HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Wanted: Description of Mexican 2D
Date: 26 Aug 1992 21:07:01 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Aug26.215917.29425@enterprise.rdd.lmsc.lockheed.com> teague@stc.lockheed.com writes:
>Would someone please send me a description of the Mexican 2D convention?

>Thanks,

>Alan

Which one?

ROMEX vintage about 1970 used a 2D opening that showed a balanced
or semibalanced hand of 19 or 20 HCP.  (Actually, Mexican 2D predated
ROMEX, but that's a side issue.)  The responses were complex.  Nearly
every thing was a transfer.  The *basic* stuff was:

Pass: Long diamonds, game unlikely opposite maximum.
2H:   Transfer to 2S (forced).  Responder then passed, bid 2NT
      (invitational), or bid artificially at the 3-level.
2S:   Transfer to 2NT (forced).  Responder then passed or bid
      as over an opening 2NT (Stayman and transfers, I think).

I forget the rest.

For more info, try to find a copy of _Win With Romex_.  It's long
out of print and taylor@tivoli.com has my copy.



The latest published version is simply a part of the ROMEX system.
It resembles the Multi 2D that is popular worldwide but illegal
in most ACBL tournaments, except that all of the possible hands
are strong.  (That makes it legal.)  These are the possibilities:

1. 21 or 22 HCP balanced, or 27-28 HCP balanced.
2. Game-forcing hands with primary diamonds (i.e., a strong 2 in
   diamonds, either 1-suited or two suited but diamonds longest).
3. 4441 hands with 3 losers or less.

Responder bids according to point count, of all things:
2H:    0-4 HCP
2S:    5-10 HCP
2NT    11+ HCP  (But some don't use this, and it's rare anyway.)

Opener's rebids:
2S:    Diamonds with secondary spades.
2NT:   21-22 HCP balanced.
3C:    Diamond 2-suiter.
3D:    Diamond 1-suiter.
3H:    1-4-4-4.
3S:    4-4-4-1.
3NT:   27-28 HCP balanced (or 21-22 if responder bid 2NT).
4C:    4-4-1-4.
4D:    4-1-4-4.
7NT:   27-28 HCP balanced (but only if responder bid 2NT).

For more info, see Rosenkranz's _Bid to Win, Play for Pleasure_.

There have been other versions between these two, and I would be
surprised if what I have just described is what Rosenkranz is
presently using.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bid this, or something
Date: 29 Aug 92 16:19:12 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Kevin Podsiadlik <hampton@ais.org> writes:
>>> S - 7 4
>>> H - Q 7
>>> D - A K 10 9 8 5
>>> C - 8 5 2

>>> S - A K 3 2
>>> H - K J 10 9 6
>>> D - <nil>
>>> C - K Q 9 6

> 3NT is not a terrible contract on this specific pair of hands, since,
> if you can get to dummy, you can wrap up four hearts, two spades, two
> diamonds and a club, assuming the defenders can't take three spade
> tricks to go with their two aces.  It comes to about a 45% game.

This is just wrong.  Suppose LHO does have the heart ace, and leads a
spade.  If you win and lead a heart to the queen, and it holds, now
what?  If you cash two diamonds, the opponents rate to take two
diamonds, two aces, and at least one spade, before you can score more
than eight tricks.  This doesn't look very promising.

It looks better to cash only one diamond, and lead a club to the king,
and clear the hearts.  Win the spade exit, cash the remaining hearts,
and exit in spades.  Now, if you are lucky, the opponents can take only
two spades and two aces before giving you a ninth trick in clubs or
diamonds.

But you need the heart ace on your left, and the club ace on your right,
and a not-unfavorable spade position.  It's true that you have a few
other chances: clubs can be very friendly, or the opponents might have
communication problems, or they might get off to a bad lead.  Perhaps
3NT will make 30% of the time.

Of course, 4H is virtually cold.

                                        David desJardins
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: jeacocke@elec.uq.oz.au (Mark Jeacocke)
Subject: Re: This weekends results from Salsomaggiore
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Jjjjjpath: s1.elec.uq.oz.au!jeacocke
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:02:23 GMT

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

>>2. RHO opens 1H (9-13 hcp, 4+Hearts). You hold
>> AQ/A9x/xxx/AQJxx. No one is vulnerable, what do you bid?
>>Your 1NT overcall is 15-18.

>2C.  What else?  Why would you bid 1NT on a hand which is so
>suit-oriented?

Maybe I'm missing something as a relative newcomer to the game but
I would have thought that this hand was too strong to overcall.
I would have either doubled (16+ any) and rebid clubs or overcalled
1NT, with my personal preference for the 1NT overcall, since it seems to
describe my hand quite well.
Could someone please explain why a 2C overcall is preferable?

Cheers

Mark Jeacocke
jeacocke@s1.elec.uq.oz.au

>                                        David desJardins
From: taylor@foraker.tivoli.com (Eric Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Bidding Slams Quickly
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:33:16 GMT
Organization: TIVOLI Systems, Inc.

Has anyone worked out the general odds
of making impossible slams because the opponents
have no information vs careful investigation that
gives the opponents maximum information?


On a related note :

MatchPoints, You hold somehting like :

A10xx
Kx
AJ9x
Jx

Partner opens 1C*   (ACOL 2, or strong blanced, or normal with clubs)
you respond 1S(*)    (May bypass longer diamond suit).
Your partner responds 4S.   (Probably  4??? balanced 19-20 or 4??5 19-20)

I leapt to an immediate 6S.  I felt bad for not
trying for 6N.  It did turn out that 6S was 50% and 6N 25%
so I felt a little better.

Does anyone have an intelligient way of deciding 6N or 6S)?
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ted@sage0.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying)
Subject: Re: 1+1
Keywords: gunfighters
Organization: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:30:43 GMT

rainbow@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rob Buchner) writes:

>People don't waste their own time asking questions for which
>they don't want an honest, sincere, knowledgeable answer.
>If someone wants to know what 1+1 is, it is because they
>don't know the answer. They obviously have not yet learned
>the basic fundamentals which have led up to the question.
>Should they be put down for this inadequacy? I doubt it.
>It is an opportunity for someone to be a teacher, to be a
>
	The problem that we often have here is with novice players
	who don't advertise such.  As Bob Silverman pointed out in
	another article, the general audience of RGB consists of
	moderate players.

	Novices who advertise themselves as novices before answering
	questions generally get treated better than when they don't
	announce themselves.  Otherwise, they get treated the same as
	the rest of us.

	If I say something stupid, I expect I'll be called on it.
	For example, recently I made a snobbish faux pas about categorizing
	2/1 always game forcing as the "ONLY" way.  A number of people
	pointed out the distinctions and reasonings and I recognize the
	reasoning behind playing Lawrence-style 2/1 instead.  In fact,
	one of my partners, after reading some of the followups has
	suggested modifying our card to reflect some of these suggestions.
	I did get flamed for my tone and deserved it.

	The key to this newsgroup is that we have to gear towards the
	middle or median of the group and not towards the bottom of the
	group or we'll definitely lose the top portion of the audience.
	If we assume that the general audience is along the median, then
	those outside the median should advertise that they have less
	experience lest they make a ridiculous statement.

	We are all much more willing to tone down the flame-throwers and
	help out when someone comes out as a novice.  

	Ted Ying			ted@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov
	Hughes/STX			Goddard Space Flight Center
From: bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bid this, or something
Date: 27 Aug 92 23:00:46 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
X-Subliminal-Message: You can quit reading news anytime you want.

In article <23573@alice.att.com> jj@alice.att.com (alice!jj) writes:
|Well, either I'm not too bright, or something.
|
|What do people suggest for bidding methods over pre-empts (he's
|asking it again).
|
|Case in point. You are third hand.  Partner opens 2D (weak, pre-empt,
|implies at least 2 honors and 6 cards, no voids, at most
|one singleton, but better none.  I'd prefer none, but we've
|had this discussion a few times). 
|
|You hold
|
|S - A K 3 2
|H - K J 10 9 6
|D - <nil>
|C - K Q 9 6
|
|Bid what?  (actual auction deleted, ridicule expected and likely deserved)
|

passing is probably reasonable here.  You'll probably make 2D at least,
and if the opponents get in the auction you can probably double them for 
a good score.  As an alternative you could bid 2H, esp. if non-forcing as
I play it (although then dummy is probably worthless unless partner magically
has the AK of diamonds and an entry like the QS, or the opponents are gracious
enough not to lead trump, so that you have a spade ruff).  Game is only on if
partner has a decent hand with good hearts, and even then the likely trump
lead might kill it.  If 2H is forcing and you choose to bid it, then surely
you will pass if partner persists in 3D.

|As an aside, pard holds:
|
|
|S - 7 4
|H - Q 7
|D - A K 10 9 8 5
|C - 8 5 2
|
|I'm sure we're doing something wrong. Care to enlighten me?
|-- 


ben
--

Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se (Lars.Andersson)
Subject: Re: Thursdays results from Salsomaggiore
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:21:40 GMT

In article <Bu1M27.p3@cs.vu.nl> sater@cs.vu.nl (Hans van Staveren) writes:
>Semifinals open:
>
>US - Sweden		202 - 137

Oh No, not again. Sweden now holds the following interesting results since
1986;
1986, Rosenblum Cup, 3rd
1987, Bermuda Bowl, 3rd
1988, Olympiad in Venice, 3rd
1989, European Ch in Abo, 3rd
1991, Bermuda Bowl, 3rd
1992, Olympiad in Salsomaggiore, 3rd or 4th

In between they won the European Ch in 1987 and finished 2nd in 1991.

Congratulations to the US and good luck against France.

>Netherlands - France	115 - 149

Well done Netherlands and congratulations France.

-- lars
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Precision, anyone?
From: bclaus@cs.wright.edu (Brian Clausing)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 05:38:53 GMT
Organization: Wright State University

From article <1992Aug26.163952.9341@ariel.ec.usf.edu>, by pollock@eggo.tmc.edu (Wayne Pollock):
> In article <l97pruINNhkp@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> zilch@planb.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>>...
>>A difficulty is in finding not only people with whom to play
>>but also with whom to discuss it.  ...
	[....]
> Not true.  The big win with Precision is just these sort of auctions, where
> by opening a with a limit bid right away (most of the time), the effectiveness
> of competitive bids are decreased.  For example, would you rather be playing
> SA, 2/1, or Precision and hear the auction preceed 1-diamond, 2-spades, ???
> The major weakness in Precision is the 1-club opening bid; now that opponents
> don't pass out of fear anymore, players are working on methods to help in this
> case.  (If you have any ideas, why not start a discussion here and post 'em?)
> 
Players working on methods to alleviate the weakness of the 1 Club
opening might check to see what Messrs. Garozzo, Belladonna, and
Forquet do with Blue Team Club.

I'd nominate the ``garbage diamond" opening as the biggest weakness
of Precision.  At least, after 1 Club, opener is known to have a few
high cards.  After 1 Diamond (as played by MeckWell), opener can
hold almost anything _except_ a lot of high cards.  Judging from
tournament reports, Meckstroth-Rodwell, who are at the very top of the
heap, have more trouble with 1 Diamond than 1 Club.

Brian Clausing
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: barth@bcse.enet.dec.com (Karl Barth)
Subject: Re: bidding
Reply-To: barth@bcse.enet.dec.com (Karl Barth)
Organization: Bridge-o-matic, Inc.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 14:17:13 GMT

In article <ted.714682594@sage0>, ted@sage0.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) writes:
||>
|>>	I believe Lawrence's 2/1 system (which I've only heard of vaguely)
|>>advocates rebidding your opening with a minimum (even on a 5 bagger) instead
|>>of going to the three level.  And I know that a handful of strong players
|>>in San Antonio (strong, I'll admit, is subjective) working on a consensus
|>>2/1 (between 4-5 players who routinely partner with everyone else in theri
|>>group) play that 3C shows extras.  Of course, they also play that 2D might
|>>not be 100% GF (if responder rebids 3D), so the logic for showing extras
|>>exists.
|>
|>	If you play this way, then you are essentially playing "Standard"
|>	and not 2/1 (but calling it 2/1 to be in vogue).  If you play 2/1
|>	then you should bid 3C any times your hand pattern warrants it
|>	without need for showing or denying extra values.  If you are
|>	worried about showing or denying extra values and have to bid
|>	differently to show it, then you defeat the whole idea behind 2/1
|>	sequences.  2/1 sequences allow you to guarantee a forcing auction
|>	and complete shape and feature descriptions below game.  If 3C
|>	in that auction shows extra values then, you need to bid 2H on
|>	x/AKxxx/Qxx/Kxxx.  This is no longer a 2/1 sequence.  Feh.  Play
|>	this if you will (and I have no problems playing this) but don't
|>	play "2/1" and expect me to understand this.
|>
|>	I agree with Bob, I don't know of a 2/1 system where 3C would
|>	guarantee extra values.  It normally merely shows shape (and
|>	not extra shape like a second 5 bagger).
|>
|>	Ted Ying			ted@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov
|>	Hughes/STX			Goddard Space Flight Center
|>

There's certainly nothing wrong with this view of the 2/1 universe.  But the question
has now been reduced to "religion."   What constitutes 2/1 is subject to interpretation
in any universe, but to say "2/1 with exceptions is not 2/1" simply reduces the issue
to a matter of definitions.

If you want to say that 2/1 is always 100% game forcing and nothing else is *really*
true 2/1, that is certainly a legitimate way of defining the system.  There are many
folks (Mike Lawrence for one) who hold a different opinion.  And to decry them as
"wrong,"  while accurate from one viewpoint, is not constructive since their angle doesn't
come to that conclusion.

The issue of 1H-2D; 3C showing extras is, to some extent, also religion.  It is playable.
It requires some compromises that some people don't like.  I have played it that way, 
and it's actually not that uncommon - I am surprised Bob S. hadn't heard of it before.
I don't think it's "normal 2/1" for that auction to show extras, though, and I wouldn't
assume it without having discussed it with partner.

K.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: dave@silver.sni.ca (Dave Till)
Subject: Re: Bid this one for me
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf, Sietec Open Systems, Toronto, Canada
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 13:20:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.183208.24027@sni.ca>, I wrote:
>>>N:	A K Q J 9 6 5 3 2      S:	   T
>>>	4                        	   A K 8 3
>>>	J 9                                A 7 6 5
>>>	4                                  A K Q T
>>>
>>>How would you bid this?
>>
>>      1 S                                   2 C
>>      3 S  (6+S, semi-solid suit or better) 4 NT (RKC)
>>      5 S  (2+Spade Q)                      5 NT (Kings?)
>>      7 NT
>
>I notice that no one has suggested the following:
>
>	1S		2C (or 3C? isn't this strong enough to jump shift?)
>	4NT		5S
>	5NT		6H
>	7NT
>
>I don't see why North can't go to Blackwood; all he/she really needs to know
>is how many side suit honours South has.
>
>Am I missing something?

As someone (kindly) pointed out, this bidding sequence wouldn't look too
good if South showed up with a spade void...

(blush)
-- 
--Dave Till, SNI, Sietec Open Systems Division (dave@snitor.uucp or "Hey, you")
"My Canada Includes The World Series" -- banner seen at SkyDome
Blue Jays all the way in '92!   (Allons-y Expos!)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:33:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Precision, anyone?
Organization: Princeton University
X-Subliminal-Message: You can quit reading news anytime you want.

In the (recent) past I played a forcing-pass system with Bill Chen and Alan
Jaffray, and recently have played a similar strong-club system that was
natural enough to satisfy our (admittedly liberal) club director.  Both
have 4-card major openings (pushed down to emphasize the majors, i.e. in
the forcing pass system, 1c = hearts, 1d = spades; in the strong-club system,
1d = spades, 1h = hearts, which isn't quite as good).  Both have a relay
system.

I think the real advantage to this system is in partial contracts, where the
limited openings and quick major-showing lets us get to the right place fast,
without allowing the opponents too much opportunity to bid.  As responder,
you can freely pre-empt over opener's limited bid.  I'm sure precision has
a similar benefit, although the mushy 1d opening can lead to some problems.

I think it's not so important, esp. at match-points, whether you have
completely amazing super-relay slam methods, because they don't come up often.
In fact I could see playing a system like this as an alternative to a
forcing-pass system (ala Terence Reese's Little Major):

1c = 10-14 points, 4+ hearts
1d = 10-14 points, 4+ spades
1h = 15+ points
1s, 2c, 2d = some minor-suit bids
1n = 11-14 points balanced, no 4-card major

Perhaps you lose a bit on strong hands, but you gain big in auctions like

1d - 3h

where responder has, say, up to 8 points or so and lots of hearts, or

1d - 2s

where responder has a weak hand with 4 spades; In a natural system this
might go

1c - 1d - 1s - 2s.

If you really object to the 1h bid being so weak, maybe you can move it up to
18+ points and do something diabolical like

1h = 18+ points or 11-14 weak NT

to discourage pre-empting by opponents.


In article <1992Aug27.220624.11867@leland.Stanford.EDU> altus@leland.Stanford.EDU (Steve Altus) writes:
|
|2.  It would NOT be idiotic to play a strong club system if 1C is the 
|    weakness, because there are OTHER advantages!  having stricter limits
|    on opening one-bids can be advantageous, especially if you play very
|    light initial action.  note that a few people DO play 13+ clubs, which
|    certainly can't be the advantage of their system (they play 8-12 openings,
|    etc.),  but each person can judge for his or her self whether that falls
|    under the category of "idiotic."  :-)
|

Actually I think there are advantages of playing such a weak "strong opening"
esp. against good, aggressive players, in that it's much more dangerous to
do silly pre-empts against a 13+ strong opening than against a 16+ or 17+
strong opening, because you're much more likely to have game in the former
case.


ben
--

Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Was this bid ridiculous ?
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:26:50 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <BtJDMz.AC4@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>, bdsokolo@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Bernd Sokolowsky) writes:
> Playing in a small team tournament (4 teams) for training purposes,
> i came to the table and noticed, that there was no 7nt card in my
> bidding box. I was sure it was some kind of omen, but was it a hint
> or a warning ? Who could tell ? Anyways, ...
> 
> A few hands later, my partner opened 1nt in second seat, promising
> 12-14 hcp (sometimes as few as 11), and i had to look twice on my cards
> to believe what i saw. But it was true, i held
> 
>                     A, Axx, Atx, AKQJxx
> 
> ... So I looked again in my bidding box, suspiciously, and then i
> borrowed a 7nt card and lay it on the table.

Was there a 5nt card in your box?

- Tim
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Michaels without a c(l)ue--assign the blame
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:07:21 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Kevin Podsiadlik <hampton@ais.org> writes:
>T 7                 A K Q J 8
>9 2                 K Q 8 7 5
>7 5 3               K
>A K 9 7 4 2         6 5

>Pass      (1D)      2D(1)
>3C                  Pass

>3C overcame a 4-1 trump break, but the zero was still quite frigid.

I don't understand why this is such a bad score.  I expect a lot of
people would get to 4S on these cards, which doesn't rate to make.  Even
3S is not cold.  Perhaps spades were 3-3 and hearts also behaved and 4S
came rolling home?  This could fairly be called unlucky.

Of course, it is fortunate that 3C is as good as it is.  East could have
held Kx and x in the minors.  There's really not a lot of reason for
West to expect that clubs will be a better spot than a major.  I also
don't understand the point of having a weak/strong system if East
doesn't have enough to bid again with the strong hand.

On the other hand, it is also fortunate for the field that spades is
better than hearts.  A lot of players probably reached a spade contract
just because West took a preference, and would have reached the inferior
strain if the majors were reversed.

                                        David desJardins
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: a hand
Date: 23 Aug 92 20:50:45 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Dr. Weird <boyiny@math.mit.edu> writes:
>S:Q32		S:AK94
>H:AQ53		H:KT
>D:972		D:AK4
>C:A93		C:KQ87

>.... down 1400.  Lose 8 imps against "the other table".  Playing the ten
>would have saved six imps and my friend tries to find justification for his
>play from me......!   What do you think?

I think your friend's play was clearly wrong.  The only way it can work
is if LHO has precisely AK tight.  (If LHO had been dealt K74, RHO would
have won the first round of trumps to lead a black suit for a trump
promotion.)  It loses in either the diagram position or if LHO started
with K7 doubleton, each of which is about twice as likely as AK tight.

                                        David desJardins
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: Professor WHO?
Subject: Re: bidding
Originator: boyiny@kovalevskaya
Keywords: distribution, 2/1, variation, system
Reply-To: maboyiny@ccvax.as.edu.tw (Dr. Weird)
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
X-Subliminal-Message: Speak softly and carry a big club!
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 21:01:07 GMT


>>>	If you play this way, then you are essentially playing "Standard"
>>>	and not 2/1 (but calling it 2/1 to be in vogue).  If you play 2/1
>>>	then you should bid 3C any times your hand pattern warrants it
>>>	without need for showing or denying extra values.
>>
>>It's hard for me to accept that you know so much more about bidding than
>>Mike Lawrence that you can tell him how to bid. ...
>
>One point that should be mentioned. In Lawrence's system a 2 level response
>forces the auction up to (but no further than) 2NT. It is not "almost" game
>forcing.

In case someone hasn't point this out already-- in ML's "Workbook" 2/1M is
forcing to at least 3 of responder's suit-- it _IS_ almost game forcing.

And ML also advocates _reasonably_sound_ opening bids-- which is why I
prefer _not_ to play 2/1, because one _really_ need the protection of sound
opening bids to bid at all in 2/1.