HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Over Strong NT
From: avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira)
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 01:03:56 GMT
Organization: Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson) writes:
: In article <1992Sep27.000236.28111@ramon.bgu.ac.il> avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira) writes:
....
                                                                    forbid
: >partner to pull out the double with a yarborough. Partner should pull only
: >when he/she sees prospects for a vulnerable game, so any call he makes is
: >at least invitational -
:
: This is not a good treatment. Partner should be able to pull your double with
: UNBALANCED poor hands. Otherwise, you either can't double enough or the
: opponents will make their doubled contracts too often.
:
I see that I have to explain my views on this more fully.  lets assume that
you have the following hand: xxx,xxxxx,xxxx,x. This is an unbalanced poor hand.
Now, if partner had opend 1N, clearly you should take it out to 2H (by bidding
2D Jacoby for instance). The reason is simple. You will make on the average 2
more tricks playing in hearts than in NT.

But in 4th seat, after 1NT x pass, you should sit for the double. Why?

First, if partner has a minimum double, 2H will go for 300 - 1100, whereas
1NTx scores 180.  Even 1 OT will not be that expensive. 280 nv, 380 vul.
2 OT's, you say? then they have game. 580 is less than 600.

Second, partner does not necessarily have a balanced hand. For all you
know, partner might have say xxx, x, Ax, AKQJxx - a perfectly sound double
of 1NT -  by bidding you will convert +200 to -500. (partner will
surely bid 3C, and 7 tricks are the limit).

In short, by taking out the double, you are in a no win situation. By sitting,
you minimize the losses, and may even score. Remember, the weaker you are,
the stronger parnter rates to be.  Declarer's strength is known: 15-17 HCP.
Partner could have 9 - 25.  Decalrer has a balanced hand. Partner could
have anything. Remember, that the doubler is on lead. He does not need
stoppers. He can roll his suit.

Therefore, the only reason to take the double out is that doubler's
partner has an offensive hand, and thinks that game or slam for our side is
possible.

Avi
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Play this slam
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:32:07 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Giuseppe Bianchi <geppo@dworkin.wustl.edu> writes:
>    KQxxxx
>    Axx
>    x
>    Axx

>    xx
>    KQJxx
>    AQJxx
>    x

Against strong players you only rate to set up the spades if the ace is
onside.  If East has the ace, East can duck the first round and win the
second.  Now you don't have the dummy entries you need to ruff out the
spades and enjoy them.  You are also going to need 3-2 hearts.

If you take the diamond finesse, of course you need East to hold the
king.  If East has three diamonds, that's all you need.  If East has
four diamonds, you also need 3-2 hearts.  If East has five diamonds, you
don't have much chance, assuming that dummy's heart spots really are
A32.  (I wish people would post the actual spot cards.)  If East has two
diamonds, I would go down, playing East to have falsecarded from Kxx.
(There weren't great chances in any case.)

East's Kxx of diamonds, or Kxxx of diamonds together with two or three
hearts, is 35.0%.  West's two or three spades to the ace, with two or
three hearts, is a priori 23.4%, and if we assume that West would have
led a small singleton spade, 26.4%.  In either case, significantly less.

So I think I would play club ace, diamond finesse, ace of diamonds,
diamond ruff.  If diamonds are 4-3 and the king falls, draw trump in
four rounds.  If diamonds are 4-3 but the king doesn't fall, ruff a
club, ruff a diamond high, draw trump in three rounds.

If your opponents are not extremely strong, leading a spade becomes a
more attractive alternative, because the chance that the opponents will
either win the ace on the first round or give away its position is very
high.

                                        David desJardins
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bs@mendel.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: Restricting Conventions
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:39:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.173132.18978@head-cfa.harvard.edu> willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) writes:
:
:This is just some minor amplifications to a most thoughtful posting.
:The arguments are so reasonable it's amazing they haven't seemed to
:convince the regulators.
:
:In article <17675@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, martel@spider.cs.ucdavis.edu
:(Chip Martel) writes: 
:> it is wrong for a pair to gain a substantial advantage by playing a
:> convention due to its SURPRISE EFFECT.  The surprise effect is the
:> gain which comes purely because the opponents have not had a
:> reasonable chance to prepare to play against the convention.
 
Please tell me why Roman, which has been around for at least 30 years,
published in books, and used extensively in international competition
has been banned by the ACBL.  One cannot claim 'surprise'. This is an
old and well published system.
--
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: maillist@base.cs.ucla.edu (Generic Mailing List ID (Guest))
Subject: PSP #21
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:12:16 GMT

This is problem set #21.  Back to the standard of five problems.  These
particular problems are provided by Ken Salter.  Here's what Ken had to
say:

    The ACBL's District 4 (which comprises eastern PA, southern NJ,
    all of DE [I think], and most of NY outside the NYC metro area)
    published 5 problem hands last spring.  The solutions prepared by
    a panel of 18 District 4 experts were published recently.

The answers that Ken mailed to me didn't have any comments but did
have votes by experts and the dreaded 100-point scoring system.


INSTRUCTIONS:

Mail me your answers before Monday, October 12th (two weeks away)

MAIL ANSWERS to "maillist@base.cs.ucla.edu".  Do NOT mail to "matthew"
unless "maillist" fails.

Try to keep the "What's the Problem?" comments to a minimum.  In general,
discuss how you handle the problem in your partnership, only if that's
interesting.

Please use the format below.  My software is really touchy about this.

1. bid #1.  explanation #1 (single or multiple lines)...

2. bid #2.  explanation #2 (single or multiple lines)...

3. etc.

Unless marked otherwise, the problems are "Standard American".  That is, 
assume 5-card majors, better minor, strong (15-17 HCP) no trump, negative 
doubles, etc.  Try come up with the "right bid" in BWS given the situation.  



Problem 1.  
IMPs, None vul.  
You, South, hold:
S-A954   H-J3   D-AQT96   C-J4

South     West      North     East
-----     ----      -----     ----
                     1H       pass
  ?

What call do you make?



Problem 2.  
M-Ps, N-S vul.  
You, South, hold:
S-A94   H-A82   D-A97642   C-5

South     West      North     East
-----     ----      -----     ----
                               1D
pass       1H        2C       pass
  ?

What call do you make?



Problem 3.  
IMPs, None vul.  
You, South, hold:
S-K97642   H-void   D-AK82   C-K53

South     West      North     East
-----     ----      -----     ----
                               1S 
pass      pass       2C       pass
 2S        3H       pass       4H
  ?

What call do you make?


Problem 4.  
IMPs, None vul.  
You, South, hold:
S-J5   H-J73   D-AKQ95   C-A93

South     West      North     East
-----     ----      -----     ----
                     1C       pass
 1D       pass       3C       pass
  ?

What call do you make?



Problem 5.  
IMPs, None vul.  
You, South, hold:
S-void   H-Q753   D-K74   C-AKJ962

South     West      North     East
-----     ----      -----     ----
                     1D        4S 
  ?

What call do you make?
--

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: hampton@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik)
Subject: Re: E-Bridge Party
Organization: UMCC
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:43:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.155100.8079@news.duc.auburn.edu> jpnicol@eng.auburn.edu writes:
>TO:      ALL
>FROM:    CHYAH BURGHARD   (DMFV47B)
>SUBJECT: BRIDGE ORLANDO PARTY
> 
>Okay folks, it is official the "Computer Bridge Users" party
>will be November 23, at the Olive Garden at 5:15pm. Please  
>RSVP.  Grant Baze is Launching a duplicate game via computer
>network called Tel-A-Bridge, played in an environment as if 
>you were playing with Screens. He will talk to the group    
>and Tel-A-Bridge and answer questions. Plus you get to put  
>faces to the names. Tel-A-Bridge is currently scheduled     
>to debut in January 1993.                                   

Do you or Chyah know the answer to the question "How fast is
the pace of the game?"  Games are banned on my system, so I
haven't been able to sample OKbridge, but all other "E-bridge"
games I have played are glacially slow, anywhere from 20-45
minutes per hand, which I find unacceptable on any pay-by-the-hour
service.

If the pace is decent, or at least charged by the hand instead of
by the hour, I know I would be interested.

-- 
Kevin J. Podsiadlik         | "A recent survey has revealed that, if the
Vaporware Engineer          | election were to be held tomorrow, a whopping
2nd class                   | 98% of those polled would be glad it came
E-mail: hampton@ais.org     | early this year." -- Thomas Sowell (paraphrased)
From: zilch@apples.Eng.Sun.COM (John Hoffman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Negative Doubles and Required Alerts
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:41:09 GMT
Reply-To: zilch@apples.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: apples


> When playing 5 card majors and Negative doubles through some level (say 2S),
> Which of the following are required to be alerted?
>
>   1) 1C 1H 1S -- Where the 1S promises 5+ spades
>
>      Note: Does anyone playing negative doubles not promise at least 
>            5 spades on this auction?

With my best partner, our agreement is that 1S promises at least 4 spades
whereas a negative double in this situation promises at least 4 spades
and at least 4 in the unbid suit.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: wilson@rhombus.cs.jhu.edu (Dwight Wilson)
Subject: Re: My fault ?
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University CS Department
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 08:33:59 GMT

In article <davidm.717806622@voltaire> davidm@voltaire.Rational.COM (David Moore) writes:
>
>I have seen a lot of stuff on the "Law" of total tricks lately, some of it even
>by quite senior players. Still, I cannot help feeling it is bogus.
>
>The usual definition is something like:
>
>When each side holds about equal strength, the number of tricks either side
>can expect to take is equal to the number of trumps held.

This is an incorrect definition.  The definition given by Marty Bergen
in Expert Bridge is, "The number of total tricks in a hand is approximately
equal to the total number of trumps held by both sides, each in their
respective suit."

That is, the number of tricks you can make is not equal to the number
of trumps you hold, but rather that the number of tricks you can make
in your suit plus the number the opponents can make in their suit is
equal to the sum of the number of trumps in your respective suits.

>
>Has anyone done a statistical analysis of the "Law" of total tricks? Has the 
>law any validity (which i would put at (perhaps) 
>variance(expected tricks-total_trumps)<0.5)? 
>

Bergen writes that Jean-Rene Vernes (the proposer of the Law), did
a study based on ten years of World Championship hands.  The results
were that the law was exactly right in 1/3 of the deals and within
one one trick in 80% of them.  

-Dwight
From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Scoring program.
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:29:30 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1aal7tINNk85@early-bird.think.com>, barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
> 
> Does anyone know of a scoring program for the Macintosh (or maybe an Excel
> spreadsheet)?  The director of our club has a Powerbook that we could use
> for scoring.  All we really need is a program that can do normal American
> matchpoint scoring with factoring.

I looked for one a while ago and couldn't find one.  The ACBL has no plan to
port ACBL Score.  They recommend using ACBL Score with a PC emulator
(e.g., SoftPC).

Has anybody out there tried this combination?  Is it fast enough?


                                   Tim
From: dej@qpoint.ocunix.on.ca (David Jones)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re:  What (ethically) should we do?
Date: 25 Sep 92 00:20:55 GMT
Organization: Dejital Software

In article <davidm.717191877@voltaire> davidm@voltaire.Rational.COM (David Moore) writes:
>Having used both systems extensively, I believe that bidding boxes
>are the superior method.

Once the technology becomes affordable, bidding computers would be
useful.  They could keep a record of the auction for each player,
and forever put to rest "Did you play board 3?  Yes, why?  How the *?#@$
did you get to 6H on that???"

Another feature for the computer: clocks!  Like in chess, give each
side x minutes.  One soon will know who the slow players are.

--
 David Jones, 6730 Tooney Drive, Orleans, Ontario K1C 6R4 CANADA
       email: dej@qpoint.ocunix.on.ca    Fido: 1:163/109.8
 AMIGA: Advanced Multimedia with Interactive Graphics and Audio
From: jiang@liasun1.epfl.ch (Tao JIANG)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: IMP scoring
Date: 29 Sep 92 10:52:52 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

In article <1a7teoINNhk@overload.lbl.gov>, asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky) writes:
|> In Novato scoring method was average IMPs.  It's similar to cross IMPs,
|> or total IMPs, but after comparing your score to each other score, the
|> result is devided by the number of comparisons.



Could anyone post all the IMP scoring methods for multiple boards?
I would like to know the exact way to compute the score.  Thanks.

--
Tao Jiang
Swiss Federal Inst. of Tech., Lausanne
From: taylor@foraker.tivoli.com (Eric Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Forcing Pass (was "Bid these hands" and "Competitive Decision")
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:42:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: tivoli.4755
Organization: TIVOLI Systems, Inc.

In article <1670@idacrd.UUCP>, desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
|> Eric Taylor <taylor@logan.tivoli.com> writes:
|> >>>>>> BTW, if you're in the habit of opening strong two-suiters (hands
|> >>>>>> like, say, -,AKJxx,AKQxxxx,J, from the November 1990 ACBL charity
|> >>>>>> game) with 2C, you'll find this sort of preemption much harder to
|> >>>>>> handle.
|> 
|> > As a tactical bid, why not open this hand 1 diamond even in a big club
|> > system?  You will not get passed out and there will little doubt as to
|> > the nature of your hand when you jack up the bidding to 4 or 5 hearts
|> > later?
|> 
|> There will be little doubt that you hold some different hand, because
|> you have systemically denied holding this one.
|> 
|> Your comment makes about as much sense as saying that you will open your
|> balanced 16 count in a minor instead of with a strong NT for tactical
|> reasons, because when you bid strongly later partner will figure out
|> what you have.  If you have a system, and you make a bid in that system,
|> then there are generally not subsequent bids which have the meaning, "I
|> lied on an earlier round."

Please give some auction where it would hurt to open
this hand 1 diamond.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: jpnicol@eng.auburn.edu (Jean-Paul N. Nicol)
Subject: Re: E-Bridge Party
Reply-To: jpnicol@eng.auburn.edu
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:00:40 GMT

In article A0o@ais.org, hampton@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.155100.8079@news.duc.auburn.edu> jpnicol@eng.auburn.edu writes:
>>TO:      ALL
>>FROM:    CHYAH BURGHARD   (DMFV47B)
>>SUBJECT: BRIDGE ORLANDO PARTY
>> 
>>Okay folks, it is official the "Computer Bridge Users" party
>>will be November 23, at the Olive Garden at 5:15pm. Please  
>>RSVP.  Grant Baze is Launching a duplicate game via computer
>>network called Tel-A-Bridge, played in an environment as if 
>>you were playing with Screens. He will talk to the group    
>>and Tel-A-Bridge and answer questions. Plus you get to put  
>>faces to the names. Tel-A-Bridge is currently scheduled     
>>to debut in January 1993.                                   
>
>Do you or Chyah know the answer to the question "How fast is
>the pace of the game?"  Games are banned on my system, so I
>haven't been able to sample OKbridge, but all other "E-bridge"
>games I have played are glacially slow, anywhere from 20-45
>minutes per hand, which I find unacceptable on any pay-by-the-hour
>service.
>
>If the pace is decent, or at least charged by the hand instead of
>by the hour, I know I would be interested.
>
>-- 
>Kevin J. Podsiadlik         | "A recent survey has revealed that, if the
>Vaporware Engineer          | election were to be held tomorrow, a whopping
>2nd class                   | 98% of those polled would be glad it came
>E-mail: hampton@ais.org     | early this year." -- Thomas Sowell (paraphrased)

Sorry, I don't know the pace on TSN (The sierra network) but I'm sure its much faster than 20 min/hand. I don't play there because its a long distance call for me (and besides OKBridge is 'free')  Tel-A-Bridge as yet only exists in Baze's imagination, so the pace there is unknown.  There is no playing on Prodigy (there used to be, but that's another story), just discussion.

MY understanding is that TSN rates are not unreasonable (1-800-sierra1)

JP

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: dif@bhprtc.scpd.oz.au (David Faulkner)
Subject: Re: Another (mis)information question
Organization: BHP Steel, Sheet & Coil, Research & Technology Centre
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 07:04:33 GMT

taylor@logan.tivoli.com (Eric Taylor) writes:

>In article <1992Sep23.000932.26114@bhprtc.scpd.oz.au>, dif@bhprtc.scpd.oz.au (David Faulkner) writes:
>|> In our local club pairs championship last week, I was playing against a
>|> Precision pair. My partner opened 1C, and RHO jumped to 2H, alerted by
>|> his partner. I bid 2NT with 10 HCP and a heart stopper, and LHO passed.
>|> 
>|> My partner, holding 19 HCP, asked what a jump overcall was in their
>|> (Precision) methods, and was informed "It's an overcall". When we said
>|> "No, it's a jump overcall" and asked for more clarification, we were
>|> told "It is 10 - 15 HCP and long hearts" .
>|> Assuming a slam was out of the question, partner
>|> signed off in 3NT. Making 7.
>
>10 + 19 != 33
>Did you partner have a long running club suit?
>Did you have a semi-solid suit?
>Unless you can diagnose 12 tricks, you have no reason to be in slam.
>
>Whether or not their card says 0-5 or 10-12, you should be bidding
>your own hands.

I had a good 5 card club suit. Partner had a good 5 card diamond suit.
Most of the field was in 6NT, making 7.
My partner bid 3NT since he did not see the point in investigating a
slam when there was apparently a 10-15 HCP hand sitting over his strong
hand.

  -dif-
-- 
Dave Faulkner, Research Engineer                    (dif@bhprtc.scpd.oz.au)
BHP Coated Products Division, Research and Technology Centre
Port Kembla, New South Wales, Australia.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson)
Subject: Re: Over Strong NT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:28:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.000236.28111@ramon.bgu.ac.il> avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira) writes:
>strong NT in the direct position. The first point, is that a double of
>1NT is a rewarding proposition. You risk 180 to gain 100-1100. Consequently,
>one should double 1NT (strong or weak) on every opportunity (and forbid
>partner to pull out the double with a yarborough. Partner should pull only
>when he/she sees prospects for a vulnerable game, so any call he makes is
>at least invitational - I shall be glad to explain this further, if asked).

This is not a good treatment. Partner should be able to pull your double with
UNBALANCED poor hands. Otherwise, you either can't double enough or the
opponents will make their doubled contracts too often.

>  1. the purpose of the overcall is to compete for the partscore. If the over-
>     caller has enough to consider game, he usually has enough to double.
>  2.  The suit is broken, since with a solid suit you should pass or double,
>      and lead it.
>
>  3.  HCP is limitted.
>
>  4.  High trick taking potential
>

Only true for flatish hands.



Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: henk@pdsf.ssc.gov (Henk Uijterwaal)
Subject: Re: Neuberg's formula (was Re: Scoring program.)
Keywords: Oops, typo.
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:48:01 GMT

Yesterday I wrote:

Neuberg's formula:

+>              N
+>   MP' - 1 = --- (MP - 1)
+>              n

Oops that should be:

                N
     MP' + 1 = --- (MP + 1)
                n

You can easily check this: suppose N=20, n=10. Now average in the small
(10 table) group is converted from 9 to 20/10*(9+1)-1=19 which is what you
expect. 

Henk.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                                      Email: henk@pdsf.ssc.gov 
SSC-labs, MS 2005.                                          46082::henk
Building 4, room F-428
2550 Beckleymeade Av.
Dallas, TX 75237                                     Phone: 1-214-708-6192
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: zilch@apples.Eng.Sun.COM (John Hoffman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re:  What (ethically) should we do?
Date: 26 Sep 1992 20:58:27 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: zilch@apples.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: apples

> Another feature for the computer: clocks!  Like in chess, give each
> side x minutes.  One soon will know who the slow players are.

As written in a Bridge World editorial a year or two back, attempts
to detect and punish slow play can easily backfire.  

An obvious example:
Declarer in an IMPS event is playing 6N, which she knows will
make exactly 6 no matter what the defense does.  Declarer spends 
about 5 seconds per play, while the defense spends 10 minutes 
in a futile effort to find the right signals and discards.

The result is yet another instance of the law of unintended effects.
Without the incentive to penalize opponents for their slow play
on defense, declarer would claim almost immediately and everyone
would move more quickly to the hands that really do require deep thought.

john



Alternatively, 



Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Andy Lipscomb)
Subject: Re: Neuberg's formula
Organization: Vanderbilt University 
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:29:52 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21

Actually, the ACBL [USA/CAN/MEX/Bermuda] has adopted Neuberg's formula
for the case of fouled boards, and ACBLScore (and probably others as well)
support this.  I think the artificial-score case is still handled the old way.

Andy Lipscomb
lipscoja@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge