HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Professor WHO?
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Defense against defense against Precision 1 club
Summary: Seems wrong to me...
Keywords: precision, defence, counterdefence, TWERB
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:03:12 GMT
Reply-To: maboyiny@ccvax.as.edu.tw (Dr. Weird)
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
Originator: boyiny@kovalevskaya
X-Subliminal-Message: Double and defend with your LIFE!

[Tom Carmichael:]
>	I also play Precision, but my defensive system is not something
>I'd like to get into.

I dunno.  Must have worked okay since you got my hopefully-never-seen-again
partner to go for 800 against nothing.

>What I play against 1C's against me (partner permitting) is something
>called TWERB.  Basically, if you bid a suit, you can't have that suit.
>You either have a one suiter in the one above (the transfer suit) or the
>other two remaining suits.  ....  1NT shows 2-suiter untouching. ...
>I also use this system vs 1NT openings.

I'd like to get people to think twice about adoping something like this....

Ask yourself, WHY am I playing a two-way destructive device that does not
afford me the realistic option of playing in the bid I makeif the doubling
begin often?  If one wants a destructive device, why not include a
hand-type that is the suit bid?

[Actually, I would rather that my opp's all play like that since it makes
life (and doubling) so much easier, but this is a forum for DISCUSSION....]

Actu
From: mlg@siemens.com. (Michael Greenberg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Meaning of bids when rho reopens with a X
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:03:51 GMT

Suppose you open 1D and the bidding goes

1D-p-p-X

What do the different bids mean? In particular, what's the meaning 
of XX, 1NT, 2D, 3D, new-suit, jump-shift?

Thanks,






--
Michael Greenberg                      email: mgreenberg@siemens.com
Siemens Corporate Research             phone: 609-734-3347
755 College Road East
Princeton, NJ 08540
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: hampton@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik)
Subject: Re: assign the blame
Organization: UMCC
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:12:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.140036.15400@walter.bellcore.com> mie@faline.bellcore.com (Martin I. Eiger) writes:
>Regular matchpoints game, NS vulnerable
>
>            S-A98753
>            H-3
>            D-654
>            C-T72                         W    N    E    S
>S-KQ642                 S-T              ---  ---  ---  ---
>H-J9742                 H-KQT86           P    P   1H    D
>D-2                     D-T9             4H   4S   5H    D
>C-86                    C-AKJ93           P   5S   P     P
>            S-J                           D    P   P     P
>            H-A5
>            D-AKQJ873
>            C-Q54
>
>Down three for minus 800 was a cold bottom for north and south.  5H
>doubled, going down 1, would have been better.
>
>North and south play 8-15 points for a simple overcall.  South claims
>that the first double, followed by a free bid in diamonds, was

So where was the free bid in diamonds?

>intended to show a strong one-suiter.  Unfortunately, the bidding got
>too high before south could bid the diamonds again.

That may hold water in a contested auction, but when the opponents have
dropped out of the bidding, South must correct to diamonds.  True
he is in over his head, but that is only his problem inasmuch as
he now has to play the hand.

>North claims that south should have made a 2D overcall instead of
>doubling.  North inferred that south had at least some tolerance for
>spades because of the double.

I don't know about this.  An agreement is an agreement, and if South
starts overcalling with super-maximum hands, North will be passing
it out when they are cold for game.  As for the merits of the
agreement, well, I'm not in a mood to step on Mr. Silverman's toes.

>South claims that north should have inferred from south's second
>double that south was prepared to defend against 5H and not prepared
>to play 5S, and that north therefore shouldn't have pulled the double
>of 5H.

This is IMHO correct.  North has little justification for pulling.
Can't South have something like Qxx xx AKxx Axxx, which produces
approximately the same results as the actual hand (5H down one
at least, 5S has got problems)?

>What's your opinion.  Who's to blame and why?

55% to North for pulling the double.  45% to South for not correcting
to diamonds.  I really hate North's bid because it is so unilateral,
but South had two chances to salvage something from the wreckage.

-- 
Kevin J. Podsiadlik         | "A recent survey has revealed that, if the
Vaporware Engineer          | election were to be held tomorrow, a whopping
2nd class                   | 98% of those polled would be glad it came
E-mail: hampton@ais.org     | early this year." -- Thomas Sowell (paraphrased)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: Professor WHO?
Subject: Re: Precision
Summary: Please read carefully, just this time.
Originator: boyiny@noether
Keywords: Precision, nebulous diamond, mini-Roman, 3-suiter
Reply-To: maboyiny@ccvax.as.edu.tw (Dr. Weird)
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
X-Subliminal-Message: You can stop playing a big club any time.
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 11:29:39 GMT

PLEASE read carefully-- I did say PATCH, above.

>Did C.C. Wei really choose the 2D opening just to fit the ACBL's silly
>restrictions?  This I find hard to believe.  It seems to me it's just there
>so that otherwise-problematic hands don't mess up the structure.  Bo-Yin
>(or anyone else), do you know of people who played a Precision system with
>mini-Roman 2D (i.e. 4441 singleton anywhere), and what sort of luck they had?

History time.

The first Precision team in the U.S. played 2D= ROMAN (16+ 3-suiter) and
2H= "modified Flannery", Flannery or the short diamonds.  it was the only
thing they could play to get pasrt the ACBL in those days.  You can't play
2D as a short 3-suiter.  Then the ACBL barred (in genr`eral events) the
modified Flannery thingie.  C.C. used his not inconsiderable wealth and
influence to get the okay for 2D "short diamonds".


In those days you can play Roman 2D (because a number of US experts liked
it) but not Roman 2C or mini-roman 2D.  Nobody thought that strange.
Noises for making changes were shouted down with great aplomb.

Don't blame C.C.  Rosenkranz get to play relays and his "dynamic no-trump"
because of his wealth.  Mind you, Precision and ROMEX were both fine ideas,
but without $$$$ you get no-where..

It was on record that C.C. Wei got on the good side of Dick Frey, formerly
a great upholder of tradition and Momma-poppa bidding, by getting him
tickets to a World Series involving the yankees in New York.  [Fery was
Sonny "Science be damned" Moyse's regular partner.]

End of rant.  yes, people have been known to play Mini-Roman with Precision
it works fine, or as fine as Mini-Roman and precision can be expected to
work to do.  Mini-Roman really isn't that great a bid in my opinion-- I
played it winningly for several years, and it always seemed to me as if it
was through no fault of our own.  if they would only double and defend
decently!


Apologies for the bad spelling.
From: sachs@tanner.berkeley.edu (Rainer Sachs)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: A curious question revisited.
Date: 12 Sep 1992 00:39:14 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
NNTP-Posting-Host: tanner.berkeley.edu
Keywords: Merry-go-round, WBF laws

In article <1992Sep11.115939.12378@ms.uky.edu> taddiken@ms.uky.edu (scott taddiken) writes:
>I'm trying to see if I've got it straight.  Suppose (as is in fact true)
>that I tend to overcall EXTREMELY light for lead directing purposes whenever
>I see that the opponents are using negative doubles.  From what Professor WHO
>has said, I gather that, once I have announced this fact, my opponents are
>allowed to say, "In that case we shall not play negative doubles," and I will
>have to stick to the weak overcalls I promised.  Negative doubles are a more
>formidable weapon than I had ever supposed. ... etc.

These are difficult questions. The obvious solution
is to make bridge partnerships into triplets.  The 
third member would be the team lawyer, who has taken a
master's degree in bridge law and ethics at one of the
accredited bridge law schools.  The lawyer would take
responsibility for all alerts, etc.  (He/she would sit
kitty-corner).  The lawyer, being used to trusts, would also be in
charge of partnership ditto, which, as we have learned, consists
of bidding exactly the way your partner retroactively wants you to
bid, and is far more
important than bidding sensibly and hoping partner trusts you
to use your judgement in undiscussed situations.
With everyone up on the laws and ethics and trust,
there would be no more disputes either between partners or between
opponents, just as our court system prevents such things in the
society at large.

Game theory suggests that the only alternative to such
bridge triplets is to assume bridge is
a game and cultivate an overall sense of fair play above the 
formal laws.  I gather there wouldn't be much support for that?
From: spencer@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Rebids over 1S--1NT! in 2/1
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:42:19 GMT
Reply-To: spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun)
Organization: Live Organ Transplants

This is a novice-type question, so you've been warned.

Applying the way I was taught 2/1 (Hi, Ben!) to the specific auction of
1S--1NT!, I come up with the following:

     o bid 2S if you have 6 spades
     o bid 2H if you have 4 hearts
     o bid a 3-card minor

My question involves the last two.  Suppose you have 5413 or 5431.  Do
you bid hearts or the minor, or something I've left off, and why?

As I see it (I'll re-draw attention to the first line... I've been playing
2/1 for almost a year now but my analysis is far from expert) bidding
hearts could cause problems if partner has a weak, distributional hand in
the minors or a weak balanced hand.  Not in all situations, but a distinct
possibility exists.  You could end up in 3m with a fit or 2N, but with a
paltry number of points if you both have a minimum.  (Side note, it seems
logical that after 1M--1NT!--2M or 1S--1NT!--2H, that 3m should be
non-forcing?)

This suggests that you opt for the 3-card minor, and partner can always
bid hearts over you, or if you bid 2C and partner bids 2D, then you can
bid 2H.

I eagerly await (civilized) analysis of my analysis.

----------- The opinions expressed in this article are solely mine. -----------
<Insert lame attempt at disclaimer humor>
sss/PU'94 Dept of CS (spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu)/JvNCnet (spencer@jvnc.net)
Judgement comes from experience.  Experience comes from poor judgement.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ahollander@dcs.simpact.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Precision
Date: 8 Sep 92 09:44:54 PDT
Organization: Simpact Associates, San Diego CA

> 
> History time.
> 
> The first Precision team in the U.S. played 2D= ROMAN (16+ 3-suiter) and
> 2H= "modified Flannery", Flannery or the short diamonds.  it was the only
> thing they could play to get pasrt the ACBL in those days.  You can't play
> 2D as a short 3-suiter.  Then the ACBL barred (in genr`eral events) the
> modified Flannery thingie.  C.C. used his not inconsiderable wealth and
> influence to get the okay for 2D "short diamonds".
> 

My recollection is that only one of the 3 pairs played it this way.  It was 
either Sontag and partner (not Weichsel back then) or Smith.  

The only time I recall seeing a description of Precision-Flannery (4S5H or 
3-suiter with 44 majors and either minor shortness) was for a 2D opening 
that Jeff Meckstroth wrote up in CC Wei's short-lived periodical "The 
Precision Club".

> In those days you can play Roman 2D 

Only in major events!  I believe everything Roman (except Roman Blackwood) 
was considered class F until late 70's or early 80's when the strong 
variety of 2D was allowed unconditionally.

Al
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: altus@leland.Stanford.EDU (Steve Altus)
Subject: Re: A curious question.
Keywords: ethics, laws
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 17:23:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.141817.184@ms.uky.edu> satadd00@nx06.mik.uky.edu (scott andrew taddiken) writes:
>The 'defenses to defenses to a strong 1c bid' thread has made me curious:
>what if two pairs sit down to play in, say, the US Open Pairs competition,
>and cannot agree on what system they are playing?
>
>The simplest example I can think of is this:  One pair announces to the other
>that they make VERY undisciplined use of weak two's (made illegal now, from
>what I hear, but this is a hypothetical question).  The other pair say, ok, in
>that case they will play the Fishbein convention, which allows the player over
>the weak two bidder to double for penalties with the right kind of hand.  Now
>the first pair look startled and say, well, they won't play those undisciplined
>weak two's after all.  Then the second pair says they won't use Fishbein after
>all.  Etcetera.
>

legend has it that the so-called "Merry-Go-Round Rule" applies here, and
that Bo-Yin once collected 1100 in committee when someone who normally 
opens Bergen-esque weak twos failed to against him, apparently because he
knew Bo-Yin played optional direct doubles and the either-or double in
balancing.  
 
Bo-Yin, care to elaborate?


--steve altus


Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao)
Subject: Optimal preempts? Depends on opponents.
Originator: daveshao@leland.Stanford.EDU
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 01:43:35 GMT

In my opinion, problems on preemption do not necessarily have a "right"
or "wrong" answer.  The most important factor is your opinion of your
opponents' play AT THAT MOMENT.

>Problem 1.
>Board-A-Match
>Vulnerability Unknown
>Dealer South

>You, South, hold, S-7632 H-9874 D-72 C-K93

>South  West   North  East
>Pass   1D     3C     Dbl(1)

>(1) Negative

A very good example of this comes from the quarterfinal match in the
1991 Bermuda Bowl in Yokohama between Iceland and USA II.  This was
Board 11 of the first of six 16 board segments.
(Source: World Championship Book 1991)

Vul:None   KJ864
           A96
           T2
           QJ9
7                   5                   
QT2                 J843
KQJ764              95
643                 KT8752
           AQT932
           K75
           A83
           A

Open Room
West        North        East      South
Feldman     Baldursson   Bramley   Jorgensen
-           -            -         1C*
2D          2S           P         3S
P           4H           P         6S
P           P            P

Closed Room
West        North        East      South
Arnarson    Weinstein    Jonsson   Stewart 
-           -            -         1C*
3D          3S           4D        5D
P           5H           P         7S
P           P            P

The background to this board is that the Icelandic team had started
the first segment very well and were already ahead 37-4 IMPs.
(For example, on the first two boards Feldman and Bramley went -300
when doubled at low part score contracts.  And on board 6 Feldman
and Bramley were -800 in 4S while Weinstein and Stewart were stopping
in 3H for 170 after a Multi 2D opening by Iceland.)  

After Board 11 Iceland led 51-4.  And then on Board 12 ...

Vul:NS     65
           A8432
           KJT542
           -
KJT932               A874
KT9                  QJ765
Q8                   6
97                   KQ4
           Q
           -
           A973
           AJT86532  
Open Room
West        North        East      South
Feldman     Baldursson   Bramley   Jorgensen
2S          3D           4S        6D
P           P            P

Closed Room
West        North        East      South
Arnarson    Weinstein    Jonsson   Stewart 
2D(1)       P            2NT(2)    3C      (1) some kind of Multi
P           3D           4D        5C      (2) I don't know what this is
P           P            5H        6C
P           P            x         All pass

After this board Iceland led 68-4 and the match was effectively over.
(Incidentally, Boards 6 and 12 demonstrate why some in the United
States wish to ban the Multi.  And in Boards 6, 11, and 12 neither
the weak two bid nor the weak jump overcall by Feldman and Bramley
prevented the Icelanders from obtaining a good score.)





Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ted@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying)
Subject: Re: Law problem
Organization: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:57:06 GMT

desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:

>Warren Usui <aardvark@locus.com> writes:
>>On a related note, rather than claim, is it considered okay ettiquette
>>to continue to play the hand but hold it so that everybody at the table
>>can see it (making it obvious that you are exposing your hand)?

>I don't know if it is polite or impolite, but it is certainly improper.
>Intentionally exposing your hand is the same thing as claiming.  Your
>opponents can and will insist that you state your entire line at that
>point.

	Not merely improper, but also illegal.  According to ACBL Law
	48.B.2, once you face your cards, you have started a claim or
	concession.

	Under law 68, facing of the cards, MUST be followed by an
	explanation of the play of the remaining tricks (if a claim)
	and ALL PLAY MUST CEASE.  In fact, the laws specifically state
	the the director should void any plays made after a claim was
	made.

	Also, if an improper claim was made, then the director should
	revert to Law 70 for Contested Claims.

	In short, do not face your cards unless you intend to claim or
	concede the remaining tricks, since all play MUST stop when one
	player faces his/her hand.

	Ted Ying			ted@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov
	Hughes/STX			Goddard Space Flight Center
From: kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Meckstroth-Rodwell book
Date: 7 Sep 92 02:35:26 GMT


Is this book good? i.e. do they describe system
clearly and without contradictions. For examples
Goren's book on Precision has several inconsistencies
where assertions on page n are contradicted on page n+m, for small m.

If book is good, where can you get it?

dennis
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: 1S-2D-3C
Date: 9 Sep 92 02:02:01 GMT
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: cypress.cs.utexas.edu

In article <laql2bINNf6s@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> zilch@apples.Eng.Sun.COM writes:

>Time to hear from others: do you agree with either of these statements:
>1.  Your preferred style is that a reverse is limited to something 
>    below 20+ points
>2.  A lot of other people who play splinters also play that a reverse
>	is limited to something below 20+ points.

>Just trying to know what to expect from the 40+ new partners
>that I play with each year...

While I do not (quite) go along with the theory that all forcing bids
are unlimited, I think the idea of limited reverses is a holdover from
the days when they were nonforcing.  Obviously, nonforcing bids *must*
be somehow limited.  Reversing with precisely 17-19 points seems a bit
of a waste.  Therefore:

1. My preferred style is that reverses are limited only by the
   failure to open 2C.
2. I really don't know what "a lot of other people who play
   splinters" do, but limited but strong forcing reverses don't
   make any sense to me.  If they are in some sense "standard",
   I think they shouldn't be.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
From: aardvark@locus.com (Warren Usui)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Law problem
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:03:57 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California

In article <matthew.716497140@base.cs.ucla.edu> matthew@base.cs.ucla.edu (Matthew Merzbacher) writes:
>
>Claims are funny things.  Especially claims for "all but n" of the tricks.
>I only claim if we are in a hurry to finish the hand.  Otherwise, I'll take
>the extra 20 seconds to finish the hand.  Oh - I occasionally will claim 
>if one of my opponents goes into the tank needlessly (probably because I 
>didn't claim). 
>
>Basically, claiming against weak pairs typically saves no time.  
>If someone goes into the tank on defense, then they're probably a good 
>enough player to understand my claim.
>

On a related note, rather than claim, is it considered okay ettiquette
to continue to play the hand but hold it so that everybody at the table
can see it (making it obvious that you are exposing your hand)?  Then if
opponents want to grant you a claim, they can; and you never end up 
misclaiming (at worst you give the opponents useful information).

-- 
Warren Usui
aardvark@locus.com
uunet!lcc!aardvark
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: Professor WHO?
Subject: Re: Meckstroth-Rodwell book
Summary: Mea Culpa, mea maxima culpa!
Originator: boyiny@kovalevskaya
Keywords: system, Precision 
Reply-To: maboyiny@ccvax.as.edu.tw (Dr. Weird)
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
X-Subliminal-Message: You can stopplayingabigclubanytimeyouwant!
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 01:14:48 GMT

Dennis Kibler asks:
>
>Is this book good? i.e. do they describe system
>clearly and without contradictions. For examples
>Goren's book on Precision has several inconsistencies
>where assertions on page n are contradicted on page n+m, for small m.
>
>If book is good, where can you get it?
>
>dennis


I apologise to all the readers who were misled by my post as Dennis did.  
I was merely remarking on the fact that M-R has a HUGE volume of notes that
by his own admissiobnwas at least 400 pages long or so.

I have no doubt that if they DOpublish it it will be good.

[My space bar is stuck,sorry.]

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge