:54 GMT
Reply-To: h75@nikhefh.nikhef.nl (Henk Uijterwaal)
Distribution: world
Organization: Nikhef-H, Amsterdam (the Netherlands).

NOTE: I won't have net-access after Thursday morning. Is there anybody
===== in the Netherlands who reads the Volkskrant and can post the 
      results of the remaining matches? If you do, please send me a mail.

Final results from the qualifying rounds.
=========================================

Open
====

    Group A                              Group B
    =======                              =======
 1. Israel             29-522 VP's    1. USA              29-564 VP's
 2. Poland                508         2. The Netherlands     544.5
 3. Egypt                 503         3. France              544  
 4. Denmark               502         4. Sweden              529
 5. Austria               498         5. Turkey              524
 6. Italy                 496         6. Iceland             504.5
 7. Hong Kong             495         7. Pakistan            483
 8. Great Britain         490         8. Norway              481

Women
=====

   Group A                               Group B
   =======                               =======
1. Germany             33-632 VP's    1. France           33-623 VP's
2. Austria                596         2. Great Britain       622
   China                  596         3. Sweden              616  
4. THE NETHERLANDS        581         4. Denemark            602 
5. USA                    556         5. Canada              594
6. Japan                  543         6. Australia           576
7. Bulgaria               531.5       7. Greece              573
8. Israel                 517.5       8. Italy               565

Matches for the next round.
===========================

Open:  USA           - Egypt              (These matches will start today).
=====  Israel        - The Netherlands  
       France        - Denmark          
       Poland        - Sweden           

Women: Germany       - Denmark          : 118 - 66 (after 48 of 64 boards)
====== Austria       - Sweden           : 156 - 78
       France        - China            : 122 - 81
       Great Britain - The Netherlands  : 161 - 48
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: rainbow@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rob Buchner)
Subject: Re: bid this
Organization: St Barts
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:47:24 GMT
Keywords: 2D preempt opposite void


>>S - A K 3 2
>>H - K J 10 9 6
>>D - <nil>
>>C - K Q 9 6
>>
>>Bid what?  <over weak 2D bid>

That's just it, you have no bid. Pass. If anything, 2H is a stretch.
You'll end up in game going down, instead of a plus score in 2D.

>>As an aside, pard holds:
>>
>>S - 7 4
>>H - Q 7
>>D - A K 10 9 8 5
>>C - 8 5 2

>I would bid 2nt asking for an outside feature, upon hearing none, I would
>bid 3nt to play.  Even if I hear one, I would bid 3nt to play.  It seems
>to me to be the right contract, even with the void, since pard doesn't
>have a void, and my hand looks good in the other three suits.

Let's see, partner holds xx-xx-KQJxxx-xxx, that's down three in 3NT.
Even with the great hand he holds, 3NT will go down one or two tricks.
Seems like maybe bidding over 2D isn't such a great idea after all.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu ()
Subject: Re: Need some help
Organization: Vanderbilt University 
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 05:02:03 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21

In <1992Sep2.172429.20242@tamsun.tamu.edu> andrewd@tamsun.tamu.edu writes:

> Hi, 
> 
> I'm new to rec.games.bridge, and I just started playing
> okbridge.  I'm an ok player, I've won a few hands, got
> whipped on others.  I can play with people I've played
> with before, because we know what we're doing, but I don't
> know how to call certain actions so that I can communicate
> my intentions more effectively to my partner and to 
> opponents.
> 
> I'd like to be more familiar with some of the many bidding
> conventions that I see on okbridge, as well as some of the
> coined terms, including:
>   Stayman, 
That is a bid of 2C over a 1NT opener (or 3c/2nt, or sometimes 4c/3nt),
asking for a 4-card major. Opener bids one if he has one, else bids diamonds.
If responder bids a major afterwards, he promises 5.
 
>   Blackwood,
That's a jump to 4nt over a suit bid to ask for aces. replies are:
5c: 0 or 4
5d: 1
5h: 2
5s: 3
After that, a 5nt bid asks for kings; responses are analogous.

>   reverse bid
When the 1-of-suit opener rebids 2 of a *higher* suit than his first, that's a
reverse, showing a good hand.

>   Jacobian transfers
Actually, that should be "Jacoby" transfers. Over a 1nt opening, a response of
2d forces (transfers to) 2h; and likewise 2h forces 2s. A variety of bids exist
for responder's rebid.

>   etc....
> 
> Is there a book someone could suggest that would explain these
> terms?
> 
Try Amalya Kearse's *Modern Bridge Conventions.*
> Please email and optionally post.
> Thanks in advance,
> Andrew
> andrewd@cs.tamu.edu
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Defend 3N
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:37:39 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Steve Myerson <sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com> writes:
>AQTxxx
>9xx
>xxx
>x          KJx
>           A7xx
>           AKxx
>           xx

>Partner leads the jack of diamonds, denying a higher honor.

I think my normal defense would be passive: win the diamond and switch
to clubs.  If declarer has a diamond stop, then partner's hearts can't
be better than JTx or partner would have led one of those.  That gives
declarer at least three hearts to the king-queen, so even if declarer
does have only Qx of diamonds there can't be nine top tricks.  Thus, if
we decide it is necessary, we can always try to run the diamonds later.

However, I can't find a reasonable hand where this defeats the contract.
Suppose declarer has ---/KQT/Qxx/AKQJxxx.  Declarer can run the clubs
squeezing me down to ---/Axx/Ax/---, then exit with the king of hearts
to my ace, win the heart return with the queen, lead the ten of hearts
to partner's jack, and we are forced to give declarer the queen of
diamonds or the ace of spades.

If declarer has x/KQT/Qxx/AKQJxx, things go just as badly for us.

Maybe declarer has ---/KQ8x/Qxx/AKQJxx?  That would make the nine of
hearts more significant, at least.  But we still don't have any chance.

Maybe declarer has ---/KJTx/Qxx/AKQJxx?  This is looking better for the
good guys.  But any defense, including just cashing the diamonds, works
if this is the hand.  Declarer doesn't have nearly enough tricks to
avoid giving us three diamonds and two hearts.  I just have to be sure
not to throw any diamonds on the clubs, which should be easy enough if
partner gives me the spade count.

Maybe declarer has x/KJT/Qxx/AKQJxx, and partner made a rather unusual
opening lead?  (And with poor results, because a heart would have easily
defeated the contract.)  I guess this the best justification I can come
up with for my line.  Not very strong, but I can't find anything else to
do.

                                        David desJardins
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: mojo@Caere.COM (Morris Jones)
Subject: Yellow Cards for okbridge (Re: Need some help)
Organization: Caere Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:34:09 GMT

It's been a few months since I last offered, but varvel's article brought
it to mind.

I have many many copies of the ACBL Yellow Card.  For a self-addressed
stamped envelope, I'll send you five yellow cards and a booklet that
describes the bidding system in detail.

Not everyone likes the Yellow Card systems; most people add and
subtract any number of conventions.  But the Yellow Card works, it's
simple and very well spelled out, and it's perfect for a pick-up
partnership situation, for instantly agreeing on the details of your
bidding.  I've had a number of good players tell me about tournaments
they won playing the Yellow Card.

Okbridge is an excellent place to be familiar with the Yellow Card
system.  After all, when it comes down to it, bidding systems don't win
matches, judgement does.

Send an SASE to me:
	Morris Jones
	274 Everett
	Campbell CA 95008

Yellow Cards are also available at nearly every ACBL tournament and often
from local club directors.

Mojo
-- 
Morris Jones
Caere Corp.
mojo@caere.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: Michaels without a c(l)ue--assign the blame
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:47:43 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:
:>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 is not a flame, so don't take it as such but you are totally
and 100% wrong. A new suit over Michaels shows a good suit of your
own and denies 3 card support for partner's suits. Partner is
free to pull [i.e. the Michaels bidder] with a void or a strong
version of Michaels, but normally sits otherwise. West's bid
on AK 6th and only doubleton support for the majors is absolutely
correct.

It is East who should bid 3D [i.e. cuebid again] to show the
strong Michaels hand. This is especially true because East in
fact has GOOD support for clubs and a stiff diamond and West's
bid is at least semi-constructive.

West was correct. East is in error. 

if the partner's could have a conversation this is what their 2D
and 3C bids would mean;

2D; partner, I have a major 2-suiter and either a weak or strong hand
3C; partner, I don't have good support for either major but I do have
    a good club suit. You now know more than I do, you make the decision.
--
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: germain%sanctum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (H. James de St. Germain)
Subject: Bidding
Organization: U of Utah
Distribution: rec.games.bridge
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:49:01

My partner and I who are new to bridge were practicing on the following hand

South
Clubs  A K 10 6 5 3 
Diam   A K J
Hearts 9 6 4
Spades 5

North
Clubs  8 4
Diam   9 6
Hearts A K 5
Spades A K 10 9 7 6

Could some one bid this one through for us?

thanks
   jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. James de St. Germain       	Department of Computer Science
germain@asylum.utah.edu		University of Utah
From: jaffray@oreo.berkeley.edu (Alan Jaffray)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bid these hands
Date: 28 Aug 1992 20:32:06 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Reply-To: jaffray@zippy.sonoma.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: oreo.berkeley.edu

In article <BtpLo9.6o7@news.cso.uiuc.edu> j-grout@uiuc.edu writes:

>>North: AJTx,Qxx,AQTx,xx
>>South: Qx,Kxxxx,9xx,Axx

>If one is opening a balanced hand which doesn't qualify for a 1NT opening
>(less than 15-16 if playing strong NTs, more than 14 if playing weak NTs),
>Eddie Kantar (among others) advocates rebidding 1NT instead of 1S to allow
>partner to use Checkback Stayman (an artificial 2C) or New Minor Forcing (an
>artificial 2D): this allows partner to check for both four spades _and_ three
>hearts with one bid.

This works nicely when partner has enough strength 
to checkback.  But hands such as this point out the big disadvantage.
When partner is too weak to checkback, you lose your 4-4 spade fits
and 5-3 heart fits.  Certainly South can't bid 2C over 1NT here,
when partner could have a 3244 12-count.

When South is strong, there is plenty of room to explore, but when he
is weak, it is necessary to find the suits at a low level.  Rebidding
1NT gains very little on strong hands and loses a lot on the weak ones
-- doesn't sound like a good bid to me.

-- Alan
From: sidlives@athena.mit.edu (Sid Vicious)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: bidding
Keywords: distribution, 2/1, variation, system
Date: 31 Aug 92 02:56:09 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Aug29.210107.5344@galois.mit.edu>, Professor WHO? writes:
|> 
|> >>>	If you play this way, then you are essentially playing "Standard"
|> >>>	and not 2/1 (but calling it 2/1 to be in vogue).  If you play 2/1
|> >>>	then you should bid 3C any times your hand pattern warrants it
|> >>>	without need for showing or denying extra values.
|> >>
|> >>It's hard for me to accept that you know so much more about bidding than
|> >>Mike Lawrence that you can tell him how to bid. ...
|> >
|> >One point that should be mentioned. In Lawrence's system a 2 level response
|> >forces the auction up to (but no further than) 2NT. It is not "almost" game
|> >forcing.
|> 
|> In case someone hasn't point this out already-- in ML's "Workbook" 2/1M is
|> forcing to at least 3 of responder's suit-- it _IS_ almost game forcing.
|> 
|> And ML also advocates _reasonably_sound_ opening bids-- which is why I
|> prefer _not_ to play 2/1, because one _really_ need the protection of sound
|> opening bids to bid at all in 2/1.
|> 

And is there a problem with playing a sound opening bid system?
I know that you have played a Roth-Stone system with various people.
Of course you have played hyper aggressive systems as well (as have
I), but what is important in bidding is your agreements and sticking
by those agreements.
From: j-grout@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (grout john robert)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bid these hands
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:48:07 GMT
Reply-To: j-grout@uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

pynq@quads.uchicago.edu (George Jetson) writes:

>... when it happened, I realized I had no answer for it.

>Matchpoints, none vul.

>North: AJTx,Qxx,AQTx,xx
>South: Qx,Kxxxx,9xx,Axx

>North opens 1D and opps are silent.  It goes:

>1D-1H
>1S-?

If one is opening a balanced hand which doesn't qualify for a 1NT opening
(less than 15-16 if playing strong NTs, more than 14 if playing weak NTs),
Eddie Kantar (among others) advocates rebidding 1NT instead of 1S to allow
partner to use Checkback Stayman (an artificial 2C) or New Minor Forcing (an
artificial 2D): this allows partner to check for both four spades _and_ three
hearts with one bid.

This style is of great benefit when playing weak NTs, but I think it's
reasonable when playing strong NTs also.

-- 
John R. Grout			| INTERNET: j-grout@uiuc.edu
From: LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: This weekends results from Salsomaggiore
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:37:29 GMT
Organization: Vanderbilt University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21

In <1992Sep2.113715.19513@prl.philips.nl> holzsche@prl.philips.nl writes:
>                QuarterFinals:
> 
>                    Ladies:
>               (final results!)
> Germany - Denmark        158 -  82
> France  - China          161 - 107
> England - Netherlands    201 -  81
> Austria - Sweden         180 - (something less than 180-Delete went crazy) 
> 
>               SemiFinals:                  
>                Ladies:
> Germany - England
> Austria - Sweden
> -- 

So, Sweden gets a rematch with Austria despite losing.  Meanwhile, France
is knocked out on a victory?  Doubtful at best.  AUT-FRA, anyone?
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bmedley@hounix.org (Bert Medley)
Subject: Re: Summaries: 1. Bid this Monster.  2. Matchpoint Decision.
Organization: Houston UNIX Users Group (HOUNIX), Houston, TX
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:35:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.132122.9520@rayssd.ssd.ray.com> sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Myerson) writes:
>Thanks to all who replied - both posters and e-mailers.
>
>1. Bid this Monster.
>
>* Matchpoints. North. EW Vul.
>
>*   N:  xx, T98xx,   KQxx, Kx
>*   S:  Ax, AKQJxxx, ---,  Axxx

One of two seqences comes to mind, both involving losing trick count:
    North          South
     2C             2D(1)   2D, waiting
     2H             4N(2)   Partner has 3-4 losers, I have 8, RKC 4NT
     5D(3)          6H      Partner has 4 of 5 key cards, bid 6
                            [could have explored for QH or Void]

            or

      2C            2D(1)   2D, waiting
      2H            6H(2)   Partnership has 11-12 losers, Bid the 6H

Other solutions could involve trial bids, asking bids, or NAMYATS.

-- 
Bert Medley                            | HOUNIX:  bmedley@hounix.org
2476 Bolsover #293                     | Work:    medley@synercom.hounix.org
Houston TX 77005                       | Home:    bert@medley.ssdl.com
From: daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao)
Subject: Re: Bid this one for me (Yet another...)
Originator: daveshao@leland.Stanford.EDU
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 05:59:09 GMT

>From: pynq@quads.uchicago.edu (George Jetson)

>Pard: Q,AKxx,xxx,KJxxx
>You: Axxx,Qxx,x,AQxxx

>Matchpoints, white on red.  You deal an open 2C (Precision)
>Lefty bids 2S.

>Our auction:

>2C (2S) 3S
>3N

Your partner's 3S bid is a bad bid because
because it takes away every bid from you at the 3 level except 3NT.
His 3S violates a basic principle of competitive bidding--conserve 
bidding room in a constructive auction.

If your side is going to use 2C as such a nice descriptive bid
of your distribution, you might as well try to gain an edge over your
competition by using this information when you have it.  

How about

You        Opp    Partner                      Opp 
2C         (2S)   NegX inquiring about hearts  (-)
2N         ( -)   some forcing bid             (-)
heart bid--and you've communicated your 4-3-1-5 shape with a heart honor.




Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge