HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: idc@cs.hw.ac.uk (Ian Crorie)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: need some help on bidding
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:03:37 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland

In article <1992Jul17.072609.21457@menudo.uh.edu> st1ge@Rosie.UH.EDU writes:
>
>      I'm new to this game and I need some help in how to use the following
>bidding response:
>
>(1)   Splinter
>(2)   Swiss
>(3)   Drury
>(4)   Minor Suit Stayman
>(5)   New Minor Suit Forcing

Sparingly!

Being serious, you should use as few conventions as you can get your
regular partner (if any) to play.   I'd advise people to play just 
Stayman and 4th suit forcing for their first year (or two) at the game 
as there is enough work to do on discussing the meaning of normal
sequences - are they forcing, sign offs, encouraging etc.   Learn the
answers to these, try to form a plan at trick one when playing a hand
and count in defence: these will be far more rewarding for your bridge
than trying to memorise conventions.

[I don't mean to be down on st1ge@Rosie.UH.EDU - just a general point.
 If no one answers the above then mail me ]





-- 
        "When I started, flying was dangerous and sex was safe"
                - Aer Lingus pilot at his retirement party
--
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ben@ph.tn.tudelft.nl (Ben Verwer)
Subject: Re: Zip Swiss misadventure
Organization: Delft University of Technology
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 00:10:39 GMT

zilch@planb.Eng.Sun.COM (John Hoffman) writes:

>Assign the blame...
>from yet another instant partnership at the Midnight Swiss teams
>in Toronto:

>All vul.
>South    West   North   East
>  3H      DBL    Pass    3N
>  Pass    Pass   Pass

>South leads the Jack of spades and East wishes he were somewhere else:

>            West
>            S- Q62
>            H- 
>            D- AKJ4
>            C- AK8632
>South                North
>S- JT                S- AK8753
>H- AKT9764           H- 832
>D- 85                D- T9
>C- 54                C- QT
>            East
>            S- 94
>            H- QJ5
>            D- Q7632
>            C- J97

>Playing safe, North ran 6 spades before returning a heart,
>for down 4.  It could have been down 9 (!) but EW also could have
>found a way to 5 of a minor, making on the fortuitous club break.

>Evaluate the EW bidding.

>John Hoffman
>john.hoffman@eng.sun.com

Seems like north thought his hand was to big for a 4c bid. So was planning
to bid clubs after souths bid but changed his mind having heard 3n.
I agree with the double.
If probably wouldn't have passed as north. With south having lots of hearts 
3n does not look good. So 4c now as the original plan was.
The 3n by south is of course total nonsense. Partner as you to bid
your best suit and you bid like hearts is your best suit.

If south bids 4D after the double I would bid 4H to see if south has anything
left. South should bid 5D concluding the bidding.

Blame: South 100%

Ben
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Problem Solvers' Panel 15.3
From: avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:29:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

taylor@foraker.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Eric Taylor) writes:
: In article <1992Jul21.162331.5201@speedy.aero.org>, Nick Martino writes:
: |> Brett Barksdale writes:
: |> >
: |> >Problem 3.
: |> >IMPs
: |> >N-S Vulnerable
: |> >Dealer North
: |> >
: |> >You, South, hold, S-AKQ4 H-A753 D-AQJ6 C-9
: |> >
: |> >South  West   North  East
: |> >              3C     Pass
: |> >?
: |> >
: |> >What call do you make?
: |> I couldn't resist this one. Honestly, I can't believe anyone would expect to go
: |> down in 6C on these cards after partner bid 3C red vs white.
:
: I'll tell you how.  First of all, you should COUNT on 1 trump loser.
: You have only 1 finesse available.  That missing honor had
: better be a doubleton.
:
: Partner has six cards in the outside suits and you have 5.5 cover cards.
: You might add a little for the possiblity of partner having 3 spades, but
: the spades would have to break or you might get
: a spade-diamond squeeze.  I would guess that this percentage is about the
: same as not getting a good club break.
:
: That leaves you with about a 50% slam.  Certainly not bad odds, but
: I certainly would expect to go down 50% of the time.
:

I think that this is a wild exageration. The slam is at best a 50%
propostion.

The first thing to consider is that the clubs are not solid. If they were,
partner would have opened 3NT.  Consequently, you have 1 Club loser, but
you may vey well have two, mainly because you have only a singleton trump and
can play thru only once.  Consequently, the slam makes about half the time
there is only one club loser.  I am sure David Desjardins can gives us
the exact prior odds, but I will guess they will be closer to 33% than
to 50%

As a rule, one should bis small slams that are AT WORST 50%, not those that
are AT BEST 50%.  This is why people play RKC, they don't want to be in
slam missing an Ace and the K of trumps, as these are AT BEST 50%.

Avi
From: 01wang@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Play Bridge through the net?
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:18:58 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Hi, I am a new-leaner of bridge. I know there is a public mud(domain) for
bridge player. Could someone over here tell my the address? I'd like to
join it and have some fun. Thanks!!!

Roland
From: grove@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Eddie Grove)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Short vs Long suit game tries
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:54:10 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: triangle.berkeley.edu

In article <24158@castle.ed.ac.uk> graeme@castle.ed.ac.uk (G J Ackland) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.030846.5333@ramon.bgu.ac.il> avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira) writes:

[Talking about short suit games tries - SSGT]

>>You don't lose anything by this approach. Bidding the suit above the
>>singleton minimizes the risk that the oppenents will be able to find a cheap
>>sacrifice by doubling.
>> [rest deleted]
>
>I am not generally in favour of banning new ideas, but it seems to me
>that the claimed advantage of this (suit above the singleton) is to exploit
>the fact that opponents have not had chance to discuss defences to it.  

This is not the case.  The point is that there is no risk to the opponents
to double a short suit game try - the opening side will not be willing to
play there.  But if the game try might be a real suit, a double risks
being left in or redoubled.

>A ten second discussion (X shows length in the singleton suit) would
>resolve it - but who has the time?  As an opponent waiting to double the

But this call has some risk attached to it.  If responder holds strength
in the short suit and a few cards in the doubled suit the X loses big.
The point of bidding the suit above the shortness is to attach risk to
the double.  This is not about confusing the opponents.

Besides - double should show a desire to compete (unless you have
some lead-directing agreements, in which case there is no problem).
You can't be making a penalty double since they are going to play in
the suit.  After having passed twice already, it may not be too much
to expect partner to read the double as showing length in the short suit.
Then again maybe it is.  A better prepared partnership will outperform
a poorly prepared partnership of equal technical skill, and there is
nothing wrong with that.

>Surely a straight SSGT is fairer (and after the transfer, I suppose,
>rebidding trumps to show the unbiddable S/C suit).
>
>                              Graeme

It seems to me to be easier to defend against.  I would not call that 
fairer, but inferior.  The logic that it is only fair to use a system 
that lets the opponents compete without risk escapes me.

Eddie Grove
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: gfowler@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (george h. fowler)
Subject: Bridge program for the Mac?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:58:49 GMT

Sorry if this is a FAQ. (By the way, I haven't seen a FAQ file for this
group in a few weeks of monitoring it--is there one?) A recent posting
advertising a bridge program for the PC suggests that there might
conceivably be something for the Mac as well. If anybody has any
suggestions, I'd be grateful, either commercial or shareware (unlikely)
software.
     Thanks.
     George Fowler
     GFowler@IUBACS.Bitnet
            @UCS.Indiana.EDU
From: Nick Martino
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Problem Solvers' Panel 15.3
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:23:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation

Brett Barksdale writes:
>
>Problem 3.
>IMPs
>N-S Vulnerable
>Dealer North
>
>You, South, hold, S-AKQ4 H-A753 D-AQJ6 C-9
>
>South  West   North  East
>              3C     Pass
>?
>
>What call do you make?              
============================================================================
>
>Bid Tally: 6C - 14
>           5C - 9
>           3NT - 7
>           4NT - 3
>           3S,3D, DBL - 1 each

I couldn't resist this one. Honestly, I can't believe anyone would expect to go
down in 6C on these cards after partner bid 3C red vs white. I suspect those
who bid 3NT must now recognize that this was a very poor choice. The few
supporting comments made on behalf of that bid underscored just how bad it is.
Someone mentioned there might be 2 Club losers. Fine, then surely my 5 top
winners will cover everything else and 5C has to be a far superior contract at
IMP's. By my count, by the time you knock out 2 Club losers at NT, you're odds
on to lose 3 or more Hearts, not to mention a Diamond. Someone else cited the
six winners in the SOUTH hand. If I'm not mistaken, it still takes 9 winners to
make 3NT. Another mentioned that partner's Clubs might run, in which case 3NT
might just be a bit of an underbid. 
For those who think partner might have a 2-loser Club suit and a handful of
outside cards, I suggest you get a new partner.

To the panel's credit, 17 out of 36 committed the hand to slam and only one
misread the problem. It was not mentioned in the conditions whether you are
playing gambling 3NT, in which case the Grand is against the odds. In any case,
there is a way to get to the slam scientifically and stop in 5C when it's right
as well. Over a 3C preempt, I play that 4D is a form of Key Card Blackwood.
Over other 3-level preempts, I use 4C as the KC bid. Some partnerships may
choose to use this only over 3-of-a-minor preempts. The responses are:

                1-step     0 Key Cards
                2-steps    1 KC w/o the trump Queen
                3-steps    1 KC w/ the trump Queen
                4-steps    2 KC's w/o Queen
                5-steps    2 KC's w/ Queen

The given hand is not ideal for this convention. Partner could show 1KC with
the Queen and hold KQ108xxx(x), in which case the slam is not great (not
horrible either). I would contend that partner's suit should be better for
these conditions of contest. The convention does allow you to stay out of the
slam when partner lacks two of the top three honors. Note that over 4NT,
partner's 5D response leaves you badly placed. 

   
                                            Nick Martino
From: prm@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Paul Raymond McMullin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Problem Solvers' Panel 15.3
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:03:01 GMT
Reply-To: prm@aplcen (Paul McMullin APL x7823)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University

In article <1992Jul21.204546.20613@asc.slb.com> you write:
>>Submitter's Comments
>>--------------------
>>
>>I suspect that a fair number of people will call 3N.  The point is that there
>>is "no such thing as a RED vs WHITE preempt on the 3 level", so partner should
>>have great broken clubs and nothing outside so that the bid is descriptive.
>>
>>My partner managed a 5C call, which almost always makes 6.  The other table
>>managed 3N, which goes down on all but the most brain-dead of defenses.
>>
>>My 3C hand? T 6 953 KQJT8753  Maybe I should try 4C instead of 3C, but this
>>precludes partner bidding 3N holding AX of clubs and stoppers across.
>>
>=============
>Frankly, with that hand opposite
> S-AKQ4 H-A753 D-AQJ6 C-9
>
>I want to be in 6C. It looks to me that it takes a diamond opening lead and
>a bad spade break to beat it.
>--
>-- 
>
>        -- jwh

I was the submitter.  My comment included the fact that 6C was almost always
on, and that after I saw the dummy, I was sorry I hadn't started 4C, which
would have arrived us at 6C.

I stand by my submission to the panel.  The moderator put out a call for
problems, and I had just had this hand in a regional.  I suggested to the
moderator that a fair number of respondants would take the "macho" line and
trot out 3NT, and was not surprised to find about 1/4 of them making that call.

I salute all of the 6C callers; it is a reasonable call (as you point out),
and consistent with my comment that "there is no such thing as a [non -
descriptive] red-versus-white 3 level preempt"... but I don't really fault
the 5C bidders in this forum (without knowing exactly what style of preempts
are being played, the hand is VERY difficult), and was content that partner
had found the 5C call.

(BTW, he worked on his call long enough for EVERYONE at the table to know
that I had given partner instead of the opponents the problem with the 3C
call - his 5C call included the reasoning that we were playing a weaker
team and had probably already beaten them on the other boards; he didn't
want to let them back in with a failing slam... against stronger opponents
I suspect that he would have called 6C like many of the panel.)

I am mildly surprised at the reactions that my "submitters comments" have
generated.  So far, no one has objected to the 3C call (this was the most
shaky part of my submission as far as I was concerned), and most have appeared
to miss that my expectations that a fair number would call 3NT were met -
maybe I should take back my submission so that those guys will go on bidding
3NT against me with these hands...

cheers!

-prm
-- 
Paul McMullin prm@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu
From: davidm@voltaire.Rational.COM (David Moore)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Short vs Long suit game tries
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:29:21 GMT

varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) writes:

>By the way, do people generally relay for short-suit tries?  The published
>versions of this that I have seen bid the short-suit try directly and
>relay for the long- (or help-) suit try.

On the surface, it seems that it would be better to relay for help-suit
trial bids, since with more cards, the opponents are less likley to
interfere in the sequence. Which way you do it will also affect your
defensive methods over interference. It should be easier to nail
the opponents when they step out of line with long suit relays. 

Has anybody addressed the issue of using the two-way trial bids when opener
is in fact making a slam try? For example:

             1S  2S           1S    2S
             2N  3C   versus  3D    4S
             3H  4S           5C    ...
             5C  ...

In each of these, opener is (on the surface at least) cue bidding diamonds and
clubs. Should one keep the natural meanings (Axx in first sequence, x or - in
second), or is it possible to do better?
From: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Anyone have news from Toronto?
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:09:46 GMT
Reply-To: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Distribution: na
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

In article <1992Jul26.202624.18248@leland.Stanford.EDU> georgeyu@leland.Stanford.EDU (George Yu) writes:
>Anyone at Toronto have few minutes to give some news from the Nationals?
>I would especially appreciate news of the Grand Nationals and the Junior
>Trials (and the later national events as well).  Thanks in advance.

Well, as long as I'm sitting out this Quarter, I'l fill you in.

GNT: District 6 (robinson-boyd-manfield-lipsitz)
B: District 24 (haley-kulic-rothenberg-baumer)
C: District 22 (unger-morrin-ware-wewerka)

LM Pairs:  Bob Hamman and another texan (not Nick Nickell)
	   Hugh Ross and Zia Mahmood (by 2 matchpoints)
	   Mark Singer and Sid Brownstein (by another 7 mps)

A couple of upsets in the Spingold, Goodman-Mohan-etc (Vanderbilt winners
were KO'ed by a canadian team and so were Wittes-Grabel-Gerard-Steiner)

Juniors:
jeff blond - nicolas l'ecuyer, montreal
kevin wilson - eric greco, Pa - Tn
Jeff Ferro - leni holtz, CA
mike shuster - sam dinkin, ca

Weather is great!
-- 
"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: jch@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (jeffrey.c.halle)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Which Squeeze?
Date: 31 Jul 92 13:45:16 GMT
Organization: AT&T

From article <1528@idacrd.UUCP>, by desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins):
> The only way this line can fail is if one opponent really does guard
> both majors.  If West has them, then I couldn't have made it anyway:

Not true.  See below.

>         QTxx            xxx
>         QTxxxx          xxx
>         7x              JT8x2
>         x               xx
> If East has both majors, then I guess they got me:
>         Txx             Qxxx
>         Jxxx            Qxxxx
>         JT87x           x2
>         x               xx
> In that case I should have played for the double squeeze with the
> heart 3 as the double threat.

In both of these cases, you make it by cashing the second spade and the
diamonds.  Remember that there is a spade threat in BOTH hands.  However,
I agree that diamonds are almost certainly 4-3, so cash the majors.
From: taylor@foraker.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Eric Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Problem Solvers' Panel 15.3
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:30:24 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Jul21.162331.5201@speedy.aero.org>, Nick Martino writes:
|> Brett Barksdale writes:
|> >
|> >Problem 3.
|> >IMPs
|> >N-S Vulnerable
|> >Dealer North
|> >
|> >You, South, hold, S-AKQ4 H-A753 D-AQJ6 C-9
|> >
|> >South  West   North  East
|> >              3C     Pass
|> >?
|> >
|> >What call do you make?              
|> ============================================================================
|> >
|> >Bid Tally: 6C - 14
|> >           5C - 9
|> >           3NT - 7
|> >           4NT - 3
|> >           3S,3D, DBL - 1 each
|> 
|> I couldn't resist this one. Honestly, I can't believe anyone would expect to go
|> down in 6C on these cards after partner bid 3C red vs white.

I'll tell you how.  First of all, you should COUNT on 1 trump loser.
You have only 1 finesse available.  That missing honor had
better be a doubleton.

Partner has six cards in the outside suits and you have 5.5 cover cards.
You might add a little for the possiblity of partner having 3 spades, but
the spades would have to break or you might get
a spade-diamond squeeze.  I would guess that this percentage is about the
same as not getting a good club break.

That leaves you with about a 50% slam.  Certainly not bad odds, but
I certainly would expect to go down 50% of the time.

You will be in a much better position if you and your partner have some
sort of trump asking bid.
From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Yet another assign the blame
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:41:27 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Jul28.132031.12341@wam.umd.edu>, pi@wam.umd.edu (Raymond L. Gilbert) writes:
> S: A Q J T 9 x    S:
> H: x              H: T x x x
> D: J              D: A K x x x x
> C: A K J x x      C: x x x
> 
>      1S                1N
>      3C                3D
>      3S                3N
>      4S                5D
>      5N                P

I don't like the 3S bid.  It misdescribes opener's distribution.
1S-1N-3C-3D-4C would indicate 6-5 in the black suits (with 5-5,
opener would have started with 1C and then bid and rebid spades,
right?!) and allows responder to choose the best contract, 5C.

> As it turns out, clubs broke 4-1 and are sitting off sides ...

Well, then, you might not make 5C, but it's still the best contract.


                                - Tim
From: msl@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Mark Laventhal )
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 23:52:26 GMT
Subject: Re: EBL juniors: report 13?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Corvallis, OR, USA
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Italy, are you there?
Date: 30 Jul 1992 15:47:13 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In article <15618@star.cs.vu.nl> sater@cs.vu.nl (Hans van Staveren) writes:
>I am trying to organise the posting of the daily bulletins of the Olympiad
>in Salsomaggiore, but I need some help from Italy.

I would like to add my plea.

Two of the US players are regulars at my club (Tobi Deutch and
Mildred Breed).  I would like to print out copies and post them
at the club, to let everyone there know how Tobi and Mildred are
doing.  I think it would mean a lot to quite a few people.  But
first the bulletins have to *exist* on the net.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Zip Swiss misadventure
Date: 31 Jul 92 02:33:29 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

zilch@planb.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>All vul.
>South    West   North   East
>  3H      DBL    Pass    3N
>  Pass    Pass   Pass

>  West             East     
>  S- Q62           S- 94    
>  H-               H- QJ5   
>  D- AKJ4          D- Q7632 
>  C- AK8632        C- J97   

100% of the blame to South.  Preempts work.  What else is new?

                                        David desJardins





Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Myerson)
Subject: Re: Yet another assign the blame
Organization: Raytheon Company, Portsmouth, RI
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:44:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.132031.12341@wam.umd.edu> Raymond L. Gilbert writes:
* 
*     The following nasty sequence happened to my partner and
* me last night, playing 5cm S/A.
* 
* Matchpoints, E/W vul, N dealer
* 
*     North             South
* S: A Q J T 9 x    S:
* H: x              H: T x x x
* D: J              D: A K x x x x
* C: A K J x x      C: x x x
* 
* The bidding (E/W passing throughout, not even a double!):
*     North             South
*      1S                1N
*      3C                3D
*      3S                3N
*      4S                5D
*      5N                P
* Opening lead by W: 4H
* 
*     The only bid I really hated in this sequence was 5D, but
* still it was a nasty sequence.  Given the poor bidding, how
* would you now plan the play?  As it turns out, clubs broke 4-1
* and are sitting off sides for a nasty 300 set and a bottom board. 

I think the first 5 bids are ok. I disagree with the 3N bid.
Granted three small isn't the greatest of trump support,
but South definitely prefers clubs to spades.
North has shown a strong two-suiter, so South would just be showing
preference with a bid of 4C since the 3S bid did not show any further
length in clubs. South did not directly support clubs.

South's 1N and 3D bids pretty much describe the hand.
After that, it's time to support partner.

Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)