HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jch@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (jeffrey.c.halle)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: No problem on this card
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:53:29 GMT
Organization: AT&T

From article <1992Apr09.190653.19556@eng.umd.edu>, by tpermutt@eng.umd.edu (Thomas Permutt):
> In the discussion of hesitating with a singleton at trick 1, some writers
> have mentioned the possibility of saying something like, "I am thinking
> about something else."  
(and lots of other comments by others)

Why not do what I do?  Write on your card, "Third seat always hesitates at
trick one."  Then always hesitate, whether you have one or ten of the suit.
You give no information to anyone, and you cannot be accused of coffeehousing.
If declarer questions your pause, just show him your convention card.
From: jj@alice.att.com (that old grouch jj)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Misalert
Date: 16 Apr 92 17:06:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.22606
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (that old grouch jj)
Distribution: usa
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In article <1992Apr15.025745.12479@overload.lbl.gov> asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.003229.20922@linus.mitre.org> bs@faron.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>>I agree with it 110%. I would also file a recorder slip, because
>>**on the surface of it** it does appear you were looking for a 
>>double shot by passing 3NT.
>On the surface of it, it appears that someone was very confused.
For sure.

>>If this happened in a novice game, I would think nothing of it.
>>But this was Flight A. It should demand higher standards.

>Oh, I see, it's ok for novices to screw up as song as they don't
>bother us Flight A types, but if they screw up in our Flight A
>events, let's make sure they never come back.  Come on!

Yeah, if they screw up once here, let's file a slip that forever labels
them as dishonest and attempting to cheat.  I'd think that one such
"recorder slip" would be enough to either provoke a lawsuit
or convince somebody to quit cold.  In this day and age, NOBODY
can afford to have their ethics questioned falsely, and frankly,
nobody should permit it to happen.

No wonder bridge is dying in the US.  Now, if it was CLEAR that something
was happening sub-rosa, fine, but the evidence here is that people
were CONFUSED.  

It's stuff like this that convinces me to NEVER play "serious"
bridge (i.e. ACBL) in the USA.  I'm surprised that ANYONE gets all
those master-points these days, I'm surprised that the people already
there don't have all the up-and-coming barred for ethics first.  After
all, as we are all well aware, being in a lucky seat and having information
LEGITAMATELY GLEANED FROM YOUR HAND will get you accused of cheating
if you aren't "supposed" to be smart enough to figure it out.

To put it another way, the "expert" can get away with it because
they're smart, but Mr. beginner had better NEVER have a flash of
inspiration, or they'll be labelled a cheater.

Talk about "might makes right".
-- 
Vote for    *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
President 1992 *by USENET and like free facilities granted. Said permission is
___________________*granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
Just Say !!!NO!!!       *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.
From: grove@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Eddie Grove)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: 2 Problems (IMPS)
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:55:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.s2li8INN5pq
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: triangle.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Apr9.124216.23472@linus.mitre.org> bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>Here's two problems. IMPS against a BAD team.
 
>(1) You hold Both Vul.
 
>7x
>AQ10xx
>AKJx
>Kx
 
>You LHO  Pard RHO
>1H  2C    2S   P
>3D  P     3S
 
>Your call?   There are only 2 choices. 4S and 3NT.  4S will be right
>if partner's spades are not solid, since you only have a single club stopper.
>3S is not forcing, but you are too good to pass.

The most likely club distribution seems to be 6 for LHO, 3 for partner,
and 2 for RHO.  In this case, if partner has the CQ, we have two stops.
If s/he doesn't, since that S7 isn't too high, we will probably lose
two clubs and a club ruff off the top in 4S.  If we can then make 4S, we
could probably have made 3N.

In addition, all those tenaces are screaming at "me" to declare.
Sure, 4S could be better, but I would choose 3N.
 
>(2) This is a play problem. Both Vul.
 
>	Ax
>	AK9
>	KJ98
>	J9xx
 
>	Q10
>	Q10xxx
>	10x
>	AK10x
 
>1NT 2S 3H P
>4H  all pass.
 
>8 spades led.  Plan the play. Both Vul.

Win the SA, lead the CJ (a bad RHO might cover, making things easier)
to the A, and finesse the D8.  Hoping to set up the diamonds for
club discards while there are still trumps for entries.  On second thought, 
duck the opening lead.  A bad RHO might lead something helpful at trick two.  
This isn't much of a plan, but it is what I would come up with at the table.
... waiting for improvements ...

>Oh. Does anyone see how to get to 3NT [superior contract!] after the overcall?
>How can dummy bid 3NT on Ax as a stopper and good hearts? How can South not
>bid 3H???

I assume 3H is forcing, and conclude you are using Lebensohl or the like.
The question arises, why play 3-bids as natural instead of transfers?
The usual answer is to allow opener to make a noise when holding good
support.  So if 3H is natural and forcing, why didn't North cue the spade ace?
Then South can bid 3N.

Of course, I like to play that cue of their suit below 3N is looking
for partner to hold half a stopper.  That would also work here.

My auction (if playing 15-17 NT) would be
1N (2S) 3D[1]
3H      3S[2]
3N or 4H? [3]

[1] Showing hearts
[2] Don't rebid 3N without at least 1/2 spade stop
[3] AKx is hard to suppress, but maybe it is right to here.  Hard
to be objective, looking at both hands.

In any case, 4H by opener is better than 4H by responder.

If you are really into transfers, you can use them in addition to
the lebensohl transfer.  Then you can show

signoff = transfer then pass
invite = leb then transfer
force without stop = transfer then bid
force with stop = leb then transfer then bid

or some permutation of this.

Eddie Grove
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: james@crc.ricoh.com (James Allen)
Subject: Re: Can you beat 3 NT ?
Organization: RICOH California Research Center
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 04:36:08 GMT

In Message-ID: <1992Apr7.021439.4125@njitgw.njit.edu>
	tac6189@hertz.njit.edu (Tom Carmichael) writes:
]In article <1992Apr4.010457.409@crc.ricoh.com> (I) wrote:
]>Can you defeat 3 No Trump?
]>
]>			(dummy)
]>			K 9 7 6 5
]>			J 8 4
]>			A J 3
]>			A 10
]>
]>	(you)
]>	A J 10
]>	Q 10 3
]>	K 8 2
]>	K 7 5 4
]>
]>	Auction (with your side silent):  1 Spade	1 NT (forcing)
]>					  2 Diamonds	3 Diamonds
]>					  3 No Trump
]>
]>	You lead club 4: ten, jack, queen.  Declare finesses Diamond
]>Jack, cashes Club Ace (partner drops Eight), Diamond Ace, and leads
]>a Diamond to your King (partner drops Ten).  What do you lead now and
]>what is your plan?
]
]Wasn't this hand posted before?  I think that I have responded twice 
]already.  (One didn't seem to get through.)

	Yes, and no it didn't seem to.
]
]	[ Good Solution abbreviated  to conserve bandwidth ]
] [if ...] partner [has] the K of hearts.  He then has an entry to return
]his last club through declarer.  (Boring)
	You can always beat the contract in this case.
]		... If, however, declarer has both
]the AK of hearts, then the hand is much more interesting and needs exact 
]defense to beat it....
]If at this point you lead the J or T of spades (whichever you think partner
]is more likely to overtake), you can beat the contract.  If declarer ducks, 
]partner can overtake & lead back a club.  A diamond, 2 spades & 2 clubs defeats
]3NT.  If, however, declarer wins the king on dummy and crosses to hand with
]a heart, he will try to squeeze west (you) out of your exit card to endplay
]you.  Don't let him get away with it; throw the Ace of spades.  This will allow
]you to get to partners hand with a spade when declarer throws you in with a 
]heart (or club).  Partner wins and returns the other suit( the one declarer
]hasn't thrown you in with. )  This defense comes to a spade, a heart, a diamond
]and two clubs for a one trick set.
	Yes.  Spades are your partnership's "best" suit (A Q J Ten),
	but you need 4 tricks *outside* spades to defeat 3 NT.
]
]Tom
]
]-- 
]"Sleep is a poor substitute for caffine."|  Tom Carmichael
]	- The Wizardry Compiled		 |  tac6189@hertz.njit.edu
]-----------------------------------------|  tomc@shock.njit.edu
]#include <stddisclamer.h>		 |  

James
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao)
Subject: Re: What is going on?
Originator: daveshao@leland.Stanford.EDU
Keywords: No cue after strong jump shift?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 21:17:35 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.163320.9104@rice.edu> (Danil Patrick Suits) writes 

>IMP teams, everybody green

>Axx
>KQx
>xxx
>Axxx

>Second chair, playing Standard American, you open
>1C. Partner skips the bidding up to 2H (strong)
>you raise to 3H....

>Partner bids 4H.

>1] What is going on?

>2] What should partner's hand look like?

>3] What do you call?

Responder does not have a solid heart suit, or even one headed by the
A and K.  He therefore should have at least six hearts headed by
the AJT.

Since responder does not have a solid heart suit, he also should have
good high card values.  He should have all but one of the 
missing aces and kings.  (If he had all of them he would have cuebid
the diamond ace.)

If partner has the diamond ace, he must be ashamed of the rest of
his hand.  He should have six hearts and two kings and absolutely
nothing else, not a side jack and not an extra heart.
Eleven tricks is the limit.

If partner doesn't have the diamond ace, his hand has two flaws:
hearts are not solid and he only has one ace.  He must have extra
values to compensate.  He must have all of the missing kings and
either one more queen and jack or an extra heart and another  honor
in a side suit.  You will have eleven tricks off
the top with chances to score either the extra honor or the diamond king.
And RHO will be leading into partner's hand.  You should bid the
slam in this case.

Whether or not partner has the diamond ace you have eleven tricks.
It is therefore safe to make another bid to try for slam.
You have two ways to find out whether partner has the diamond ace: a 
spade cuebid or Blackwood.  At IMPs you don't worry about missing
the higher scoring notrump contract.  And a spade cuebid might
induce partner to take control with Blackwood, which is not what
you want.  On the other hand, a spade cuebid tells partner about
your ace in that suit.  If by chance he made a mistake by bidding
4H with extra values, he can confidently bid slam himself.  I would
bid 4S.




Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bjpt@mullauna.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Benjamin Thompson)
Subject: Hexagon Squeeze
Reply-To: bjpt@mullauna.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Benjamin Thompson)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 05:24:32 GMT


Straight from the encyclopaedia (more or less)

A hexagon squeeze is apparently a double guard squeeze that acts
simultaneously.  The example given is

			Q
			AJ
			x
			-
		K		A
		Kx		Q
		Q		Kx
		-		-
			-
			x
			AJ
			A

S leads CA.  West is squeezed in 3 suits into dumping the SK.  N pitches
the diamond.  Now East is standardly guard squeezed.

And a ref is given to the Barco squeeze (played by Edwin T Barco and
reported in BW Dec 1935), which is strange in that the finesse threat
is unusual.

			A54
			-
			AJ8
			A10
		Q1032		J98
		-		-
		1095		Q64
		K		J9
			K76
			76
			K7
			Q

S leads a heart and W & N dump spades.  East is squeezed and must discard
a spade.  The last heart squeezes West in 3 suits.  Everyone takes the
trouble to point out that on a diamond discard, declarer must cross to
the board to lead the DJ.  Tough, but possible, play to find (West started
with 5 diamonds)

And checking with the double guard squeeze section of the encyclopaedia,
which gives a classification by Romanet, confirms that the originally
posted hand fits one of those styles of endings.  Which would still be
rare enough to keep me happy if I had played it.

Ben
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Myerson)
Subject: Re: Problems from Pasadena
Organization: Raytheon Company, Portsmouth, RI
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 12:21:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.162924.23974@m.cs.uiuc.edu> bharat@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
*sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Myerson) writes:
*>In article <1992Apr6.011329.15094@pencom.com>, eric@pencom.com writes:
*
*>ERIC:  Besides, why don't people think: QJT - AJ7xx - Kxx - Jx
*>ERIC:  Is a good hand?
*
*>In article <1992Apr7.144149.24558@dg-rtp.dg.com> hamilton@siberia.rtp.dg.com (Eric Hamilton) writes:
*
*>EH: Because this is matchpoints.
*>EH: If you leave 4S for 6D, and it makes, you gain 1/2 MP against the pairs in
*>EH: 4S, and do not change your position relative to any other results.
*
*>Oops - I believe that you are forgetting those pairs playing in diamonds.
*
*>Let's say spades makes 4 and diamonds make 6.
*
BR: Why, or how, can you assume that this is likely, let alone possible?

Whoa there. You have taken *one line* of my article, taken it out
of context, and flamed it. If you had read my *entire* article,
you would have noticed that I was commenting on the incorrectly
stated matchpoint scoring of the board, *not* the merits of bidding 6D.
When I said "Let's say spades makes 4 and diamonds make 6",
I then commented on the *gain* against the diamond bidders,
since the original article did not address this.

I then went on to say something about the situation when spades made 4
and diamonds made 5, where there was a *loss* against the diamond bidders.
Apparently you did not make it this far in the article.
Never did I even state what my opinion on further bidding was.
My article was addressing the incorrect matchpoint reasoning.

By the way, just for record, *I* would pass 4S at MPs
and probably at IMPs too.

BR: From your hand, it looks for all the world that spades and diamonds
BR: will make the same number of tricks, or diamonds may well make one
BR: more (they get a diamond ruff against spades); but it is extremely
BR: unlikely spades will make TWO tricks fewer than diamonds.

But what does that have to do with the incorrect matchpoint analysis?

BR: 
BR:  [stuff deleted]
BR: 
BR: This hand seems to be raising an inordinate amount of controversy.

It's not a clearcut situation. Certainly not one would encounter
on a regular basis.

BR: IMO, this is classical matchpoints -- you are in the right,
BR: higher-scoring suit, and you do not want to jeopardize that.  Take
BR: your 65-70% score for playing in spades; believe me, in the long run
BR: it will pay of richly as opposed to shooting for the 100% scores from
BR: absolute tops.
BR: 

Yep. See above.


In closing (breath sigh of relief here),
I post enough stuff that you can find something to flame.
You don't have to take one line out of context and jump all over that.

Apology accepted.

Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)
From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Ruling, Please
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:09:14 GMT
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


In article <baseggi1.702615235@husc8>, baseggi1@husc8.harvard.edu
(Franco Baseggio) writes: 
> North deals (in a KO) and passes.  East bids 2C, South passes.
> Now, West asks for a review, and _East_ says "1H-2C-P."
> East, of course, is not supposed to give the review, but the 
> main problem is that now west knows east thought she was 
> overcalling 2C, not opening 2C.  

West's situation is easy.  He has received unauthorized information
(that 2C was supposed to be an overcall) through an infraction
(East's giving the review).  Therefore West must bid as though East
had opened 2C and may only make a call based on the actual meaning of
2C if there is no logical alternative.  The penalty on West extends
to the play period if E-W become defenders.

East's situation is somewhat less clear.  It seems to me that East
has received no unauthorized information (since a proper review would
reveal that 2C was an opening).  If this is right, East can do
whatever she wants.  

The only problem for East is if 2C would have been a strong, forcing
opening and you are playing by the ACBL rules that forbid psyching
such an opening.  In this case, AND if East _could have known_ that a
psyche could be to her advantage, there might be an additional
penalty of some sort.  Since East is in second seat and appears to
have values in clubs, this seems rather unlikely.

As usual, if you cannot determine a likely result, the board is
thrown out.  If it has not been played at the other table, it is
redealt without additional penalty.  If it has already been played,
the non-offenders are given 3 IMPs.  (This is from memory, and
there's a better chance than usual that this paragraph is mistaken.)

Depending on the level of competition, you might also issue a
procedural penalty to East for the improper review - say 3 IMPs.
(You should definitely explain why the review was improper even if
you choose not to penalize.)

All of the above would be subject to committee review, especially as
to determining the likely result.
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu
  member, League for Programming Freedom; contact league@prep.ai.mit.edu
From: grove@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Eddie Grove)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bidding Problems
Date: 17 Apr 1992 20:49:39 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: triangle.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Apr17.170020.15091@linus.mitre.org> bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>:>J9x
>:>x
>:>AKQ8xxx
>:>QJ
  
>:>You LHO Part RHO
>:>1D  3C   3H  4C
>:>4D  P    4S  P
>:>??

I am interested in how many people would consider preempting
instead of opening 1D.  Is that doubleton QJ worth so much?
This hand looks like long strong diamonds, without defense
outside.  The biggest danger is that 3N makes when 5D doesn't.  I
am further surprised that such a proponent of sound opener's
as Bob Silverman didn't mention the possibility of a preempt.

Assuming Namyats were being played, how do you feel about a
3N opening on this hand?  

Eddie Grove
From: tac6189@hertz.njit.edu (Tom Carmichael)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Can you beat 3 NT ?
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:43:36 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <davidm.702581311@rutabaga> davidm@rutabaga.Rational.COM (David Moore) writes:
>james@crc.ricoh.com (James Allen) writes:
>
>>Can you defeat 3 No Trump?
>
>Looks like declare started with
>
>	xx
>	AKx
>	Qxxx
>	Q9xx
>
>And is trying to endplay you for the ninth trick. So, you take the ace
>of spades and continue the TEN. This looks obvious, so I guess you did
>this and it did not work.

That will not work.  If you cash Ace of spades & play another spade, declarer
wins on dummy & leads a heart to hand.  With declarer to lead:

J
QTx
---
K7

	--
	AKx
	Q
	9x

Declarer plays the Q of diamonds.  Your turn.

If you through the spade, declarer has his choise of endplays, hearts or 
clubs.  If you through one of those, declarer can force an extra winner
in that suit simply by dropping your heart or forcing out your club.
You have to, (as I said in a previous article), lead a lower spade, allowin
partner to overtake if declarer ducks.  Otherwise, in the same sort of
position, you have the "worthless" Ace of spades you can through away, to
keep the other spade as an exit card (partner overtakes and returns a club
or heart throgh declarer, depending on which declarer through you in with.

Tom

-- 
"Sleep is a poor substitute for caffine."|  Tom Carmichael
	- The Wizardry Compiled		 |  tac6189@hertz.njit.edu
-----------------------------------------|  tomc@shock.njit.edu
#include <stddisclamer.h>		 |  
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Subject: Re: Misalert
Reply-To: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 00:49:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.230308.29196@talon.ucs.orst.edu> brett@oce.orst.edu (Brett Barksdale) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.202126.28049@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> atleung@troy.UUCP () writes:
>
>-My hand (south) is
>-S  Q 10 8 7 6
>-H  x
>-D  x
>-C  K 10 9 x x x
>-
>-Partner (North) is the dealer 
>-    N      E      S     W
>-   1NT(0)2C(1)   2H(2)  pass
>-   2S    pass    3C     pass
>-   3NT   pass    pass   pass
>-
>-My partner's hand
>-S A x
>-H A K x x
>-D J 10 x x x x
>-C A x
>
> I don't like this. IMHO, I don't like opening 1NT with any six bagger. 
> Maybe we can contrive a very "mushy" 16 count with a six bagger minor
> that would work best with 1NT, but this isn't it. Not with all of those
> lovely aces and king. I would open 1D and reverse (a bit weakish perhaps)
> into 2H. I just can't make myself open a AKish 6-4 hand 1NT.

Well, I hate it when people open 1NT on 6-4-2-2 and then complain even
though they had 1 more card than the rest of the field.  Might partner
have actually been 2-4-5-2?

>-Question 2
>-I had an argument about my partner's opening of 1NT.  I believed that she
>-should have opened 1D.  Her hand was much better in suit contract.  What
>-is the field's opinion?
> IMHO, 1D would have been better. See above.

I think that's silly in view of what the hand probably was. Over 1D-1S
you rebid what?  2H?  1NT?  2D? 

-- 
"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: doug@cm.deakin.OZ.AU (Douglas Newlands)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: A couple of hands.
Date: 17 Apr 92 04:26:46 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computing & Mathematics, Deakin University, Australia

In article <baseggi1.703480844@husc8: baseggi1@husc8.harvard.edu (Franco Baseggio) writes:
:eric@pencom.com writes:
:
:>White-White You (South) hold :  x/AKJxx/Qx/AJ109x
:
:>Bidding proceeds :
:>E       S        W         N
:>P       1H       P         3H(1)
:>4S      ???
:
:>(1) Normal limit raise with 4+
:
:>Is a pass forcing?

Absolutely not, you pass with all minimum hands which don't
have a clear action like double.

:>what is your proper action.

You have shown a 7 loser hand but you have a 5- loser hand, you
must make another bid. Your defensive values in hearts are very
dubious but you'll still probably put this off but making 5+H
will be much better.

:>Given that it is not, what is your proper action.

Bid 5C to show partner where you're source of tricks is.

:>Assume that you are playing with a trusted partner, but
:>not an established partnership.

This seems basic, all partners should understand 5C.

   __
  |  \     __             __   _     __     __
  |   \   /   \   |   |  /  \   |    __\   (
  |   /   |   |   |   |  \__/   |   /   |   \
  |__/    \__ /   \__/|   __|  _|_  \__/|  __) o
         
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge