HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Ethics questions
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:13:38 GMT
Reply-To: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: ux5.lbl.gov

In article <1992Sep11.143903.17527@ms.uky.edu> jhaywood@ms.uky.edu (Joel D Haywood) writes:
>>You look at your hand and realize that your ace-deuce doubleton of diamonds
>>is the ace of diamonds and the deuce of hearts, and therefore that your call
>>should have been 4H and that 3N is going to be a grossly inferior contract.
>>1) Can you ethically correct 3N to 4H after partner's explanation?

>I really don't see why not.  Classically, the sequence 3H followed by 4H can be

My initial reaction was the same, however, thinking about some analogous
cases for a moment, I believe that once you've misbid your hand, if partner
correctly explained your bids you have to stick with the original sequence.

Analogy -- 1NT, you overcall 2H showing the majors.  Partner explains as
such and bids 2S.  You look at your hand and suddenly realize that your
spades are really all clubs.  Can you correct to 3C?  Of course not.
For all we know you might have thought 2H showed hearts and a minor (esp
if you have spade tolerance).  This is not _that_ different of a case.

>>2) If you choose to correct, and it ends up in committee, should the result be
>>   allowed to stand?
> 
>This problem is covered (at least it used to be) quite well in the Duplicate
>Law book under "mistaken explanation versus mistaken bid".  Since the
>explanation was correct, the opponents have not been damaged by the 3H call
>with respect to undisclosed partnership agreements.  If I were on such a
>committee, I would think that the reasoning behind 4H was either one
>of the situations in the reply to question one or the actual situation.
>Under the Laws, I can't imagine that either of these is damaging or could
>result in an adjusted score.

Except when it's not clear to the committee which of the two it is, they
have to go by unauthorized information possibly affecting the result,
and adjust the score.  That way they don't have to play the"I believe you
when you say you missorted your hand, but I don't believe you".  The
law should work the same way regardless of what the person with the hand
in question says s/he "thought".
>Anyway, this is my opinion.
>
>Joel
>-- 
>********************************************************************************                                                                                Joel D. Haywood                         jhaywood@ms.uky.edu                     (606) 231-9083 
>                         jhaywood@ukma.bitnet                                                                                                    ********************************************************************************


-- 
"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
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Steve Myerson)
Subject: Re: What would you bid?
Organization: Raytheon Company, Portsmouth, RI
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:01:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.150559.13343@news.duc.auburn.edu> jpnicol@eng.auburn.edu writes:
>In article 3645@tivoli.UUCP, taylor@foraker.tivoli.com (Eric Taylor) writes:
>> Zip Swiss, You hold :
>> xx
>> KQx
>> AKQxxxx
>> A
>> 
>> Bidding continues :
>> You        Partner
>> 1D         1H
>> ??
>> 
>> I would like to be in a heart game.
>> 
>> Would 4D normally promise a solid
>> suit and 4 card support?  Would this be
>> an acceptable lie?
>> 
>> 3D is non-forcing.
>
>How about 3C* (* - splinter)? It saves some bidding room, the drawback is that it 
>almost guarantees a spade lead.  I'm not sure 4D has a 'standard' meaning.

I think 3C is a jump shift, unless there has been a prior agreement
to use jump rebids as splinters.
4C would be a splinter without prior discussion.

My objection to a splinter on this hand is that
the high trumps may be needed to draw trumps,
so you shouldn't advertise that you can ruff clubs.

What would I bid on this hand? I dunno. Maybe 3 and a half diamonds.
That's stronger than 3 (a 7 card suit instead of just 6),
but not as strong as 4 (since I have only 3 hearts instead of 4). :-)

Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)
From: svp11@ccc.amdahl.com (Mughith Adham)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Please, Human Readable Files Only
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:50:46 GMT
Reply-To: svp11@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Mughith Adham)
Distribution: rec.games.bridge
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


To all users:

Please, can you only post human readable files on this

newsgroup. Thank you.


Mughith Adham
mza01@amail.amdahl.com
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Precision
Date: 7 Sep 1992 02:14:54 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: notrees.cs.utexas.edu

In article <97527@apadravya.princeton.edu> bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing) writes:

[About Precision]

>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?
>(BTW in our system we used 2D as an undisciplined diamond pre-empt, and if
>4414 hands ever came up, which they didn't, we would open 1H or something,
>and hope we don't get in a 2H contract on a 4-3 fit and get tapped in
>diamonds).

The Reed-Horn Club, called simply The System, predated both Precision
and Schenken.  It used 5-card majors, 12-14 HCP NT, 15-17 HCP 1NT
rebid after opening 1D, and mini-Roman.  Responder to 1C bid a 4-card
major if he had one (and a positive response).  This system has been
invented independently by at least a dozen people, many of them before
Wei and Precision.  IMHO it is *better* than most variants of Precision,
especially if the NV NT range is moved down to 10-13.

4-3 fits should be viewed as opportunities rather than problems.  8@).

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Ethics questions
Date: 12 Sep 92 21:23:07 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Asya Kamsky <asya@ux5.lbl.gov> writes:
>My initial reaction was the same, however, thinking about some analogous
>cases for a moment, I believe that once you've misbid your hand, if partner
>correctly explained your bids you have to stick with the original sequence.

I don't see why this should be the case, if there is *no* plausible
misunderstanding you could have been under, and thus that the
unauthorized information could have 

                                        David desJardins
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ted@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying)
Subject: Re: Meaning of bids when rho reopens with a X
Organization: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:39:09 GMT

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

>mlg@siemens.com. (Michael Greenberg) writes:
>>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?

>When the opening is 1 of a minor, typically a new suit at the
>1-level (almost always 1H) is a self-rescue.  Redouble is strong,
>probably balanced but possibly somewhat distributional.  1NT is
>18-20, but with 18 I would want a good diamond suit as a source
>of tricks.  Other bids are natural.  (I would think that 2NT here
>should show a big minor 2-suiter, though.  While conceivable, a
>natural 2NT seems a bit far-fetched.)  For most I would expect
>substantial distribution.

	Hmmm...this is different from what I learned as "standard"
	(I know...what the h*ll is that?).

	I always learned that after 1minor-P-P-X, all rebids except
	for a raise of your own suit show extras (at least 16+).  A
	raise of your own suit implies 6 with a minimum hand.  To
	show length in your suit and extras, you redouble.

	This means that 1minor-P-P-X-1major becomes a reverse.  Also
	1minor-P-P-X-1NT shows 18-19 (or whatever your 1.5 NT bid shows).
	In other words, a hand that would have rebid 2NT had partner bid.
	With most minimum hands, you leave it up to partner to pull since
	partner could have length in your suit (but relatively few points).

	It is up to the responding hand to pull if your minor is not a
	comfortable place to play or to at least SOS redouble to have you
	pull.

	1minor-P-P-X-P-P-XX is SOS and says find another place, this one
	isn't so good (fewer than three trumps).  Usually, you try to
	find a 4-3 major to rest in a the one level.  The problem that I
	see with playing a self pull is that this is a unilateral decision
	and partner doesn't get a say.  For example the hands:

	xx/xxx/Qxxxx/JTx		AJxx/Kxxx/KJx/xx

	probably play the best in 1D X, if anywhere.  If you make a self-
	pull, then what does partner do when (s)he prefers your first
	bid suit?  Additionally, you have the chance that if you pass,
	LHO will save you from the worst cases.  If you bid again, it
	seems to me to be asking for trouble.

	The above is the way I've always heard of as "standard".

	Ted Ying			ted@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov
	Hughes/STX			Goddard Space Flight Center
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: WC Problem - Full Hand
Date: 4 Sep 92 23:26:12 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

> AJ92
> KQ7
> 864
> A75

> K3
> J43
> A2
> K96432

I sent Ben Thompson mail in which I said (basically) that I thought it
was obvious just to play on clubs.  He and his associates disagree with
me, so it seems to be worth posting on the subject.

I think that we all agree that there are two possible lines.  Line 1:
Win the second diamond, try to run the clubs.  Line 2: Win the second
diamond, establish two heart tricks, try to run the clubs, if clubs fail
try for a miracle in spades.

Everyone should also agree that, in order for Line 1 to have a higher
probability of success than Line 2, the probability must be well over
90% that diamonds are 4-4.  This is easy to see.  Line 1 makes 3NT, and
Line 2 fails, when diamonds are 4-4, clubs are 3-1, and West's spades
are QTx or QT or Qxxxxx or Txxxxx.  Line 2 makes 3NT, and Line 1 fails,
when diamonds are 5-3 and clubs are 2-2.

(Note that the two lines are equivalent when clubs are 4-0, because
cashing one round reveals that fact.)

If X is the probability that diamonds are 4-4, then the advantage for
Line 1 is 0.030 * X, and the advantage for Line 2 is 0.412 * (1-X).  In
order for the former to be greater than the latter, X must be at least
0.932.

Personally I would put the probability that diamonds are 4-4 at around
60%.  A priori, K975 and K9753 have the same probability.  I would
almost always falsecard with the latter.  A relevant observation is that
East will know or strongly suspect that West is falsecarding; after all,
if South had a third diamond then South would have ducked another round.

But, the point of this article will be to show something else: even if
diamonds were KNOWN to be 4-4, it would STILL best to play on clubs
rather than hearts.

So, assume that diamonds are 4-4.  The above calculation shows an IMP
gain of 0.35 for Line 2 against Line 1, from making 3NT for +10 IMPs
with probability 0.035.  However, we also have to consider what happens
the other 96.5% of the time.

On Line 2, when clubs are 3-1 and the spade queen is offside you will go
down at least two tricks instead of one.  (Losing one spade, one heart,
three diamonds, and one club.)  A significant fraction of the time you
will in fact go down three tricks.  (If the opponents have the foresight
to duck a round of hearts, win the second, and then clear the hearts
after the diamonds.  After all, they know that diamonds are 4-4 too.)
But, even ignoring that, the extra undertrick is an IMP loss of 0.49 for
Line 2 against Line 1, from down two for -2 IMPs with probability 0.247.

Thus you lose more IMPs *just from the extra undertrick* than you expect
to gain when the spade miracle does happen.

                                        David desJardins
From: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: The law in question Re: A curious question.
Date: 11 Sep 1992 06:20:40 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Reply-To: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ux5.lbl.gov
Keywords: timing rule, system, agreements, preemption

To answer all the questions about the law involved:

LAW 40 E. 1.

  Both members of a partnership must employ the same system that
appears on the convention card.
  1. During a session of play, a system may not be varied, except
     with permission of the tournament director. (A director might
     allow a pair to change a convention, but would not allow a pair
     to change their basic system.)
  2. At the outset of a round or session, a pair may review their
     opponents' convention card and alter their defenses against the
     opponents' conventional calls and preemptive bids.  This must
     be announced to their opponents.  The opponents may not vary
     their system after being informed of these alterations in defense.


Nuff said.
-- 
"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
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: 7 Sep 92 19:20:25 GMT
Subject: Re: 1S-2D-3C
Organization: Princeton University
X-Subliminal-Message: You can quit reading news anytime you want.

In article <1992Aug24.211712.18164@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rainbow@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rob Buchner) writes:
|
|Let me share an amusing anecdote. Recently two people, let's
|call them Lady X and Lady Y, asked me to help resolve a 2/1
|bidding argument. Never mind why they would ask me, but
|their auction went 1S-P-2C-P-3D. Lady X intended 3D to be
|a strong jump shift showing slam values. She manufactured
|a diamond bid in the process of trying to show solid spades
|needing a heart control. Lady Y interpreted 3D to show two
|good 5 card suits with slam interest. Lady Y got excited 
|about her diamond fit. All corrections made by Lady X to
|spades sounded like more cue-bids in support of diamonds.
|Needless to say the auction got very very confusing and 
|eventually 6S was converted to 7D was converted to 7S was
|converted to 7NT and the result was done 1 instead of making 7.

7NT must be wishful thinking ...  even if Y thought diamonds were trump,
it's hard not to get the picture after 7D was corrected to 7S.

|Oh yeah, was I able to resolve this bidding argument? Not really.
|I had the audacity to suggest 3D should be a splinter in support
|of clubs, and not necessarily promising much extra in values.
|I was unanimously shot down that 4D would be the splinter bid,
|you can't make a splinter bid on the three level, those bids 
|are reserved to show other types of hands.

Bah humbug.  Lots of people I know play 1C - 1H - 3D as a splinter,
since 2D is forcing.  In fact, I would wager that this is standard.
This ought to apply in the 2/1 auction, too.  With a strong hand
with 5-5 in spades and diamonds, you would bid like
1S - 2C - 2D - X - 3D.


ben
--

Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: WC Problem - Full Hand
Date: 5 Sep 92 13:51:45 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Ben Thompson <bjpt@cs.mu.OZ.AU> writes:
>You seem to have swapped the meanings of Line 1 and Line 2 for the
>second paragraph.  Also, Qxxxxx spade with West is no help.

Both correct.  Sorry.

>You may choose to avoid the chance at 3 down if West doesn't produce
>the S10.  If you think the other team got to 5C and it seems like you
>are going 3 off if the finesse loses, then you shouldn't take it.
>You may, on the other hand, attempt to save 2 imps at the
>risk of 1 if you think the opponents will take line 1 in 3NT.

Well, if I am West, and I am dealt the spade ten but not the queen, you
are most certainly going to see the ten.  This is a mandatory falsecard
in this situation.  But recall that I didn't count down three at all in
my computation; even giving you the benefit of always knowing the
diamond position, and always guessing right in the spades, you still
lose IMPs.

>You also have to consider the true value of 10 imps vs 2 imps.  It is
>considerably more likely that the winning margin will be 3-10 imps
>rather than 1-2 imps.  Given that Line 1 is only some fraction of an imp
>better than line 2, it is clear that line 2 is more likely to win the
>match for you than line 1.

Well, if you don't accept that the goal is to maximize your expected
IMPs, but rather some psychological effect, then anything could be
right.  And I mean that seriously.  Obviously any line could be best if
the criteria for "best" are totally subjective.  For myself, I prefer to
stick with the odds.

                                        David desJardins
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: dberman@cs.washington.edu (Deborah Berman)
Subject: was there an error or did we just get an unfortunate score?
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 23:29:06 GMT

Santa Clara regionals, imps pairs.  Board 12.  Dealer West, NS Vulnerable.

		      Q
                      AJT32
		      J75
		      KQ87
J74                                      KT9865
Q874                                     K965
9864                                     2
A4                                       J6
		      A32
		      --
		      AKQT3
		      T9532

The bidding:
N     E     S     W
		  P
1h    3s    X!    P
4c    P     6c    P
P     P

Down 1, when the singleton was led, and later East got a ruff.  As it is,
6 diamonds is cold on the lie of the cards.  I was surprised that many 
people appeared to have gotten there (or did they just get a more favorable
lead?).  6c seems to me to be the better contract in the general case.  (We
lost mucho imps on this hand).

I agree that to show my strength, I could cuebid 4s rather than just jump to
6c.  But upon finding out everything about my partner's hand, I still think
6c is a better contract.  After all, the clubs are more likely to split 3-1,
offering a possible ruff, than the diamonds are to split 4-1.  It is also
true in this case that if I am playing it, it can't go down.

I chose to do a negative double because of my distribution, to hear
partner's better minor.  My reasoning at jumping right to 6c is that
for my partner to have an opening hand, he must have some good club points,
since he doesn't have any diamond points, or too many spade points, and 
there are only so many points in hearts.  Still, 4s is the better bid.
(We also could miss 7c the way I bid it, if the right cards are in pard's hand.)
I didn't like 4s as an immediate bid, because it doesn't show my shape
well, and it should imply heart support.

Thanks for any input.  I prefer email responses.

Debbie
-- 
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend...
   Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.  (Groucho Marx)
From: davidm@voltaire.Rational.COM (David Moore)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: was there an error or did we just get an unfortunate score?
Date: 9 Sep 92 22:13:33 GMT

dberman@cs.washington.edu (Deborah Berman) writes:

>Santa Clara regionals, imps pairs.  Board 12.  Dealer West, NS Vulnerable.

>		      Q
>                      AJT32
>		      J75
>		      KQ87
>J74                                      KT9865
>Q874                                     K965
>9864                                     2
>A4                                       J6
>		      A32
>		      --
>		      AKQT3
>		      T9532

>The bidding:
>N     E     S     W
>		  P
>1h    3s    X!    P
>4c    P     6c    P
>P     P

I (sitting North) got to play 6C on this hand, making after the (obvious to
me as declarer) singleton lead. West failed to put up his trump Ace on
the first round. 

I thought my partner bid the hand quite well. Of course it is easier
when East says only 2S. Our bidding went:

N         E        S        W
                            -
1H        2S       3S(1)    -   (1) Putatively asking for a spade stop for NT
4C(2)     -        4D(3)    -   (2) Denies spade stop, shows second suit.
4H(4)     -        4S(5)    -   (3) Partner shows touching faith (It has to be
5D(6)     -        6C(7)            forcing but we've all been left in spots like
                                    this) 3S just became a slam try.
                                (4) Cue bid. Partner cannot be sure that its not a
                                    sign-off until bid (6). AT that point he knows I                                     would have signed off in diamonds, not hearts.
                                (5) 4NT probably should NOT have been Blackwood
                                    here, but as partner has control of
                                    the hand, faking second round spade control is OK
                                (7) Choosing to play in the longer fit.
                                    
                                    

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: Professor WHO?
Subject: Re: Optimal preempts? Depends on opponents.
Summary: Not really a hog problem....
Originator: boyiny@kovalevskaya
Keywords: preempts, multi.
Reply-To: maboyiny@ccvax.as.edu.tw (Dr. Weird)
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
X-Subliminal-Message: Preempts are meant to be doubled!
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 13:26:16 GMT

[Lars Andersson:]
>>Vul:NS     65
>>           A8432
>>           KJT542
>>           -
>>KJT932               A874
>>KT9                  QJ765
>>Q8                   6
>>97                   KQ4
>>           Q
>>           -
>>           A973
>>           AJT86532  
>>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
>
>I guess South did not consider A9xx good enough to raise partner's
>suit anytime, especially when doubled (bad double!) in 6C. How
>could this guy Stewart ever get to play in the World Championships!?

Watch it, Lars-- I know that you DID score a second in the Mixed Pairs, but
Fred Stewart is a fine player.  The problem came from one of the inherent
advantages of the multi-- the opponents often have no convenient cue-bid
available and 3D here WAS the substitute cue (a general probe).  As far as
Stewart was concerned, Weinstein probably had a semi-balanced hand with at
least one club and his diamonds are VERY suspect.....!





Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge