HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ted@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu (Ted Ying)
Subject: Re: Sneaky LOL
Organization: Johns Hopkins Univ. Welch Medical Library
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:36:03 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.171336.15875@bhpcpd.kembla.oz.au> dif@bhpcpd.kembla.oz.au (David Faulkner) writes:
>Recent comments in this news group on cheating reminded me of a funny(?)
>incident which happened to me a while ago in the local club game.
>My RHO was a LOL, 70+ years and could barely see the cards (so bad in fact
>that she had her own private bidding pad twice normal size so she could see
>the bids). However, she wasn't one of the worse players in the club.
>
>Anyway, during the course of the play I led the king of Clubs, and instead of
>following suit she played a spade. Her partner queried, and she said,
>"Oh, sorry, I thought it was spades led". I didn't worry about letting her
>pick her card up and play a club, because of her eyesight.
>Now, I had AQJx Spades in dummy. So I thought, if she thought my king of
>clubs was the king of spades, she can't possibly have the spade king, and
>I can take the perfectly safe spade finesses. (Am I being unethical here? I
>wasn't too worried since I had already let her pick up a tabled card).
>So I took the finesse, and imagine my surprise (horror) when she took my
>queen with the king. 
>I just smiled, scored -50 for down one and moved on to the next table.
>
	The real question was whether she could tell the rank.  I know
	that with my glasses off I couldn't even tell the difference
	between the A and the K let alone the K and the J...perhaps she
	thought you had lead the SJ.

	I have found that in the long run, poor players make so many
	goofy plays that to try and take inferences from them is
	ludicrous.  Instead, I just let their actual plays make the
	difference and I usually get better results that way.

	Ted Ying			ted@welch.jhu.edu

#include <std.disclaimer.h>

	Tommy Thrush: "Captain Buffalo, I'm hungry, can we eat now?"
	Captain Buffalo: "Well, alright Tommy, how about here?  They
		have a special on Buffalo Wings."
	Tommy: "Can I get the Mud-pie?  It comes with a special Mudman
		action figure!"
	Captain Buffalo: "Hmmmm...."
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Matchpoints, opposite a 2C opener
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:45:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: linus.1992Apr16.194521.1682
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA

In article <matthew.703447938@pram.cs.ucla.edu> matthew@pram.cs.ucla.edu (Matthew Merzbacher) writes:
:With a novice partner, playing NO GADGETS
:At Matchpoints
:White vs. White
:You want to play flawlessly to give partner confidence (read: don't be a hog
:because partner is a newbie).
:
:You hold:
:AJxx
:9x
:Tx
:Q9xxx
:
:Partner holds (and deals):
:Kxx
:AKQxx
:AKQJx
:(void)
:
:We managed to end up in 5NT, which makes on the matchpoints defense of taking
:the top two clubs.  Our auction:
:
:2C-2D
:2H-3C
:3D-3S
:4D-4N
 
Looks just fine to me so far. 4N is natural of course.
[although I would not open 2C. I'd open 1H. If it goes 2C, 4C preempt
 you'll never show your suits]

:5H-5S
 
Here's where we differ. I would have passed 4NT.

Your 5H bid should show 6-5 with 6 hearts. Partner should now pass.
Also, partner's 5S bid should also show 6-5 with 6 clubs and 5 spades.
I think 5S should be passed.

--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
From: bs@linus.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Misalert
Date: 15 Apr 92 11:24:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA

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.
:
:What does this mean, Bob?  This is totally absurd.  You are basically
:saying that there is a chance that this person *knew* that they were
:given misinformation and then bid in such a way that they may get a
:top or an adjusted score.  This is absolutely absurd.  This person was

No. I'm saying they took an absurd chance with 3NT and that if it
didn't work out he would say bid that way only due to misinformation.
This IS a double shot.
 
They probably did not think they were doing anything wrong, but that does
not relieve them of their responsibilities.

:clearly totally off-base in their hand evaluation but there is not a
:shred of evidence that they were doing anything of this sort.
 
I disagree. I think passing 3NT is SO absurd that it suggests that
they were looking for a double shot.

:
:On the surface of it, it appears that someone was very confused.
:
:>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!
 
No. if novices want to play in Flight A, I encourage it. But they
should be subject to the same standards of conduct as flight A
players. To give them a break when they do something unethical
[even when unintentional; I don't believe the people involved were
deliberately trying to get a double shot; merely that they didn't
realize it was wrong] is unfair to others.  Ignorance of the law
is not an excuse to break it.
--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Pasadena hand
Date: 1 Apr 92 19:06:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: linus.1992Apr1.190607.23439
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA

In article <1992Apr1.165502.21664@talon.ucs.orst.edu> brett@oce.orst.edu (Brett Barksdale) writes:
>In article <baseggi1.702104523@husc8> baseggi1@husc8.harvard.edu (Franco Baseggio) writes:
>-  ---
>-  ---
>-  KQJTxxxx
>-  AJTxx
>-
>-White on white, 2nd seat, Pass on your right.
>-
>-What's your call?
>
> I like a simple 1D opening.

 Absolutely you open 1D. What else would anyone consider?  You then rebid
your clubs at whatever level is appropriate, depending on partner's
response and any interference by the opponents. You bid diamonds, then clubs
then diamonds again, then clubs again. Partner will get the message.

--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: hampton@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik)
Subject: Re: somewhat bizarre hand
Organization: UMCC
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 01:07:03 GMT

In article <95467@guiche.princeton.edu> bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing) writes:
>      x
>      K Q T 9 x x x
>      x
>      K Q x x
>
>A Q x x x         K x x x
>x                 J x x x
>A K J x x x       Q x x
>5                 J 4
>
>      J x x
>      A
>      T x x
>      A T 9 x x x
>
>(none vul)
>
>Bidding:
>
>N  E  S  W
>
>1H P  2C 2D
>3H P  4H 4S
>5C P  P  5D
>5H X  P  P
>P

Not believing partner is about the only excuse East has for bidding as
he did.  Here partner is bidding up to 5D *on his own* and East is
sitting there with two cards the opponents would die for.  I would have
bid 5S over 5C, and surely over 5H.  I would not have doubled.  East
has one trick against hearts, MAYBE, and all those cards in support of
partner's suit hurt the defense even more.

Other that a somewhat shaded 2C bid by South (though admittedly 1NT is
highly unattractive), I don't have much of a problem with the rest of
the bidding.  West might have cuebid 3C (though that's not strictly
Michaels, as I play it), though his chosen sequence should have worked
as well.  With a known fit in clubs, I don't even see what's wrong with
North's 3H bid, unless somehow that's not forcing (it is to me).


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin J. Podsiadlik    ALTERNATE SITE #2 (hampton@umcc.ais.org)  GO WINGS
From: eric@pencom.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: A few questions
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:06:13 GMT
Organization: Pencom Software

In article <1992Apr7.152307.1@mscf.med.upenn.edu> shankar_k@mscf.med.upenn.edu  
writes:
> Just a few questions for the bridge pundits:
> 
> 
> 1)  There was some recent discussion on what to lead with three low cards. 
> 
> 2)  Is there any good book (or any other way) of learning how to play card
> combinations? (You know, like "How do I play AQx opposite xxxx for the most
> tricks" sort of thing).
> 
> 3)  I've been told about the "within three if you're non vul, two if you're
> vul" rule of thumb for preempts, but I don't understand how this works in
> practice, especially at the 3 or higher level.  (I just never preempt :-) )

A lot of people would be better off if they did not.  :-)

> 
> Is :  QJT9xxx Qx xxx J a good preempt?  At all vulnerabilities?  If not, what
> is?

This is a matter for partnership debate.
But anyway, you expect to take 5 tricks opposite NOTHING.
Therefore you are within 4 tricks of making 3.
This is not a SOUND preempt at any vulnerability.
That does not mean it is not a GOOD preempt.   :-)
With partners who can still smile after getting a bottom, you
might try it.  Otherwise, just pass.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: apearlma@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Andrew Pearlman)
Subject: Re: Bid this hand
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:00:18 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.122131.22605@linus.mitre.org> bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.163841.9125@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> apearlma@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Andrew Pearlman) writes:
>:In article <1992Apr1.114022.9957@linus.mitre.org> bs@faron.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>:>In article <1992Apr1.052156.17144@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> apearlma@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Andrew Pearlman) writes:
>:>:
>:>:You have this hand:
>:>:S K10x
>:>:H A2
>:>:D AKQ1098
>:>:C Ax
>:>:
>:>:Bidding goes
>:>:2H(weak2)-?
>Huh? Where do you get 8 tricks from?? You get a heart lead and your
>stopper is knocked out. You cash diamonds and they DON'T BREAK. LHO
>wins the J diamonds puts partner in with A spades and the 2H bidder
>cashes a bunch of hearts. They take a diamond, 5 hearts and A spades.
>Down 3.

RHO opponent can not possibly have diamonds stopped.  So he is relying on
partner to have A) 4+ diamonds and B) the J of diamonds.  Assuming a void
in RHO, there is roughly a 50% of A and a 50% of B.  i.e. there is only
a 25% chance that this is happening and RHO opponent doesn't know whether
it did or not.  There is 10 points remaining.  There is also a 50% chance
that the A of spades, K of clubs, or K of hearts is in partner's hand.
If partner has A of spades & 3 hearts, I can stop the Jxxx of diamonds
from working.  If K of clubs, I can probably run 3-4 club tricks, especially
if 4 diamonds are in the other hand.  K of hearts, well, that's obvious.

While the odds are not entirely cumulative, they are heavily in my favor.
I feel that while your point is valid(and thought of), it is too conservative
for me.

Andy Pearlman






Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty)
Subject: Re: Cheating?
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:39:16 GMT

idc@cs.hw.ac.uk (Ian Crorie) writes:

>I'm unconfortable with the word `cheating' here.   I hear it used a
>fair bit in post mortems and I use it myself sometimes but in quieter
>moments I admit that `cheating' implies something deliberate and I
>think that deliberate is not how I'd describe 99% of what we are
>talking about.

So am I (uncomfortable with the 'C' word).  We need to adapt more of a
"strict liability" theory (i.e., "You do something wrong, you pay" -
sort of like a parking ticket, no appeal, no nothin')

The general theory here is that the more egregious the crime, the easier
it is to get out from under it.  People beat murder raps every day, but
they rarely beat parking tickets.  Anyway, enough philosophy.

>My favourite is the auction:
...
Here's another common one:

	1S - 2C - X(*) - ?

(*) Duly alerted as negative, etc.

At ?, righty asks if the negative double shows hearts or not.  Guess how
many hearts he has?  Guess what suit he wants led?

This is really a tricky one.  Lotsa people play "negative doubles" in
lotsa different ways.  It *is* a legitimate question.  Some will say
that the alerter/explainer brought it on himself by naming the
convention, rather than explaining what it meant - but you tell me how
he should have dealt with it.
****************************************************************************
The Slug		valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu

"He's trying to give up drinking, but his girlfriend hasn't left him yet."

(THis [sic] message should be assumed to have been smiley captioned for the
humor impaired)
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Misalert
Date: 14 Apr 1992 19:02:38 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: cash.cs.utexas.edu

>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

>-My partner's hand
>-S A x
>-H A K x x
>-D J 10 x x x x
>-C A x

2+4+6+2=14.  There's an extra "x" here somewhere.

Even a 2-4-5-2 or 2-3-6-2 hand with this texture would be a poor
1NT opening.  Such hands should be opened 1NT only when the texture
is right -- especially the 2-3-6-2.

Despite the fact that there are 15-point hands that make 3NT opposite
South, the potential gain isn't worth the risk.

Both partners screwed up in reaching 3NT.  I don't think the opposing
bidding, or explanations thereof, had anything to do with it.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Jihad and other things
Date: 12 Apr 1992 02:28:52 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In article <chen.702956782@wintermute> chen@wintermute.wustl.edu (The Chenster) writes:

>  What about this suggestion?  First start out with a few local 
>"open" tournaments where pairs using non-standard systems have to submit
>a FULL description of the system (including all reasonable inferences,
>etc.) and make sure all of the pairs are given copies of all of the systems 
>in advance of the tournament. 

I think you're making the suggestion of the wrong body.

Try suggesting it to your local club director.  I'm sure somebody
(in particular) will correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding
is that a local club can allow anything the organizers want.

I said (incorrectly) a while back that transfer preempts were
allowed under the GCC.  Below the 4-level they aren't.  But there's
a local pair who play them all the time.  How?  They asked the
director, and he said that as long as there were no complaints it
was fine.  The director also told me that *his* main complaint
with unusually complicated conventions was that more than half the
time people had misunderstandings.  This results in unearned tops
and bottoms for the opposition and a suspicion of cheating when
the misunderstanding results in a superior contract, as it will
occasionally by dumb luck.  There's enough randomness in matchpoints
already.

I even played once in an "open conventions" game that was requested
by one pair.  It was years ago.  If it was announced ahead of time,
I didn't hear about it.  But there's no reason it can't happen.

Maybe this has to come from the grass roots.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: matthew@pram.cs.ucla.edu (Matthew Merzbacher)
Subject: Re: Cheating?
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:01:26 GMT

ted@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu (Ted Ying) writes:

>In article <1992Apr15.193916.17041@midway.uchicago.edu> valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty) writes:
>>Here's another common one:
>>
>>	1S - 2C - X(*) - ?
>>
>>(*) Duly alerted as negative, etc.
>>
>	If an opponent answers a question with a conventional name, it
>	is appropriate to ask, "What does it show?"  Not ask if it holds
>	anything specific.  When you label something specific, you alert
>	partner to the fact that you are interested in a specifi
>	holding.

At the Nationals in Pasadena, I had this very auction.  I didn't ask during
the auction, but towards the end (they ended in 3NT), of what sounded like a
botched auction (but wouldn't be for me with my regular partner), I asked what 
the double showed.  I wanted to know about range and shape so I could decide
whether or not to double the final contract.

"Negative Double".

"Please explain further."  [note my lack of asking for specifics]

"It's a Negative Double."

"OK, what does it show?"

"It's a Standard Negative Double."

Oooh.  Now I'm getting somewhere.  I gritted my teeth and said,
"What does it say about shape and strength"

"It's just a Standard Negative Double."

I was fed up.  "How many points does your partner have?"

"Enough to make a Negative Double."

"Does it promise Diamonds?"

"It's a Negative Double."

Having a sense of Deja Vu, I was convinced that the guy just had no 
clue about what the double actually showed.  "Fine.  Double."  

Off three.
--

Matthew Merzbacher	ARPA:	matthew@CS.UCLA.EDU
Moo - Moo Moo  		UUCP:	...!{uunet|rutgers|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!matthew
               		This time, *with* the oys
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: danil@boreal.owlnet.rice.edu (Danil Patrick Suits)
Subject: What is going on?
Keywords: No cue after strong jump shift?
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:33:20 GMT

IMP teams, everybody green

Axx
KQx
xxx
Axxx

Absolutely spotless.

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?

Danil


-- 
--- Danil ---	Which answer will get me a reading?
danil@rice.edu
From: desj@idacrd.UUCP (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Problems from Pasadena
Date: 12 Apr 92 18:42:08 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research

In article <1992Apr4.010313.271@crc.ricoh.com> james@crc.ricoh.com (James Allen) writes:
>](4) You deal and hold
>]	QJT - AJ7xx - Kxx - Jx
>]The auction is
>]		1 Heart		Pass		2 Diamonds	4 Clubs
>]		Pass		Pass		4 Spades	Pass
>]		?
>[R] Given that this is matchpoints I will pass 4S,...
>
>	For +420.

There's nothing wrong with presenting this as a problem, but I think
you are an extreme result merchant if you present pass as the winner
because it scores +420 at the table.

For the record, this is board 22 from the second final session.  Your
partner actually holds:

	A9765 / Q6 / AQJT6 / 2.

Now, this is not any kind of bidding which I have ever heard of.  I
don't think that you should justify the "right" answer on the grounds
that partner might have a missorted hand.

					David desJardins
From: jschuler@dcs.simpact.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bid these hands
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:46:22 GMT
Organization: Simpact Associates, San Diego CA

In article <1992Apr8.215943.15126@linus.mitre.org>, bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
> In article <1992Apr5.161858.2457@otago.ac.nz> murat@otago.ac.nz writes:
>>In article <2300@accucx.cc.ruu.nl>, vlucht@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (vlucht) writes:
>>> In <ktfehkINNiq0@bovina.cs.utexas.edu> varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) writes:
>>> 
>>>>Both vulnerable, South dealer, matchpoints:
>>> 
>>>>North:    S    H    D    C
>>>>          ----------------
>>>>          A    A    A    x
>>>>          K    x    x    x
>>>>          x    x         x
>>>>          x    x
>>> 
>>>>South:    x    K    x    A
>>>>               Q    x    K
>>>>               x         Q
>>>>                         J
>>>>                         T
>>>>                         9
>>>>                         x
>>> 
>>> [stuff deleted]
>>>>I don't claim this was a great bidding sequence.  I just don't 
>>>>know how to improve on it, and would like to see what others 
>>>>think.
>  
> OK, OK, I give up!
> 
> I posted an opinion that this hand wasn't very interesting and that
> reaching the grand was easy. I will now give an auction from one of
> my favorite systems: ROMAN.
>  
> 1H (1)   1NT(2)
> 3C (3)   7NT
> 
> (1) Yes, the opening bid is 1H. Roman frequently opens with 3 card
>     majors.
> 
> (2) Showing 12-15 HCP and no 5 card suit and no singletons.
> 
> (3) Showing at least 6 good clubs and **exactly** 4 losers.
>     [canape]
> 
> 7NT is now obvious.
> 
> Can anyone else find a shorter auction to 7NT?? (2 bids apiece!!!)
> --

Sort of.

BLUE TEAM CLUB:
 1C (1)   2N (2)
 7N (3)

(1) Strong

(2) 7 controls, A=2, K=1

(3) Losing to singleton AH and a club void, but ideal
for a Zip Board-a-Match :)


John Schuler
From: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Misalert
Date: 15 Apr 92 02:57:45 GMT
Reply-To: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

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.

What does this mean, Bob?  This is totally absurd.  You are basically
saying that there is a chance that this person *knew* that they were
given misinformation and then bid in such a way that they may get a
top or an adjusted score.  This is absolutely absurd.  This person was
clearly totally off-base in their hand evaluation but there is not a
shred of evidence that they were doing anything of this sort.

On the surface of it, it appears that someone was very confused.

>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!
-- 
"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