HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Arggggh!
Keywords: true, ouch
Date: 8 Jan 93 00:12:51 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1993Jan7.142424.12316@linus.mitre.org> bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>In article <1ih6saINNr45@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk> mbrgw@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk (R.G. Walters) writes:

>>>But he asked about some strange 20+ 1NT opening. This is not the same as 2C.

>>"Strange"?  It's Vienna (only a bit stronger), and we use it precisely to be 

>But it is not Vienna, because you play it a bit stronger. Isn't Vienna
>17-20? The fact that you don't play it as standard Vienna DOES make it strange.
>And Vienna still isn't widely played, even in Europe.

Is this right?  There was a very old system called Vienna with 1 NT as the
force.  It was pre-point count, but translated out to 20+ points.  It also
used Herbert throughout -- Culbertson era stuff.  At least that's the
way I remember it.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Reading List?
Keywords: books
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:14:44 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbootay.sw.stratus.com

In article <1i9tc5INN8b8@im4u.cs.utexas.edu>, varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) writes:
> ...
> In article <1i87nnINNpv@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) writes:
> >In article <1993Jan3.193903.1604@netcom.com> ditt@netcom.com (Debora Dittmar) writes:
> >>What books would rgbers recommend for a bridge novice to read? I want to stick
                                                   ------
> >>to Standard American bidding for the present. I've already got Root's
> >>Commonsense Bidding, Root and Pavlicek's Modern Bridge Conventions
> >>and Kantar's Bridge Conventions. 
> ...
> > ...  Bear in mind that the treatments
> >   recommended by Root and Pavlicek are in many cases *far* from being
> >   standard.  Not bad.  Just not recommended anywhere but in that book.
> >   Things that come to mind are new suits not forcing over weak 2's and
> >   the treatment of 4th suit forcing.
> 
> While I'll stand by what I say about R&P's treatment of 4SF, including
> their treatment of weak 2's is an exaggeration.  There have always been
> advocates of NSNF, from Schenken (who arguably invented weak 2's) to
> Bergen.  This treatment is very rare in my area, but perhaps not in yours.
> ...

Three comments:

R&P is NOT for novices.  (I'm taking "novice" to mean, say, less than 100
hours of bridge experience, not, say, less than 100 master points.)

R&P is not supposed to be an unbiased description of the "standard" forms of
common conventions.  It presents a set of conventions (divided into "levels")
that Root and Pavlicek recommend using in the forms that Root and Pavlicek
prefer.  Given its purpose, it's a superb book.

Players in the Boston area seem to be equally divided on whether a new suit
response to a weak two should be forcing.  Not forcing is the accepted default.
Those who use forcing responses usually write "RONF," for "raise only non-
force," on their convention cards.
-- 
Tim Hill
Stratus Computer, Inc.                  tnh@vos.stratus.com
55 Fairbanks Boulevard                  508-460-2232
Marlborough, MA  01752                  fax 508-624-7488
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: Bidding Opinions Sought
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:03:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.181432.22023@linus.mitre.org> bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
:In article <1ihmfgINNhg2@transfer.stratus.com> kvk@questor.sw.stratus.com (Ken Koellner) writes:
:>IMPs, White/White, Dealer: West
:>You sit South holding:
:>	s x
:>	h JTxx
:>	d KJxxxxx
:>	c x
 
Let me apologize for the multiple replies I made to this article.
Our news server hung while I was sending this out. I killed the
posting process and sent it again, but the original had gone out
despite the hanging news server.
--
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: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Reading List?
Date: 5 Jan 1993 03:34:01 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: latexo.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1993Jan5.072108.25364@cs.wright.edu> bclaus@cs.wright.edu (Brian Clausing) writes:

>Kelsey's books have always been available in the U.S.  There are now
>maybe a dozen and a half of them, and they are apparently quite popular.

Dallas Bridge Books lists no fewer than 43 different titles authored
or (in three cases) coauthored by Kelsey.  He may be the most prolific
bridge writer of recent history.

(Pitch: Dallas Bridge Books doesn't have the glossiest catalog or even
in all cases the lowest price, but they have the largest selection of
bridge books I know of.  If you're having trouble finding something,
be sure to give them a call.)

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: jbaron@higgs.ssc.gov (Jeff Baron)
Subject: Re: Bob S
Keywords: FAQ
Reply-To: jbaron@higgs.ssc.gov (Jeff Baron)
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Lab
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:39:17 GMT

Tim Hill writes:
- 
- Greg Lawler calls a system without a forcing minor raise "unplayable."
- That's an overstatement.  For example, neither the ACBL Yellow Card system
- nor the ACBL/Grant beginning bridge course has a forcing minor raise.  But
- it does make it harder to bid some slams that depend on minor-suit fits.
- 
- Bharat Rao suggests criss-cross forcing minor raises.  That sounds reasonable
- if 1D-2C is not game forcing.  If 1D-2C is game forcing and 1D-3C is a diamond
- raise, then how do you respond to 1D with Qxx,x,Jxx,AQTxxx?

You can't.  If only we could get rid of responder's hands with clubs,
we'd be a lot better off!

I play a system where 1 minor - 2 spades (opponents pass in all of these
examples)  is the forcing raise, so 1D-2C is game forcing, and 
1D-3C is invitational as above.

We do give up the pre-emptive 2 spade call, at least by an unpassed hand.

Over 2 spades, a rebid of 2NT denies holding a minor suit of QTxx or
better, while any other suit guarantees at least this trump 
holding, and shows a singleton or void in the bid suit.  The rest of 
the bids follow (somewhat!) naturally from these.

A rebid of 3 of the original minor shows no shortness, but does 
show at least the trump holding above.  It may or may not show 
slam interest, but is *definitely* forcing.  With a big hand, 
opener can continue after responder signs off.

3NT guarantees major suit stops, and is a signoff.  (Of course,
responder may continue with a cue bid or such.)

--
Jeff Baron
jbaron@gauss.ssc.gov

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao)
Subject: Re: Bidding and Play Problem
Originator: daveshao@leland.Stanford.EDU
Keywords: Count your tricks
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 17:26:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.140826.20728@athena.mit.edu> jmh@athena.mit.edu (J Michael Hammond) writes:
>Knockout teams, low B bracket, second round, very early board in the
>set, non-vul against vul, West deals.  You're playing 2/1 Almost Game
>Forcing with natural overcalls, e.g. a 1NT overcall is 15-18+ with
>stopper.
>
>North
>S ATxx         West   North  East  South   || 
>H Txx          1S     pass   pass  2C      || opponents play 5CM and West's
>D Axxx         dbl    redbl  all pass      || double was for takeout.
>C A8
>
>Here's the hand (from South's point of view):
>
>        ATxx             
>        Txx              | opening lead KS.  I think declarer's best line
>        Axxx             | is to win the AS, take AC and a club finesse,
>KQJ9x   A8      x        | go to the AD, lead a heart to the jack, and
>AQxx            xxx      | then sit back and either wait for East to ruff
>KQxx            JTxx     | and then you win four more trump tricks,
>---     xxx     J96xx    | or if East refuses to ruff you can eventually
>        KJx              | set up a heart trick or the TS and either
>        x                | win it and three trump tricks or get East
>        KQT7xx           | to ruff it and then you win four trump tricks.
>                         | I can't find any way to beat this plan.  
>
>contract: 2Cxx
>Opening lead: KS

Perhaps it would be better to not post the EW hands at first.

1) The lunatics on this hand are clearly East-West.  East has nothing
   of value in his hand except a few trumps with not very high spots,
   while West has a void in the trump suit.  Surely one has the 
   the responsibility to one's teammates to not risk going -560 for 
   the opportunity to score +200.

2) Here is a line which I believe gives one more chances:

Play DA, ruff a diamond in hand, cross with CA, ruff another diamond in
hand, play KC, and exit in spades.  You must score
the CT from C KT assuming East has it, and even if he doesn't West
may eventually come on play giving you a heart trick or letting your
CT make on a ruff.

I find it helpful to plan the play as follows.  
If one visualizes scoring dummy's two side suit aces and all six
trumps in hand this adds up to the eight tricks required.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Arggggh! (back to bridge)
From: avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:28:43 GMT
Organization: Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) writes:
:
: There is an interesting bridge question beneath all the flamage.
:
: >  K4
: >  A62
: >  A
: >  AKQJ743
:
: Suppose, as before, you open 2C, LHO says 4S, and partner and RHO
: pass.  The 2C opening was artificial and nearly game forcing; this
: hand is borderline for it.  Partner's pass shows in theory 2 controls
: outside spades (A=2, K=1), but at this level partner might "cheat" a
: little with other good values (e.g. spade void or ace or some very
: strong suit intending to pull a double).
:
: 1) If 4NT by agreement shows a single spade stopper and an offensive
: hand, would you choose that in preference to 5C at matchpoints?  At
: IMPs?  At rubber?
:
: 2) Is there some other meaning for 4NT that is more valuable than the
: one above?  (I don't believe Blackwood is it, since the information
: about controls will usually be sufficient.)
:
If I can trust patner to have the promised 2 controls, I think that
I would bid 6C.  The bidding has gone high, and you have only 2 bids
available to exchange infromation, before committing to the slam, ie
4NT and 5C, so you must take a guess.

With the two red kings, you have 11 top tricks. The lead of the A of S
will yield the 12th trick. Other possiblities for the 12th trick are
either red queen in partner's hand, the heart J (on a finesse),
a ruff in partner's hand (he may have some clubs, after all), a red suit
squeeze against East, or a double squeeze etc.

With all these options, the odds must be on for the slam to be at least
playable, if not lay down, and seems to be the best guess.

Even at MP, I think 6C is the bid to make. The risk of a spade ruff is
counter-balanced by the squeeze possiblities, and making 6C should provide
a decent score. The A of spade lead is much more likely against a club
contract than against 6NT.  (in 6NT, you will not be able to rectify the
count for a squeeze, in 6C, you may be able to get to dummy with
a trump, dicard a spade on the K of D and duck a spade)

Any bid you make maybe wrong, 6C is the least likely to be wrong. 5C is bad
since partner will never bid on with say, xx, Kxxx, KQxx, xxx or on
Jx, Kxx, Kxxxx, 109x. With the first hand a slam is lay down, with the 2nd,
it is odds on.

At MP, 4NT is better than 5C, since you will at least beat all the 5C
bidders, but both are very conservative.

The only time 4NT or 5c are correct, is at rubber bridge, when the opponents
have a partscore. The combined value of game and partscore, is enough to
steer one away from slams that are not clearly heavy favorites to make.

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
From: paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bob S. (was Re: Arggggh!)
Keywords: true, ouch
Date: 10 Jan 93 18:34:34 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <1993Jan8.010420.22398@leland.Stanford.EDU> altus@leland.Stanford.EDU (Steve Altus) writes:
>okay fine, i better include some bridge content...  IMPS, both red,
>1C-p-1S to you (partner acts very aggressively at the one level) 
>you hold:   ---, AQ9xxxx, AQTxx, x   (0-7-5-1 if i miscounted x's)
>
>
>your call?  (your methods are that 2C and 2S are both natural, 1NT
>shows the unbids without enough strength to double and is nonforcing,
>4S is natural, and 3C and 3S are asking for a notrump stopper in that
>suit...4C is undefined...   and would your answer change if you 
>had 2C or 2S available to show a very distributional 2-suiter?)
>

First, I presume that the opponents are playing standard (1NT = 15-17, 5
card majors, open better minor).

I REALLY want to tell partner that I have a two suiter on this hand,
especially since at IMPS I don't mind playing in diamonds as opposed to
hearts. Using MY methods I'd bid 2C showing an offensively oriented (good or
bad, NOT intermediate) 2 suiter, using your methods I think that I'll bid
1NT. I don't think that I could stand it if partner passed a double at the
one level. Then, if it goes 4S - P - P I'll re-open with a double (this is a
GREAT hand with some red suit support opposite but could easily lose 5 or 6
tricks opposite a mis-fit).
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bob S. (was Re: Arggggh!)
Keywords: true, ouch
Date: 8 Jan 93 07:24:02 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1993Jan8.010420.22398@leland.Stanford.EDU> altus@leland.Stanford.EDU (Steve Altus) writes:

>i just want to use up a tiny bit of net resources to say that i 
>think you people who are harshing on Bob are insane, and if you
>REALLY want to see flames then i'm sure someone can be persuaded to 
>give you an example.  

Every news group seems to have its own flash point that periodically
bursts into flames.  Bob's posting style is the one for the bridge group.

To put it politely, Bob's posting style cannot be recommended as a
positive model for "Winning Friends and Influencing People On Usenet".

However I would like to point out that Bob is actually a very good writer
on Bridge theory and principles.  In the course of discussing a bid he
usually ties the specific back to general principle in a clear cut way.

-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
From: mbrgw@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk (R.G. Walters)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bidding Opinions Sought - Part Two
Date: 9 Jan 93 17:20:04 GMT
Organization: Daresbury Lab., Warrington, U.K.
NNTP-Posting-Host: seqnet.dl.ac.uk

>>   >IMPs, White/White, Dealer: West
>>   >You sit South holding:
>>   >	s x
>>   >	h JTxx
>>   >	d KJxxxxx
>>   >	c x
>>   > 
>>
>>           W	N	E	S
>>           p	1NT-*	2D-**	?
>>
>>   *- 15:17HCP with 4333,4432,5332; 
>>      Agreed conventional reponses to 1NT are NFStaymen, JXF (2N->3C), TXF.
>>      All conventional responses off over interference except Q is
>>      Staymen and X is penalty.
>>
>>   **- Artificial, shows both majors
>>
>>   Same hand, this time E overcalls 1NT.  How does South proceed?
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Call the director :-)

Robin Walters.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: Bidding Opinions Sought
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:14:32 GMT

In article <1ihmfgINNhg2@transfer.stratus.com> kvk@questor.sw.stratus.com (Ken Koellner) writes:
>IMPs, White/White, Dealer: West
>You sit South holding:
>	s x
>	h JTxx
>	d KJxxxxx
>	c x
>
>The auction start out:
>	W	N	E	S
>	p	1NT	p	?
>
>What's the best reponse?  
 
Firstly, you do not say what kind of 1NT you are playing.
The response to a K-S or ACOL 1NT would not be the same as to a 16-18
or other 1NT.

Secondly, I hate to say this again, but it depends on your methods. I have a 
way of dealing with such hands [a variation of Walsh relays],  but it is
unlikely that you play Walsh.

Do you play 4 suit transfers? If so, do you have pre-acceptance bids
for your transfers? etc. etc.

The question also does not admit a unique answer. 'Best' is highly
subjective.

I would handle this by transferring into diamonds by bidding 2NT.
What happens next depends on partner's response. If partner bids 3C
[a pre-acceptance bid], then I would bid 3H. The pre-acceptance
bid over a transfer into a minor says: "partner; if your transfer
bid is based upon an invitational hand with a diamond suit, I would
accept because I have good diamond support".  If partner has poor
diamond support (say xx) he will simply accept the transfer and I
will PASS.

Note that this sequence:

1N	2N
3C	3H

is only a search for game. Some people might think it is a slam try
cuebid in support of diamonds, but it is not because of the principle:
GAME BEFORE SLAM.  It is also not a slam try, because I have a
separate way of making a broken suited slam try in diamonds [or solid
suited] with a secondary suit.
 
If partner raises 3H to 4H, I sit. If he bids 5D, I sit. Over anything
else I bid a simple 4D.


Transfer into diamonds. If partner pre-accepts, try 3H. If partner does
not, then pass.
--
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: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan)
Subject: Re: Reading List?
Organization: Irvine Compiler Corp., Irvine, California, USA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:57:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.193903.1604@netcom.com> ditt@netcom.com (Debora Dittmar) 
writes:

> What books would rgbers recommend for a bridge novice to read? I want to 
> stick to Standard American bidding for the present. I've already got 
> Root's Commonsense Bidding, Root and Pavlicek's Modern Bridge Conventions
> and Kantar's Bridge Conventions. 
>
> Something on actually playing the hand comes to mind, but what's good? 
> Also, what books would be useful on the strategies that duplicate requires?

I don't know what level you're looking for.  The books I'm about to
mention assume you understand the fundamentals.  If you at least know
what a finesse is and you know how to use Stayman, then you're
probably good enough to take a look at these books.

Some books on play and defense that helped me a lot when I was
starting out: Kantar's "Test Your Play, Volume 2"; Kantar's "Kantar
for the Defense, Volume 1"; and Frank Stewart's "Better Bridge for the
Advancing Player" and "Winning Defense for the Advancing Player".
George Coffin's "Bridge Play from A to Z" is another good book on
declarer play techniques.

Mike Lawrence's "Judgement at Bridge" (someone help me if I got the
title wrong) is a good book on the finer points of bidding.  It's not
a book that teaches you Standard American;  it assumes you know the
basics of bidding, and deals with questions like "should you pass or
open with this hand?  If I have a choice of bids, which one should I
make?"  

If you're talking about matchpoint duplicate (i.e. a pairs game),
Woolsey's book "Matchpoints" has some good stuff in it, but it's
fairly advanced.  In my opinion, a novice shouldn't worry too much
about matchpoint techniques until she/he has the basics down.

                                -- have fun, Adam

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: davidm@questor.Rational.COM (David Moore)
Subject: Re: What's your call?
Organization: Rational
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:07:13 GMT

baseggio@deshaw.com (Franco Baseggio) writes:

>Flt B swiss, early round, white on white.  You, south, hold
>KT965
>AQ5
>A
>KT93

>South  North
>1S     1N
>2C     4S
>?

>1N was forcing, but limited to 12 HCP.  4S means that North was going
>to make a balanced 3 piece limit raise, but liked your 2C bid.

>What if you were in a long KO match?

Sit in either case. I am assuming that the 4S bid means that partner has
re-evaluated his limit raise with club support. I would make a perfect
minimum for partner something like AJx xx xxx AJxxx, on which hand, 6S
is a 25% shot  - not enough to go on. (Applying the old rule (Ruben's?) that
if slam makes when partner has a perfect minimum, try for it)

His hand at best will
look something like  AJx xx xxx AQxxx and 6S will be 50% to make. 
(With AQx xx xxx AQxxx, or even AQx xxx xxx AQxx, he surely would have
started with 2C. If he might bid the first of these via 1NT, then
passing is unclear). 

Knowing that partner has only three trumps gives you an advantage over those
players who cannot distinguish 3 from 4. I don't think the chance of slam
on this hand is sufficient to compensate giving up that advantage. With luck,
the trumps won't split.
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Monday, 4 Jan 1993 06:49:26 MST
From: <ATG2G@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Reading List?

Another classic introductory book is Sheinwold's "5 Weeks to Winning

Bridge."  It's a fine text on both bidding and play, although the

bidding is pre-1970s style (4CM, 1M-1NT not forcing, 2/1 = 10+, etc.).

Nevertheless, it's useful to understand the older treatments in order

to appreciate the rationale for today's SA treatments.  Also, Autobridge

has hundreds of tutorial deals in the basic-to-intermediate range.

-- Conrad Carlberg
From: rudy@netcom.com (Rudy)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Responding on 3 card majors
Date: 12 Jan 93 23:58:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1993Jan12.235855.1882
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Jan12.115307.795@cs.hw.ac.uk> idc@cs.hw.ac.uk (Ian Crorie) writes:

>What do you bid with Qxx x Jxx AQTxxx after 1D - 1S - 3S ?   Sometimes
>the 4-3 fit will be better than 3N so 4S will be o.k. but often it won't.

4 spades.  What's wrong with a 4-3 fit with the 3 card trump hand taking
ruffs?

>If these are departures from system then they are bad for partnership
>trust and if they are system then 1m - 1M has to be alerted (and are
>these legal anyway?).

Yes, it's legal.  Yes, it has to be alerted if it's part of the system.
I don't understand if you are frustrated with the fact that your partner
can't stick to your system, or that your partner can't play 4-3 fits.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge