HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bid this hand
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:21:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: linus.1992Apr9.122131.22605
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA

In article <1992Apr7.163841.9125@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> apearlma@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Andrew Pearlman) writes:
:In article <1992Apr1.114022.9957@linus.mitre.org> bs@faron.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
:>In article <1992Apr1.052156.17144@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> apearlma@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Andrew Pearlman) writes:
:>:
:>:You have this hand:
:>:S K10x
:>:H A2
:>:D AKQ1098
:>:C Ax
:>:
:>:Bidding goes
:>:2H(weak2)-?
:>The redouble was wishful thinking. You have only 8 tricks even assuming
:>diamonds break, are missing the A spades and have only 1 heart stopper.
:>If the 2H bidder had Ax KQJ10xx x xxxx  You could be going down 2 tricks.
:>
:>In fact, his double strongly suggests this is happening.
:
:If he has that, I still make 8 tricks.  I assume he has a max hand of 10
 
Huh? Where do you get 8 tricks from?? You get a heart lead and your
stopper is knocked out. You cash diamonds and they DON'T BREAK. LHO
wins the J diamonds puts partner in with A spades and the 2H bidder
cashes a bunch of hearts. They take a diamond, 5 hearts and A spades.
Down 3.
--
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: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao)
Subject: Re: Some Bidding Problems
Reply-To: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 20:29:08 GMT


bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>All of these are IMPS, against a HORRIBLE team.

>You hold, none vul.
>J9x
>x
>AKQ8xxx
>QJ
>You LHO Part RHO
>1D  3C   3H  4C
>4D  P    4S  P
>??

5S

>(2) None Vul.
>x
>Q109x
>Qxxx
>Kxxx
>RHO  You  LHO  Part
>1NT   P    P   6S
>Dble. ??
>What has partner got??   Note: You have 2 suited bids available at the
>two level if you feel that is relevent.
>What do you do??

PASSS!!

>(3) All Red:

>Axxxxxx
>Jx
>Qxx
>x
>LHO  You
>1C    ??
Not clear .. depends on your agreements.  Anything from 1S to 3S may
be right.  I would just bid 2S...

>(4) Vul vs. Not
>AKxx
>AKxxxxx
>J
>x
>Part RHO You LHO
> 1D  P   1H   P
> 1NT P   ??

We play 2C-2?-2S shows a 6-4 game forcing hand in the majors.  If not
a direct 2S is OK (I'd like to bid hearts once more - if 2C-2D-2H is
forcing to game that is better -- its not the way I play it).

>(5) None
>10xx
>Jx
>AKQx
>AQJx
>You  LHO  Partner  RHO
>1NT   P    3C(1)   4C       (1) A weak, minor two suiter.
>5C    P    P       6C
>P     6H   P       7H
>??				Might you double for a diamond lead?
Yup...

>(6) Vul vs. not
>AKJx
>Qxxx
>AQx
>xx
>You  LHO  Part  RHO
>1NT  Dble  P    P
>??

That depends on what partner's pass shows.  If he's got crap, any 2
level contrat in a suit ought to do better.  I'm inclined to sit, but
a redouble may work out fine -- nice if you played something special
in this situation.

>Bob Silverman

--
R. Bharat Rao                          E-mail: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu 
AI Group, Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology
405 N. Matthews, Urbana, IL 61801  (217)-244-1263 (O) 337-6498(H)
Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana
From: baseggi1@husc8.harvard.edu (Franco Baseggio)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: *My* Thoughts on the Jihad and ACBL
Date: 12 Apr 92 00:16:00 GMT
 <ku9625INNkrm@levelland.cs.utexas.edu> <1992Apr10.011847.20272@linus.mitre.org>

bs@fatima.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:

>>>:There is too much cheating now that goes on in ACBL tournaments.
>>
>>>:Can you imagine what it would be like with cash prizes???
>>
>>>Do other US correspondents agree about the amount of cheating?

>rest deleted....

>This isn't even half of it. Perhaps the most frequent form of
>cheating is the "wire".  You are in a room with 200+ tables,
>all playing the same pairs event. If you listen carefully you
>can hear the conversations at the other table, e.g.
[etc.]

This reminds me of two very funny stories I heard about a year ago
on the subject.  I don't know the hands alas, but here's my best 
reconstruction of the stories:

In a pairs event, NS overheard the results for the 2 boards they were
about to play.  On board 9, they played 3N making 6.  Then, on board 10,
with 12 opposite 11, they had some ridiculous auction like 1H-3C-4N-...-6N 
(uncontested).  Down 3.  Of course, the boards were played in the wrong
order the previous round.

Another time, this board was opened a gambling 3N by E and in the post-
mortem they discovered that despite the wide open diamond suit, S could
make 3N because west had no diamonds to lead.  So the culprits who
overheard wrong-wayed 3N for down 3 doubled.

Sometimes justice is done.

(I heard these stories from a guy named Walter from RI.)

Franco Baseggio
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Some Bidding Problems
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:02:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: linus.1992Apr16.180219.26459
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA


All of these are IMPS, against a HORRIBLE team.

You hold, none vul.

J9x
x
AKQ8xxx
QJ

You LHO Part RHO
1D  3C   3H  4C
4D  P    4S  P
??

(2) None Vul.
 
x
Q109x
Qxxx
Kxxx


RHO  You  LHO  Part
1NT   P    P   6S
Dble. ??

I am not joking.

What has partner got??   Note: You have 2 suited bids available at the
two level if you feel that is relevent.
 
What do you do??

(3) All Red:

Axxxxxx
Jx
Qxx
x

LHO  You
1C    ??


(4) Vul vs. Not

AKxx
AKxxxxx
J
x


Part RHO You LHO
 1D  P   1H   P
 1NT P   ??

(5) None

10xx
Jx
AKQx
AQJx

You  LHO  Partner  RHO
1NT   P    3C(1)   4C       (1) A weak, minor two suiter.
5C    P    P       6C
P     6H   P       7H
??				Might you double for a diamond lead?


(6) Vul vs. not

AKJx
Qxxx
AQx
xx


You  LHO  Part  RHO
1NT  Dble  P    P
??

I have some stories to relate from these and a few others.
The stories are Ghastly.

--
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: ECL4JN2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Jack Newsbaum)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: 1S, 2S, or 2NT?
Date: 6 Apr 92 11:37:58 PDT

>I was recently rereading Kit Woolsey's _Matchpoints_ and found
>a hand similar to one discussed on the net some time ago.  On
>p.41, review problem 9:  E-W vul., South holds:
>AJ93 A3 A42 KQJ9.  You open 1C, partner responds 1H.  Your bid?
>
>Woolsey's discussion:
>
>    Time to bypass a four-card spade suit with a 2NT rebid?
>    Certainly a potential gain if North doesn't have four
>    spades, as South would welcome a spade lead.  But what
>    if North does have four spades?  Then 4S is almost
>    certainly worth an extra trick over notrump, for South
>    has strong spades and a weak diamond holding.  Therefore,
>    South's best rebid is 2S.
>
>The first point is that Woolsey seems to consider the normal
>bid 2S.  He doesn't seem bothered by the fact that South has
>only 4 clubs, and 2NT is treated as an exceptional call to be
>made only when all the factors are right.  Here, you win if
>partner doesn't have 4 spades, but he wants at least a chance
>to win if partner *does* have 4 spades.
>
>The second point is that since Woolsey doesn't consider 1S
>here forcing he is unwilling to risk it.
>
I believe 2S is a bit of an overbid. Because a jump to 2S is forcing
to game (at least in S.A.), you will have a poor play for it on a
typical minimum hand without 4 spades, such as
Kxx, Qxxxx, Jxx, xx.

I believe the better bid is 1S. If partner passes, your chances
of having a hand on which game is a reasonable shot are small.

Incidentally, if I had only 3 clubs in my hand originally rather
rather than 4 clubs, my response would have been 2NT. I hate to bid
balanced hands as though they are two-suited.

    ====Jack====
From: kingsum@ronquil.cs.washington.edu (Kingsum Chow)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: 2 Problems (IMPS)
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:36:04 GMT
Organization: University of Washington Computer Science

>>>>> On 9 Apr 92 12:42:16 GMT, bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) said:
BS> Article-I.D.: linus.1992Apr9.124216.23472
BS> Nntp-Posting-Host: gauss.mitre.org

BS> Here's two problems. IMPS against a BAD team.

BS> (1) You hold Both Vul.

BS> 7x
BS> AQ10xx
BS> AKJx
BS> Kx

BS> The auction:

BS> You LHO  Pard RHO
BS> 1H  2C    2S   P
BS> 3D  P     3S

BS> Your call?   There are only 2 choices. 4S and 3NT.  4S will be right

4S.  Unless partner is required to have a solid suit to rebid spades at the
3-level, it is unlikely that the spades will run in spite of your 
seven of spades :-)  Of course, we can construct hands for partner so that
3NT is better than 4S.  However, partner will be very upset for the rest
of the day if I go down at 3NT with fair support in spades.  Also, probably
the BAD team would play in 4S too.  So, on the conservative side, we can
hardly lose by playing in 4S.


Kingsum
--
Kingsum Chow	kingsum@cs.washington.edu
		kingsum@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ttw@beta.lanl.gov (Tony Warnock)
Subject: Reverse Redux
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
 
   I would like to thank the net for the interesting discussion.
   I now have a follow-up question to my last posting about bidding
   after opener's reverse. I would like to know how both the
   "fourth-suit is strong" and "fourth-suit is weak" schools bid.
 
       The original question:
 
           S: KQJx
           H: xx
           D: xxx
           C: xxxx
 
   The original bidding was:              Partner      You
                                            1 C        1 S
                                            2 D        ???
 
   My question conceerns the sequence:    Partner      You
                                            1 C        1 S
                                            2 H        ???
 
 
 
                                                   Tony Warnock
 
     Thai half said. Quhat say thai? Let thame say.
                  - George Keith, Fifth Earl Marischal (c.1553-1623)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:31:29 GMT
From: eric@pencom.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Correct Action Please
Date: 17 Apr 92 13:43:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: pencom.1992Apr17.134305.5761
Organization: Pencom Software

You (South) hold :

AKx
QJx
Kxx
AJxx

Bidding proceeds :

S       W        N        E
1C      X        1H       1S


Playing weak NT's with a trusted partner, but
unestablished partnership, what is the meaning of :
     Double      (You are playing support doubles.  Does this apply?).
                 If this is for penalty, should you consider it?
     1N
     2N
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Subject: Re: No clubs?
Reply-To: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:52:38 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.150701.19250@eng.umd.edu> tpermutt@eng.umd.edu (Thomas Permutt) writes:
>It is nobody's responsibility to draw attention to an irregularity. 
>...players may do so if it is to their
>advantage.

What?  It is player's responsibility to call the director when an irregularity has
occurred.  People who believe what you just said are the ones that call me three
rounds of bidding or four cards after something screwy has happened and then they
wonder why their rights aren't being protected by law.

>It was formerly the Law, but is no longer, that calling attention
>to certain irregularities was tantamount to requiring their correction, and
>therefore gave up the option of condoning them.

Since that is no longer the case, it shouldn't be influencing action (or inaction)
wrt irregularities today.
-- 
"In nature there are no rewards or punishments, only consequences"

Asya Kamsky	      e-mail: asya@ux5.lbl.gov                   Go Red Sox
"In order to command you must first learn to submit" - chinese fortune cookie
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Subject: Re: *My* Thoughts on the Jihad and ACBL
Reply-To: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 07:04:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.011847.20272@linus.mitre.org> bs@fatima.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>This isn't even half of it. Perhaps the most frequent form of
>cheating is the "wire".  You are in a room with 200+ tables,
>all playing the same pairs event. If you listen carefully you
>can hear the conversations at the other table, e.g.

Come on, people, get real.  I have played in money tournaments.
I have run money tournaments.  Why do you assume they would be
run the same way as masterpoint events are run?  They shouldn't
be and they aren't.  People who want to cheat will try to cheat
however the event is organized, but serious money events won't
be attracting that wired pair that plays at your club, it'll be
for (more or less) top players with a better developed sense of
ethics than most.

Both, the event I played in, the events I've kibitzed and the ones
I have run were 1000% above what your average ACBL game is in terms
of ethics, and that's how it should be.
-- 
"In nature there are no rewards or punishments, only consequences"

Asya Kamsky	      e-mail: asya@ux5.lbl.gov                   Go Red Sox
"In order to command you must first learn to submit" - chinese fortune cookie
From: davidm@rutabaga.Rational.COM (David Moore)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Can you beat 3 NT ?
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:28:31 GMT

james@crc.ricoh.com (James Allen) writes:

>Can you defeat 3 No Trump?

Looks like declare started with

	xx
	AKx
	Qxxx
	Q9xx

And is trying to endplay you for the ninth trick. So, you take the ace
of spades and continue the TEN. This looks obvious, so I guess you did
this and it did not work.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bid these hands
From: bclaus@cs.wright.edu (Brian Clausing)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 01:20:08 GMT
Organization: Wright State University

From article <1992Apr15.223434.19832@ramon.bgu.ac.il>, by avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira):
> doug@cm.deakin.OZ.AU (Douglas Newlands) writes:
> 
> : "The Roman Club System of Distributional Bidding" by Belladonna & Avarelli
> : is the base book but was published in 1957 after 3 world championship wins.
> : I don't know how you buy a copy , I found one in a library sale for 1 shilling
> : and 6 pence a great number of years ago.
> :
> : The two bids may not seem very efficient but they are logically necessary to
> : fill holes in the one level opening structure.
> :
> So they are. Otherwise it would have been easy to modify or update them. This
> is the same with the Blue Club 2D bid. A marvel in and of itself, but occurs so
> rarely that is is not worth the trouble to learn. Yet it is a necessary part of
> the system, because of other bidding structures.
> 
> Avi

Roman 2-bids show weak/strong three-suiters (2C/2D) and major-clubs
two suiters (2H/2S). 

But unlike Roman, Blue Team Club is not a system in which describing
one's distribution is paramount, and the 2D opening, although cute, can
be subsumed by the 1C club opening with little attendant loss of precision.
At the championships in Deauville Forquet refused to play the 2D bid.
BTC 2D is a wondrous mechanism but a pain to remember, and the frequency
of occurrence is very low.  Note that many big club systems don't have a
strong three-suited opening.

On the other hand, if you try to assign the distributions covered by
Roman two-bids to other opening bids, you've got a substantially
different system, one a lot like the Leghorn Diamond.

Brian Clausing
From: idc@cs.hw.ac.uk (Ian Crorie)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Cheating?
Date: 15 Apr 92 11:23:01 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland

In article <2887@sol.deakin.OZ.AU> doug@cm.deakin.OZ.AU (Douglas Newlands) writes:
:
:Hearing Bob say this and having had some interesting email
:discussions with others I am coming to realise that US
:players accept that pairs cheating is a normal part of
:competition play.
:This is difficult for me to comprehend and for , certainly
:Europeans and Australians as we do not expect anyone to be
:cheating. Sure the odd pause gets read but there is no expectation
:of malpractice from ones opponents.
..lines deleted..

I'm unconfortable with the word `cheating' here.   I hear it used a
fair bit in post mortems and I use it myself sometimes but in quieter
moments I admit that `cheating' implies something deliberate and I
think that deliberate is not how I'd describe 99% of what we are
talking about.

My favourite is the auction:

1C    dble  p    1H
p     2C    p    ?

This is either natural or a cue bid depending on whether the 1C opening
bid (not alerted) is followed by the doubler asking `Is that natural?'.
Their partner agonises for ages in either case but usually gets it right.

Now if these people were not LOLs (of either sex) we'd have the director
over so fast their eyes would water but they *are* and they would get
really upset if I did.   They don't *mean* to take information from
hesitations or questions but they are not aware that there is a problem
because they are mostly not aware of anything going on at the table.

As bridge players get better they become more aware of ethical problems
but very few are perfect.   I have the bad habit of trancing in defense
on occasion, which creates problems for my partners.   When everybody at
the table knows that East has just held up an Ace it is incumbent on
West not to choose a line of defence that relies on this if there are
other reasonable possibilities (I'm sure there is a better way of
expressing that but if it is too far out somebody can correct me).

My point is that it is lack of awareness of the ethical demands
of the game, and not cheating, that we are discussing.   One
solution is to educate players better and start from a very early stage
in bridge classes but it is important to realise that *it will never go
away*.   Just strive to be a little more tolerant of others and realise
that we all have our own blind spots.

A digression: one thing I would like to see in Scotland is for players
of all standards to realise that a call to the Director doesn't
automatically mean you are accusing the opponents of improper behaviour.
I don't think that Directors are called often enough here, from club
games up to Trials level; my experience is that in England they are
called more often.

I've never played in the U.S. but I'd be surprised if there was more
cheating, rather than what I describe above, going on there.


-- 
        "When I started, flying was dangerous and sex was safe"
                - Aer Lingus pilot at his retirement party
--
From: eric@pencom.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Matchpoints, opposite a 2C opener
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:53:24 GMT
Organization: Pencom Software

In article <matthew.703447938@pram.cs.ucla.edu> matthew@pram.cs.ucla.edu  
(Matthew Merzbacher) writes:
> With a novice partner, playing NO GADGETS
> At Matchpoints
> White vs. White
> You want to play flawlessly to give partner confidence (read: don't be a hog
> because partner is a newbie).
> 
> You hold:
> AJxx
> 9x
> Tx
> Q9xxx
> 
> Partner holds (and deals):
> Kxx
> AKQxx
> AKQJx
> (void)
> 
> We managed to end up in 5NT, which makes on the matchpoints defense of taking
> the top two clubs.  Our auction:
> 
> 2C-2D
> 2H-3C
> 3D-3S

Whoa Silver!!!!   3S is off-base.  With misfits, slow
down the bidding with 3NT or 4H.  With 1 quick trick, your
hand is going nowhere if partner does not have the magic hand.

> 4D-4N

You have no cause for slam.  Simply supporting hearts here is
the ticket.

> 5H-5S
> 5N
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Myerson)
Subject: Re: What would you do?
Organization: Raytheon Company, Portsmouth, RI
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:54:34 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.195943.22954@midway.uchicago.edu> valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty) writes:

DD: Your hand:
DD: 
DD: 	x x x x,  K J x x,  x x x x,  x
DD: 
DD: The bidding:
DD: (Matchpoints, both vul)
DD: 
DD: 	Partner	RHO	You	LHO
DD: 	============================
DD: 	1D	X	P	2C
DD: 	P	P	?
DD: 
DD: We are playing Precision, and in our style, 1D is alerted as
DD: "could be short" (-er than 3), but tends to either be real diamonds or
DD: have a 4 card major (else you'd bid 1N - We play 1N denies 4 card major)
DD: 1D is, of course, limited to < 16 HCP.
DD: 
DD: Opps are playing standard.  What do you do?  (What would X be here?)

I pass as quickly as ethically possible. The opponents are in 2 of a minor.
With them holding at least half the HCP, I think they could have a better spot.
I'm not going to let them find it.

Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)
From: tac6189@hertz.njit.edu (Tom Carmichael)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: 2 Problems (IMPS)
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:59:38 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <19920409161047ECL4JN2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu> ECL4JN2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Jack Newsbaum) writes:


>>(2) This is a play problem. Both Vul.
>>
>>        Ax
>>        AK9
>>        KJ98
>>        J9xx
>>
>>        Q10
>>        Q10xxx
>>        10x
>>        AK10x
>>
>>1NT 2S 3H P
>>4H  all pass.
>>
>>8 spades led.  Plan the play. Both Vul.
>>
>Duck the spade expecting the SQ to win in your hand (LHO did overcall
                                                      ^^^
>vulnerable). Over to dummy to play the A and K of trump. If they split

One small problem.  RHO overcalled, not LHO.  This makes the hand a lot more
difficult.

Tom




-- 
"Sleep is a poor substitute for caffine."|  Tom Carmichael
	- The Wizardry Compiled		 |  tac6189@hertz.njit.edu
-----------------------------------------|  tomc@shock.njit.edu
#include <stddisclamer.h>		 |
From: td@alice.att.com (Tom Duff)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: System generalities (was Re: Not another Jihad)
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:40:25 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ

>I am on the side of unrestrained conventions.  I admit that this gives
>younger players an advantage, since, all other things being equal,
>younger people have better memory capabilities.  However, young people
>(among which group I count myself) have an advantage in just about every
>area of endeavor (If this is news to anyone, I will glady explain)

Bah!  Age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill.

One of the occasionally charming aspects of youth is it's naive faith
that merit is inversely proportional to experience.

(Am I old or young?  When my father was my age, he was old.  Michael
Tilson Thomas was a `young up-and-coming conductor' when I was 17,
twenty years ago, and only 3 years ago I saw him described with exactly
the same phrase although he must be 45 by now.)

To forestall complaints, here is some Bridge Content:
	I've just found Kaplan & Sheinwold's book about their system
in a dusty old box of books and have started re-reading it.  The
date on it is 1963 (2nd edition), and the title is
``How to Play Winning Bridge'' (or is that the wrong title --
I'm old, I'm old, I think I'll wear my trousers rolled.)

I'm not intimately familiar with the particulars of the 2/1-GF style,
but from what I've osmosed, it seems not very different from K-S.
(Does it use 1NT strong instead of weak?)
Can anybody explain, in general terms, how these systems (and other
current methods) differ in approach, and how well-regarded they are
by players generally?