HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: What is so terrible about doubling offshape?
Keywords: Double
Date: 23 Jan 93 00:05:28 GMT
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA

In article <1jplhnINNprt@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> shamrake@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Danil Suits) writes:
 
stuff deleted....

:Mr. Silverman: 
:--Noone is afraid of making offshape doubles. There are SYSTEMS that
:--use them. But if you are going to make a **takeout** double, then you
:--MUST have support for unbid suits.
:
:  I had always understood that standard expert practice was to use
:                       (1 suit) X
:  as EITHER 'takeout' or a hand too strong to take another action.
:  A hand too good for an overcall, for example, would under these
:  agreements double, then bid the suit freely later.  Am I that

It assumes you have a suit GOOD ENOUGH to rebid. AQxx just isn't
good enough to first double then bid. The overall strength of the
hand alone is not enough; you need a biddable suit.

I also know a lot of players who do not have an upper limit on 
overcalls.


:--Noone has suggested pass on the given hand. 1S and 1NT are both
:--reasonable. But a double is ridiculous. You can't handle a diamond
:--response from partner.
:
:  On many player's cards I see the 1nt overcall marked as 15-17? Do
 
Whose? Most of the time I see 15-18. However, to downgrade a hand a point
or two because of a stiff K is much less of a distortion than doubling
with a stiff in an unbid suit.

:  experts play the bid that way? I seem to remember that Bergen prefers
:  14-16. Over either of these ranges, using the principle above,
:  doubling then bidding notrump is very reasonable.
 
But partner will respond at the two level or higher if he has a minor,
rather than spades, and the hand just isn't good enough to double then
bid NT at the 2 level. [or higher]. It just  doesn't have a source of
tricks.
--
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: jose@math.duke.edu (Greg Lawler)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Ready for Flight A ?
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:10:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.122108@is.morgan.com>, dcleal@is.morgan.com (David Cleal) writes:
> In article <1993Jan25.211902.5314@head-cfa.harvard.edu>, willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) writes:
> |> 
> |> 
> |> 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.
> 

You are right if you get to see the opponents cards!  However, you
still don't know who has the four diamonds.  I think the originial
analysis was correct that you can't play for all possibilities.

I think your play is correct, however; if West has shown up with 
four clubs and at least two diamonds you know he does not have four spades
so you can safely play for a double squeeze with diamonds as the
pivot suit.  If West shows out in diamonds then there is a club-spade
squeeze (or diamond-spade against East if West was 3-4-1-5).  However,
if West has shown up with 3 clubs, 4 hearts, and 2 diamonds, you must
guess between   4-4-2-3 and 2-4-4-3 distribution (of course, it's easy
if it's 3-4-3-3.)  I think playing for 4-4-2-3 is the percentage play
given the one club opening bid.

As another comment.  I don't play much bridge anymore (most of my play
was in college before Flight B events); I now play maybe a tournament
a year.  I would expect anybody (or at
least any younger player) with at least 200-300 masterpoints to realize
that a squeeze was needed on this hand.  (Finding the right defense, i.e.
not cashing the hearts, or choosing the correct squeeze among the choices
may be a more difficult play.)  Has the general level of play at
tournaments decreased because of Flight B events?


Greg Lawler
From: grove@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Eddie Grove)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Some questions about 2 over 1.
Date: 24 Jan 1993 20:33:32 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: triangle.berkeley.edu

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.
>--
>Bob Silverman
>These are my opinions and not MITRE's.

They are also not Hugh Kelsey's opinions, nor Marty Bergen's.

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.

Marty Bergen uses 3C as a limited spade raise, but he plays that a
2/1 absolutely denies 4 card trump support, so he recommends Jacoby
2N with this hand (his jump rebid of 3S shows good 3 card support).
He would splinter, I believe, with Kxxx,Axx,x,AKQxx, which may
also drive Bob into a frenzy.

I am sure there are plenty of big-name players who agree with Bob's
position, but it is hardly universal.

In the end, this is just another case of partnership agreement.  Neither
choice is clearly right, even if Bob yells for a week that any agreements
other than his own are so sick that its practitioners should take
up knitting.  Which choice is better in a particualar case may well depend 
on the rest of the system agreements.

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.
From: idc@cs.hw.ac.uk (Ian Crorie)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: 6S play problem
Date: 22 Jan 93 11:21:37 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland


Again, don't think this got out last time it was posted.

I was reading a 5 month old issue of IPBM (International Popular Bridge
Monthly) yesterday and came across what I thought was a good problem.
I've changed a couple of cards to make it a little flashier.

Neither vul, IMPS, East dealer, North at the top

    A Q 9 3
    A
    A Q 5
    Q T 7 4 3        N      E      S      W
                     -      1C     1S     p
                     3C*    3H     3S*    4H
    K J 8 6 2        4N*    p      5D*    p
    Q 8 7            6S
    K J 6 3
    6


We are asked to believe that 3C agrees spades and asks in clubs and 3S
presumably shows 2nd round control.   Never mind, it's a problem and
the N-S bidding doesn't matter; E-W on the other hand are assumed to be
human.   

West leads the club 2 and East wins cheaply and continues a high club.



-- 
        "When I started, flying was dangerous and sex was safe"
                - Aer Lingus pilot at his retirement party
--
From: paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Is this an infraction?
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:20:54 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <1993Jan24.170601.12087@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> reha@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (reha.gur) writes:
>From the facts given, no (not unethical). All players have a right to
>a clear view of dummy and can ask for the cards to be spread out.
>This in no way implies that you have the card that was obscured.
>
>It is easy to not give away what was in your hand,
>but it could be the case that a person might exhibit behaviour
>(such as looking at his hand multiple times, scracthing his head and possibly
>saying "that CAN't be the ace of diamonds.) This would be clearly unethical.

This behaviour is NOT unethical if done by accident. It DOES provide
unauthorized information to partner and it would be unethical for partner to
take advantage of the unauthorized behaviour, but it is NOT unethical to
display surprise at the bridge table for some reason.

Sorry, but I'm getting tired of people labelling inadvertent infractions as
unethical. Unethical is an extremely pejorative term and should not be
applied to people who display normal human reactions.
From: brl@kopasker.is (Bjorgvin Runar Leifsson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Bridge companion
Date: 19 Jan 93 00:19:52 GMT
Organization: Primary School of Kopasker, Iceland

Greetings!

Does anybody here at rgb know about a program called 'Bridge Companion' for
the Macintosh?  If so, please e-mail me information on how to get it
(the company's address, preferably).

Thanks in advance,

Bjorgvin R. Leifsson
brl@kopasker.is
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Big Club-Not Precision
From: avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:37:01 GMT
Organization: Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
: In article <1993Jan20.150045.9083@sunova.ssc.gov> henk@pdsf.ssc.gov (Henk Uijterwaal) writes:
: :Robert D. Silverman writes:
: :+> Avi Roy Shapira writes:
: :
:
: There are several books available about BTC.  As with 2/1 GF
: Lawrence vs. Hardy  there are differences among them. I do agree
: that if we have both read the SAME book, we can sit down and play
: with only a little discussion. Part of the problem, I agree,
: is that the BTC books are not as widespread as the 2/1 books,
: hence there is not as much consensus about "standard" BTC.
:
:
: Let me cite a simple example; the control responses to 1C.
: I have seen some play A=2, K=1 count controls, while others
: play HCP controls based on A=3, K=2, Q=1.  It's not enough
: to say to partner "control responses" because there are different
: TYPES of control responses. I have seen and played both types when
: playing Blue Team.
:
The HCP controls are not in any BTC book that I know, and I have several.
But this is irrelevant to the point of discussion.

It is just the same. You sit down and say 2/1 a la Lawrence, and your
partner knows what you mean. I sit down and say BTC a la Reese, and my
partner knows what I mean, and no problems. You might say BTC as in
Hamman Wolff (did they publish the 'Orange System'?). As long as you
both know the same book, you will have few problems.

If you just say 2/1, and one of you is playing Hardy and the other Lawrence,
you will have a mess. Similarly, if you agree to play BTC and you use
different sources, you will have a few problems.

BTW, I keep saying Reese's book, and not Garrozo and Yalouze, because Reese
modified the system in his translation. His modifications were later
adopted by Garrozo.  The Garrozo and Yalouze book was written in French, and
some sequences (particularly over the NT opening bid) have been modified by
Reese (I have both books).

Avi

--
Aviel Roy-Shapira, M.D.         Ben-Gurion University Medical School
Dept. of Surgery A.             POB 151, Beer Sheva, Israel
avir@chen.bgu.ac.il             AVIR@BGUVM.BITNET
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: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 12:21:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.071235.14923@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
 
stuff deleted...

>move.  Do you disagree that Qxxxx or better in partner's hand is an
>odds on slam?  If you do agree, do you expect partner to bid over
 
Yes I disagree. You have an absolute diamond loser and must still
take finesses in TWO suits. You need TWO entries to your hand.
The fact that the opponents did not rebid and that the 4th hand
did not raise spades makes it likely that partner has spade length.
It is also likely that he has wastage in diamonds, given that the
opponents have not bid them despite having at least 9 diamonds
between them. You have given partner a hand that makes slam AT BEST
on a finesse. I don't want to be there.

>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
--
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: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Steven G. Myerson)
Subject: Re: How should this be bid?
Organization: Raytheon Submarine Signal Division
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:33:54 GMT

In article <C181vM.94v@irvine.com> adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) writes:

* In article <GRABINER.93Jan20145311@kovalevskaia.harvard.edu> 
* grabiner@math.harvard.edu (David Grabiner) writes:
* 
* >   South dealer, both vulnerable, Swiss teams.  You are North, partner
* >   opens 1S, and LHO passes  You hold
* >
* >   KQJxxxx, K9xx, xx, -
* >
* >   What do you do?
* >   
* >   Here's the South hand; how does your auction go?
* >
* >   ATxxx, Ax, xx, AKxx

[auction to 7S deleted]

* >   West led a heart, and we claimed 13 tricks for +2470.  (East held the AK
* >   of diamonds.)
* 
* Just for fun, how about this sequence?
* 
*   S     N         
*   1S    2NT(1)    (1) Jacoby 2NT, forcing raise in spades
*   3S(2) 4D(3)     (2) No singleton or void, non-minimum.  If your agreement
*   4H(3) 6S            is to rebid 3NT with this hand, fine.
*                   (3) Cue-bid
* 
* North's plan is to bid 6S no matter what, and to cue-bid diamonds
* along the way to try to inhibit a diamond lead.  I wouldn't bid this
* way every time.  It depends on who my opponents are, how we're doing
* in the match, what my table feel says, how much alcohol is in my
* system, . . .

Well, on this auction, East might find a double of 4D,
especially holding both the ace and king.

Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)
From: bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:25:07 GMT
Subject: Re: HCP Diatribe
Organization: Princeton University
X-Subliminal-Message: You can quit reading news anytime you want.

In article <1993Jan28.003813.16185@netcom.com> rudy@netcom.com (Rudy) writes:
|>>Ferts are already banned as "any bid which is destructive in nature"
|>
|>Yup.  Like pre-empts, weak two bids, and weak overcalls.
|
|Are you being dense?  Ferts don't carry any constructive meaning.
|Pre-empts, while obstructing opponent's bidding carry some limited
|message about the hand.  Some point count (within a given range) and
|some distribution (like longest suit).
|
|Maybe I should have said are *only* destructive in nature.

Hmmm ......... ????  Who said ferts are only destructive, and don't carry
any constructive meaning?  No point count?  Of course a fert has a point
count, often 0-7 points.  No distribution?  People who play ferts often
play very weak pre-emptive bids, so the fert pretty much denies a 7-card
suit, and perhaps denies a 6-card suit (or even a 5-card suit with an honor)
as well.  This is certainly a lot more constructive than the bid "pass"
in standard systems ...

ben
--

"Can't we all just get along?"
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Assess the blame
Date: 21 Jan 1993 12:28:22 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: cypress.cs.utexas.edu

In article <C17KB0.BuJ@cs.uiuc.edu> bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao) writes:
>In article <C16n12.LE8@ais.org>, hampton@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik) writes:
>|>           West               East
>|>           AQ94               3
>|>           AQT9               62
>|>           K                  QT9865
>|>           A642               9853
  
>|>                    (P)       P
>|>  (1H)     X        (2H)      3D
>|>           3NT                4D
>|>           4S                 5C
>|>           P        (X)*
  
>|> *Who wouldn't!

>Ummmm.... where to begin... the double is tough -- I play NT overcalls
>upto 18HCP and have no problems with NT with a stiff K == but on this
>hand I think X is reasonable..  It is great if partner responds in a black
>suit, but is fraught if partner bids diamonds.  Anyway, you can bid
>2N over 2D, BUT *I* would take a 1N overcall at MATCHPOINTS -- at IMPs
>I think X is better as you want to be in game opposite Kxxx,xx,xxx,QJxx;
>in fact most non-bust hands with 4 spades.. but at MPs there is too much
>risk of the auction going P-P-1H-X-P-2D-P-2N-P-P-P for -200.  So, minor
>demerits for X at MPs, but it is not unreasonable.

I beg to differ.  I'm not enamored of the usual 15-18 HCP range for
a 1NT overcall, preferring 16-19, and so have no problem with a 1NT
overcall here.  The stiff K doesn't pull full weight, so I would
overcall 1NT even having agreed 15-18.  I realize it is possible to
miss game.  It's also possible to go for 800 if you double.  Clearly.
What do you plan to rebid?  Is this really a 19-20 HCP balanced hand,
as it should be if you rebid 2NT?  I think it's better to pass than
to double on this hand.

>3D is flat out wrong -- with AQxxxx of diamonds maybe or QJTxxx and
>an outside K yes -- but on the actual hand it is ridiculous..

Again, I disagree.  I think 3D was perhaps ill considered, but hardly
ridiculous.  Give opener Axxx x KJxx QJxx, a nice minimum double, and 
3D is a great spot.  But then the opponents have 10 hearts and 27 HCP.  
And 3NT and 5D are both pretty far-fetched as constructive contracts.  
So 3D won't buy the contract and serves no constructive purpose.  Since 
I trust my partners not to double on point count with random distribution 
I would consider bidding 5D as a premature sacrifice.  It loses heavily 
when partner has 20 HCP balanced, of course, so I would probably just 
pass.

As for the rest of the auction, I agree everyone should have passed
at nearly every opportunity.

I think there's plenty of blame to go around on this hand.  But of the
calls that got this mess started, I'm least fond of the double.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: 2/1 question
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:28:22 GMT

In article <9101@news.duke.edu> jose@duke.edu (Greg Lawler) writes:
>
>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.
 
Not in 2/1 GF. 2C is strong and game forcing. Is it your contention
that 3C should be "more forcing?". 

The strong jump shift does not come up sufficiently often to justify
wasting a call (3C) in this way.  

Most modern 2/1 bidders use 3C as some form of Bergen raise, or
perhaps as a fit jump, showing a constructive raise in spades with
club values. Any one of a number of useful treatments can be put forth.

You are wasting bidding room and duplicating calls if you allow
both 2C and 3C to mean a strong hand with clubs. [even though
I presume 3C would be stronger than 2C].
--
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: paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Assess the blame
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:22:55 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <C1C646.K4J@ais.org> hampton@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik) writes:
>Interestingly, no one blamed the double.

Some of us did.

>...but I am reminded of another hand featuring a similar bid, with
>a happier ending... [hand deleted]

What is your point? No matter how bad a bid is I can find hands where it is
right. So what?
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: nateward@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (ward nathaniel)
Subject: Re: bidding after a t/o double
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 23:32:49 GMT

rudy@netcom.com (Rudy) writes:

>In article <1993Jan26.200658.5805@sco.COM> paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson) writes:
>>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     ?
>>
>>Unless agreed to be forcing (I do NOT play it as absolutely forcing in this
>>sequence, partner would be allowed to pass with no clubs and no points) 4C
>>is still an underbid. Over 4H I'd bid 5H.

>4C is 100% forcing. You doubled and cue-bid, how else can you make it forcing?

>>But, now that we have the heart fit, why am I bothering to mention my clubs?

>Because you might just want to clue your partner in on how to evaluate
>the King of diamonds versus the king of clubs.  

>Partnership game, you know.

I must agree.  If there is any way to make a forcing bid in a suit after
a take-out double, it is to cuebid and then bid your suit.  Given all the
alternatives you had the round you cuebid it must follow that this sequence
shows a forcing hand.  After all, last round you could have bid any level of
clubs to show various hand strengths.
From: willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Ready for Flight A ?
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:19:02 GMT
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


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.


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?
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu
  member, League for Programming Freedom; contact league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge