HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: karel@ph.tn.tudelft.nl (Karel Strasters)
Subject: Re: Comments Please (without tabs)
Organization: Delft University of Technology
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 08:37:39 GMT


In article <thijs.720951553@ei0> thijs@ei0.ei.ele.tue.nl (Thijs Veugen) writes:

>We play Dutch ACOL, i.e. 5card spades, 4card hearts, strong NT, 2/1 not
>GF.
>I would like some comments on the following hands (IMP's):

>1. South      North
>   A8xxx      QJx
>   JTxx       Axx
>   AKxx       Qxx
>   -          xxxx

>  White vs. red:
>   1s         1NT
>   2h         3s
>   4s         all pass

> Result: -2

> What about the 1NT bid and the final contract?

Matter of style. After the 3S bid south knows the north hand. South has
reason to pass given this auction but didn't want to take a chance, i suppose.
I think i would have bid the same. 

In the case of a 2S raise south will try for game by either short or 
long suit trial and north will have to accept.

-2 means that everything that could be wrong, was. So what, shit happens.

>2. South      North
>   T          AKQJxx
>   -          xxx
>   AJTxxxx    KQx
>   Axxxx      x

>  All white:
>  W     N     E     S
>  1c    2s    3h    4d
>  4h    4s    all pass

>  Result: +3

>  2s shows openingstrength and a good 6card. 
>  7d and 7s allways makes. 

2S: A strong and solid intermediate but in no means worth a dbl.

4S: A definite error. Because of the contested auction 4d shows diamonds
only (min 6krt and no spades), range unknown but partner thinks he's going 
to make 4d. So definitely a 5D raise. In my partnerships such 4d bids show 
promising hands and therefore a control showing 5C bid is my preference. 
It'll be up to south and the means your partnership has which contract 
(6 or 7D) will be reached. A direct 6D bid doesn't seem very contructive for
a possible 7.

>3. South      North
>   Kxx        Qxx
>   KQ9xx      x
>   Qxxx       Ax
>   x          AKxxxxx

>  Red vs. white:
>   -          1c
>   1h         2c
>   2d         3c
>   pass

>  Result: +1

>  2d is roundforcing.
>  3NT is the better contract provided they don't lead dK.

Look at the vulnerability ! After 2d i would take a chance with 3NT. I've
7 clubs! So only a singleton c will give 3NT a decent chance. 
You're not immediately down with a dK (but i suppose the spade ace sits 
over the queen given your remark) and moreover such a lead won't often be
found and could be dead wrong!

Karel.
-- 
========================================================================
Karel C. Strasters (karel@ph.tn.tudelft.nl)
Pattern Recognition Group,  Faculty of Applied Physics,
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.
From: hargrove@nobelium.asc.slb.com (Jim Hargrove)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Freak hand. YBTJ
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:13:30 GMT
Organization: Schlumberger Austin Systems Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: nobelium.asc.slb.com

=================== 
Freaks are always hard to bid. This hand proved too much for both
tables in a recent team game.

Both Vul.
Dealer North.

                        S Q 7 4
                        H 10
                        D J
                        C A K Q J 9 7 5 3




                        S A K 6 5 3 2
                        H A 2
                        D K 10 8 6
                        C 10

The pairs at both tables were playing the "yellow card."

At Table 1:

   N        S
   1C       1S
   3C       3D
   5C       Pass

At Table 2:

   N        S
   1C       1S
   3C       3D
   3S       4S
   Pass

Various suggestions have been made. I'm interested in the comments
from the net. How do you think the hands should be bid?


-- 

        -- jwh
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: taddiken@ms.uky.edu (scott taddiken)
Subject: Re: Competitive evaluation.
Keywords: competitive evaluation
Summary: Accuracy is SO important.
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:10:03 GMT

I hate it when people do this, but...

In article <1992Nov8.145418.5591@ms.uky.edu> taddiken@ms.uky.edu (scott taddiken) writes:
>                                                                     he is
>teaching by example and filling in none of the "little thoughts" he thinks
>on the way to coming to his "2 1/2 to 3" conclusion.

In fairness and gratitude to Mr. Lawrence, he does give one little thought.
He points out that a spade lead is likely, while a diamond lead is unlikely,
and the diamonds are unlikely to break nicely enough to yield long suit tricks.
Still.  Show me how you count to 2 1/2 to 3.

If my performance on the quizzes in the book is an indication of my competitive
valuation ability, I'd have to say that his method of presenting example after
example is a resounding success (but, and this is not necessarily a criticism,
it makes hard reading for an intermediate player).  My answers were of the form
"Yes, I'd overcall," or "No, I wouldn't," and seldom of the form, "Hm.  I seem
to have about 5 tricks.  I'll overcall."  On some deals this kind of reasoning
is easy, but on others it's duck soup.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Taddiken, University of Kentucky

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: maceache@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Tim Maceachern)
Subject: Re: Comments Please (without tabs)
Organization: NSTN Network Operations Centre, Nova Scotia, Canada
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 14:58:51 GMT

kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler) writes:


>>In article <1736@idacrd.UUCP> desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
>>:Karel Strasters <karel@ph.tn.tudelft.nl> writes:
>>:>>   A8xxx      QJx
>>:>>   JTxx       Axx
>>:>>   AKxx       Qxx
>>:>>   -          xxxx
>>:
>>:>>   1s         1NT
>>:>>   2h         3s
>>:>>   4s         all pass
>>:



>(1) North should only raise to 2S. :: I knew this.
>(2) South should not accept the 3S call. :: I now know this, thanks
> to Bob Silverman's clear explanation.

>dennis


I have to disagree with this.  When North bid 1nt he/she described the
hand properly.  After a 2h bid from south I think North should 
reevaluate and bid 3s as north now knows that 7 of the 9 hcp he/she
holds are working points.  As for South's raise to 4s, that may be
optimistic as South has misdescribed his/her hand.  Still, the final
contract is reasonable.

I think that South should have responded 2d over 1nt.  This gives North
a chance to bid 2h if possible.  As it is, North would
prefer to 2s.  South can then bid 3h as a game try which North can
accept to 4s.  Note that the 3h game try is somewhat of an overbid;
probably right at imps, probably wrong at mps.

Once again, just because the contract failed, it is not a bad contract.
BUT - how lucky was this pair that North held the queen of diamonds
instead of the useless queen of clubs?  Pairs trying to stretch to 
perfect fit games must describe their hands better than this pair has.

Tim MacEachern
From: kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler)
Subject: Striped-tail doubles
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:36:38 GMT



As dealer you pick up  Axx,AQ10x,xx,Qxxx and open 1 club.
The bidding goes:


  1c   1nt  2s   3d*    Alert transfer to hearts
  p    3h   p    3nt
  X**  p    p    4d
  p    p    p


** I believed 3nt as asking for a choice between 3nt and 4hearts
and felt I could beat either contract.
    Not - 3nt makes with an overtrick as 1nt bidder held KJXX of hearts.

Does the double call for any particular suit to be lead?



Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Steve Myerson)
Subject: Re: Comments Please
Organization: Raytheon Company, Portsmouth, RI
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:49:51 GMT

In article <1737@idacrd.UUCP> David desJardins writes:

* Steve Myerson <sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com> writes:
* > I can sympathize with North's 1N bid. Even though North has good
* > 3-card support, the hand is still a 4-3-3-3 with half the points in
* > quacks. That said, I still think a immediate raise to 2S is best.
* > After the 2H rebid, it seems that North tried to make up some lost
* > ground by jumping to 3S, trying to give the impression of a hand
* > better than just a simple preference.

* When I responded to this question, I was assuming that 1NT was forcing,
* thus that responder always intended to bid 3S.  As I said, I think this
* is a substantial overbid.

There wasn't an alert of 1N, so I assumed it was natural.
Or has forcing 1N become the standard, so that now natural 1N is alertable?

Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)
From: willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Playing in an individual
Date: 11 Nov 92 06:45:28 GMT
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


In article <lft4d7INNgfb@cypress.cs.utexas.edu>, posting for Danil Suits:
> The Keohane Individual is coming up soon,

For those who aren't familiar with it, the tournament is named for
(the late) William Keohane, who was its originator and advocate.  It
is a regionally-rated, four-session, matchpoint individual, normally
held the first weekend of January at the Newton (near Boston)
Marriott hotel.  It attracts about 150 tables, down a bit from a few
years ago because a knockout team event is now held simultaneously.

> I read an article in an old Bridge World May, 1981. 

His most important advice was to try to figure out whether your
partner is any good or not.  Asking what a takeout double shows is a
good indication.

> The author suggested that it should always be
> *your* convention card that is used.

I generally find this preferable, but others like to play what
partner is most comfortable with.

Oddly enough, I've never seen anybody playing "Yellow Card" at this
tournament, though you would think it would be effective.

>    No negative doubles

Surprising to many, but I find this effective.  At any rate, do not
play them higher than 2S.  The problem is that if you play them, you
also have to discuss what they show.

> 4) should any direct q bids be allowed? (michaels and the like)

You can play them as a strong takeout, which means that they won't
come up.  For goodness sake don't play Michaels.

> 5) are there other topics to be considered?

It is absolutely vital to have a good sense of humor.  Think of the
event as an experiment in psychology, not a bridge tournament.  (And
yes, I enjoy it.)

> Also a legality/ethics question.  Is it appropriate to have
> 2 cards? That is one to use when partner will be first to 
> speak, and a second when you will be? 

Some people who have said that this would be illegal haven't noticed
that 1) you are not required to play the same card on each round, and
2) in a two-board round, you will bid either before or after partner
on both boards.  

That said, I can't see why you would want to vary your methods.  The
main point is to have agreement, not methods that are optimum.

> if I draw Charlie Coon, should I
> ask him to play 2/1, or simply accept the A+'s his card
> play will generate anyway....

(Charles Coon is a well known New England expert.)  

My advice is not to worry about methods.  Just keep bidding suits,
and he will eventually bid 3NT for a good score. :-) (In truth this
actually worked a few years ago when I found myself sitting opposite
Ethel Keohane.)

Have fun.
-- 
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
From: jch@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (jeffrey.c.halle)
Subject: Re: Committee Ruling - Opinions?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:02:27 GMT

From article <1992Nov7.035724.10953@ramon.bgu.ac.il>, by avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira):
> Hand 1:  all white, E dealer
> 
> 	Qxxx, Axx, xxx, KJx
> Axx                           K
> KQx                           JTxxxx
> AQJxxxx                       Kx
> -                             xxxx
>         JTxxx, x, x, AQTxxx
> 
> The bidding went:	
> 
> E
> 2C*  p 2S** 3C
> 3d   p 3H   4C
> 4d   p 5d   all pass
> 
> North led the CK and EW made the obvious 12 tricks.
> 
> 2C was artificial and forcing. 2S showed 7-8 HCP. was not alerted.
> South claimed that the failure to alert distorted his bidding and prevented
> the pair from finding the good 5S sacrifice.
> 
> How would you rule?

I might give a small procedural penalty against EW, but their result was
likely not that great anyway.  I'd give a large procedural penalty against
NS for wasting the committee's time with a frivolous appeal.  They already
have a good result, probably near a top.  Of course you could offer them
6S, which would be down 3 for a bottom (or at least worse than they have now).
 
> 2nd hand.
> 
> This time I don't remember the exact hand, but the problem came at this
> position:
> 
>              AJ, - , xx, xxx
> Kx                           xx
> KQxx                           j
> Kx                           JTxx
> -                            -
>              QTxx,  AQx -
> 
> or something like that. NS were playing 4S, and need all the tricks.
> Clubs are good. W overruffed once. Now, the lead is in dummy
> S played a diamond, intending to  win the A and finesse in Spades, hoping
> for a 2-2 break. However, on the play of a low diamond, E went into a trance.
> pulling one card, then the other, finally played the J. There was no
> dispute on the facts of the matter.  Now S thought the E had the K of D,
> and decided to finesse, planning to ruff one in dummy, and hope that the
> K of spades in now single.
> 
> In the auction. S opened 1S, E overcalled 2H and N doubled (-ve) and W
> remained silent.  South claimed that he thought that the high cards were
> marked, and that without the hesitation, he would have certainly not finessed.
> South is a good player. E is an LOL.

No adjustment for south.  He should not have been fooled.  The rules and
properties are clear that any inferences are at his own risk.  EW should
get the score they'd have gotten if south had gone right.  In addition, there
should be a LARGE procedural penalty, and a report filed.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Comments Please (without tabs)
From: avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira)
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 00:52:21 GMT
Organization: Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

thijs@ei0.ei.ele.tue.nl (Thijs Veugen) writes:
:
: We play Dutch ACOL, i.e. 5card spades, 4card hearts, strong NT, 2/1 not
: GF.
: I would like some comments on the following hands (IMP's):
:
: 1. South      North
:    A8xxx      QJx
:    JTxx       Axx
:    AKxx       Qxx
:    -          xxxx
:
:   White vs. red:
:    1s         1NT
:    2h         3s
:    4s         all pass
:
:  Result: -2
:
:  What about the 1NT bid and the final contract?
I like neither the 1NT call nor the 2H response. I would raise 1S to 2
and bid not 2H, but 2d over 1NT. However, I have nothing against the
final contract. I actually think that the 2H call is worse than the 1nt.
Over either 2H or 2D, 3S is justified. If partner bids 2s instead of 1NT,
South has to make a trial bid, and North must accept.

Although the play can be tricky, I am willing to play it
any day, and the game should certainly be bid, since you cannot show
spot cards in the auction, and the 8 or even 7 of hearts can make a difference.

:
: 2. South      North
:    T          AKQJxx
:    -          xxx
:    AJTxxxx    KQx
:    Axxxx      x
:
:   All white:
:   W     N     E     S
:   1c    2s    3h    4d
:   4h    4s    all pass
:
:   Result: +3
:
:   2s shows openingstrength and a good 6 card.
:   7d and 7s allways makes.

North's failure to raise diamonds is criminal. That's all there is to it.

: 3. South      North
:    Kxx        Qxx
:    KQ9xx      x
:    Qxxx       Ax
:    x          AKxxxxx
:
:   Red vs. white:
:    -          1c
:    1h         2c
:    2d         3c
:    pass
:
:   Result: +1
:
:   2d is roundforcing.
:   3NT is the better contract provided they don't lead dK.
:
I think the bidding is fine. 3N is not an easy contract to play.
It should be bid at imps at the vulenrability, and each partner may have
pushed a little, looking at the score. North in particular may have chosen
to bid 3N or perhaps 2S (fsf) since 2d does show extra strength in acol (with
minimum you pass 2C). Likewise, S may have chosen to bid 2N over 2C. Over 3C
however, S has a clear pass.

Note that even without the K of diamond lead, you may not make it.
assume a spade lead, which you run to the hand, you lose a club to W, and
another spade lets them score 3 spade tricks, a club trick and the A of heart.
You have no chance if clubs are 4-1, even if they underlead the A of spades.
finally, a diamond lead to the K and a diamond back also sets the contract.
There are so many losing positions, that I estimate the game to be no better
than a 40% proposition. Therefore I would be very happy to be in 3c either
at MP or non-vul at any form of scoring.

Avi






Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ted@sage0.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying)
Subject: Re: Playing in an individual
Organization: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:08:30 GMT

adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) writes:

>> The author also recommended that you discuss takeout
>> doubles with your partner before the round starts

>Sounds like the author is used to playing in Individuals with a lot of
>clueless players.  I'm not sure just what you're supposed to discuss.

	Well, do you play equal conversion?  What does 1H-X-P-2C-P-2D
	mean to you?  To some players it means 4S-5D and just wanting
	to double for 2 of the three suits.

	How strong are overcalls?  Hence how strong is a double and
	bid of a suit.  How strong is a double and jump-bid of a new
	suit?  Is double and new suit guaranteed to be forcing one
	round or not?

	Does 1H-X-P-1S-P-2H guarantee spade support or is it only
	forcing one round (and hence could even be a big 2 suited minor
	or bid 1-suited minor)?

	It's important to ask how partner will treat these bids.  In
	an individual, I would want to ask and know what partner's
	intent or interpretation is in these auctions.

	Ted Ying			ted@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov
	Hughes/STX			Goddard Space Flight Center
From: brl@kopasker.is (Bjorgvin Runar Leifsson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bid these hands in your favourite system
Date: 3 Nov 92 22:19:28 GMT
Organization: Primary School of Kopasker, Iceland

ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se (Lars Andersson) writes:

>Dealer:
>-------
>K75/QT732/J/K854

>Responder:
>----------
>A62/AKJ/AK73/AQ6

>How do you play 7H from the long side on a club lead??

Leaving the play to the greater gurues at rgb (although it seems to me that
reverse dummy play is needed), this is how I and my partner would bid:

Dealer   Responder

P (1)    1C (2)
1H (3)   1NT (4)
2C (5)   2D (6)
3C (7)   3H (8)
3NT (9)  7H (10)

1) Some systems have openings for this sort of hands, like Tartan 2.  In our
   version of Precision, this is not an opening.
2) 16+ hcp
3) 9+ hcp and 5+ hearts
4) A control asking bid
5) 0-2 controls
6) Re-asks about controls
7) 5-4 in hearts-clubs and 2 kings
8) Asks about hearts
9) 5 hearts with one of top three cards
10) Thank you, partner.

Bjorgvin R. Leifsson
brl@kopasker.is
From: ahollander@dcs.simpact.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Help Reply to UCD
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:54:31 PDT
Organization: Simpact Associates, San Diego CA

Every attempt I make to reply from NEWS or send VAX e-mail to 
either of the posters from UC Davis fails miserably.  

Can anyone out there provide some helpful hints?

[or maybe the UCD folks could e-mail their uucp addresses)]

Here's the message I get (with the posters name(x) replaced with
xxx)

From:	UUCP%"sdsu!Postmaster@trout.nosc.mil" 12-NOV-1992 09:46:03.07
To:	nosc!trout.nosc.mil!simpact!dcs.simpact.com!ahollander
CC:	
Subj:	Returned mail: Host unknown

From trout.nosc.mil!sdsu!Postmaster  Thu Nov 12 08:11:22 1992 remote from nosc
Received: from nosc by dcs.simpact.com (DECUS UUCP ///1.3-1/2.5/);
          Thu, 12 Nov 92 09:46:01 PDT
Received: by trout.nosc.mil (5.59/1.27)
          id AA11260; Thu, 12 Nov 92 08:11:21 PST
Received: from nosc.UUCP by sdsu.edu; id AA15229
          sendmail 5.64/SDSU-GW-1.11 via UUCP
          Thu, 12 Nov 92 07:56:41 -0800 for trout.nosc.mil!simpact!dcs.simpact.com!ahollander
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 07:56:41 -0800
From: sdsu!Postmaster@trout.nosc.mil (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown
Message-Id: <9211121556.AA15229@sdsu.edu>
To: nosc!trout.nosc.mil!simpact!dcs.simpact.com!ahollander

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
bad system name: csufres
uux failed ( 68 )
550 csufres!csusac!ucdavis!aggie.ucdavis.edu!xxx... Host unknown

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: from nosc.UUCP by sdsu.edu; id AA15227
	sendmail 5.64/SDSU-GW-1.11 via UUCP
	Thu, 12 Nov 92 07:56:41 -0800 for csusac!ucdavis!aggie.ucdavis.edu!xxx
Received: by trout.nosc.mil (5.59/1.27)
	id AA10765; Thu, 12 Nov 92 07:56:31 PST
Received: by dcs.simpact.com (DECUS UUCP ///1.3-1/2.5/);
          Thu, 12 Nov 92 07:49:52 PDT
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 07:49:52 PDT
Message-Id: <009637E77FB156E0.00001CDE@dcs.simpact.com>
From: ahollander@dcs.simpact.com
Subject: XXX
To: xxx@aggie.ucdavis.edu
X-Vms-Mail-To: uucp%"xxx@aggie.ucdavis.edu"

X-News: simpact rec.games.bridge:1125

>From: xxx@aggie.ucdavis.edu
>Subject:XXX
>Date: 11 Nov 92 21:22:45 GMT
>Message-ID:<19136@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>

Al Hollander
Simpact Associates
9210 Sky Park Ct.
San Diego, CA 92123
(619)565-1865 x1256
(619)565-8196 FAX
From: taylor@foraker.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Eric Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: A few problems
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:00:28 GMT

In article <6019@tivoli.UUCP>, taylor@tivoli.com (Eric Taylor) writes:
|> South on all hands:
|> 
|> First the simple one.  Playing standard 2/1 you hold :
|> 
|> QJ10xxx
|> Kx
|> Kxxx
|> x
|> 
|> The bidding has gone :
|> N         E          W         S
|> 1H        P          1S        P
|> 2N        P          3D        P
|> 3S        P          ??
|> 
|> Do you make any slam peeps?

I just RKC'ed at this point.  I was lucky to find partner
with 
AKx
Axxxx
AQx
Qx

And the slam was practically a laydown on either :
	a 4-2 heart split.
	a 2-2 spade split.
	a 3-3 diamond split.


|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> Second one.
|> K10x
|> xx
|> Qxxxx
|> AKx
|> 
|> The bidding has gone :
|> N        E           W          S
|> 1C       1H          2D         2H
|> 2S       P           3C         P
|> 3S(1)    P           ??
|> 
|> Partner's style is to bid Spades with 55 in the blacks.
|> Therefore he is 56 in the blacks.
|> How would you go about investigating slam (if at all.)?

I was not thinking on this one and blithely bid 4S.
6 was absolutely frigid, but I was lucky that no one else
had the unction to do anything different.

|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> Describe partner's hand on the bidding :
|> N         E         S        W
|> 1D        1H        X        P
|> 2H        P         3D       P
|> 3H        P         3S       P
|> 4C        P         4D       P
|> 6D
|> 
|> Suppose you hold :
|> 98xx
|> xx
|> KJx
|> Kxxx
|> 
|> I did not like partner's 3S call since he
|> already showed a 4 card spade suit and has now distorted
|> the holding.   But besides that, what can the opener be looking for?


I held:

AK10
AKxx
AQxxxx

It made fairly easily (actually made 7 on a defensive error).
I thought by cuebidding hearts twice and cuebidding the club void
later, I was probably void.

Comments and/or flames?