HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bmedley@hounix.org (Bert Medley)
Subject: QUESTION: Are 7-11 pt NTs legal?
Organization: Houston UNIX Users Group (HOUNIX), Houston, TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 17:12:34 GMT

I recently heard that someone played very weak no trumps (7-11 HCP) at
a club in Galveston, TX.  Are these things legal?  What is the best defence
if they ARE legal?

-- 
Bert Medley                            | HOUNIX:  bmedley@hounix.org
2476 Bolsover #293                     | Work:    medley@synercom.hounix.org
Houston TX 77005                       | Home:    bert@medley.ssdl.com
Xref: sparky rec.games.bridge:7551 ut.general:492 utcs.under:151 utcs.grad:283
From: 8ball@cs.utexas.edu (Karl R. Dalley)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge,ut.general,utcs.under,utcs.grad
Subject: UT Bridge Club
Followup-To: ut.general
Date: 25 Jan 1993 20:06:59 -0600
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
Distribution: austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: dimebox.cs.utexas.edu

The University of Texas Bridge Club is beginning its spring "season".
If you are interested in playing or learning how to play bridge, come
join us at the first meeting - Wednesday, January 27th, 6:00 pm in the
CBA (College of Business Administration) Atrium. 

Everyone welcome.

Send replies to my ID.

Thanks.

---Karl R. Dalley
8ball@cs.utexas.edu


Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: rudy@netcom.com (Rudy)
Subject: Re: bidding judgment
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:33:50 GMT

In article <43114@apadravya.princeton.edu> bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing) writes:
>In article <9301200935.aa28385@Paris.ics.uci.edu> kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler) writes:
>|my partner to adopt a non-standard bidding system.
>|Briefly I thought by seeing how a radically different
>|system would evaluate hands that that might improve
>|our bidding judgment.
>I think this is quite reasonable and is one major reason to play a "strange"
>system for awhile, even if you don't stick with it ...  after playing

I think this is silly.  If you want to do something like this, then
play No Conventions for a while -- that will do two things:

1. Improve your judgement

2. Teach you which conventions you can live without.

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: matthew@base.cs.ucla.edu (Matthew Merzbacher)
Subject: bridge with handicap (was: bridge for the blind)
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:16:04 GMT

All this discussion about playing Bridge when blind makes me think of
an inspirational woman at the club where I sometimes play.  She has a 
disability with the language center in her brain that makes it impossible 
for her to link numbers/suits with their names!

When you bid, she asks you to hold up how many fingers you bid and point 
to a little index card with pictures of the suits on it.  So, if you want 
to bid 3H, you hold up 3 fingers and point to the heart shape on the card.
Of course, she and her partner bid this way too.

For dummy play, she has to point to the card she wants played, as well, 
since she can't call for it.

You might think that a person with such a disability would not be a great
card player, but you would be wrong.  She's sharp - as sharp as any at the 
(relatively weak) club that she plays in.  

Remarkable and inspiring.
--

Matthew Merzbacher	ARPA:	matthew@CS.UCLA.EDU
Moo - Moo Moo  		UUCP:	...!{uunet|rutgers|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!matthew
               		This time, *with* the oys
From: tac6189@hertz.njit.edu (Tom Carmichael                                                  )
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: QUESTION: Are 7-11 pt NTs legal?
Date: 27 Jan 93 14:53:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1993Jan24.171234.11536@hounix.org> bmedley@hounix.org (Bert Medley) writes:
>I recently heard that someone played very weak no trumps (7-11 HCP) at
>a club in Galveston, TX.  Are these things legal?  What is the best defence
>if they ARE legal?
>	

	No, they are not.  (In the ACBL)  You can play NT's with as little
as 8 HCP, but not 7.  If you play a NT range that could have fewer than 10
HCP or a range greater than 5 HCP, then you are not allowed to play any 
conventions over the NT (not even stayman).

Tom
From: kgs@cnmss.tredydev.unisys.com (Ken Salter)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Swing hand
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:26:38 GMT
Organization: Unisys Corp.

I'd like to share an interesting hand (IMO) that offered many 
opportunities both in the bidding and in the play.  It occurred
in the sixth and final round of a club Swiss team event (IMPs, 
VPs, 9-board matches ) last night and determined the top 3
places in the event.

               A x            NS vul         W    N    E    S
               J x x          S  dealer      ----------------
               A K x x                       Table 1:
               T 8 x x                       -    -    -    p
K J T x x                  9 8               1S   p    p    p
Q x                        T 8 x x
x x                        T 9 x x
A K x x                    Q J x             Table 2:
               Q 5 3 2                       -    -    -    1D
               A K 9 x                       1S   dbl  p    2H
               Q J x                         p    2S   p    3H
               x x                           p    4H   p    p
                                             p


At table 1, the play was:          At table 2, the play was:
1.   DK x Q x                      Dx x x Q
2.   Dx x J x                      Cx x x J
3.   HK x x x                      S9 2 x A
4.   Dx HQ A x                     Hx x A x
5.   HJ x x ruff                   HA Q x x
6.   Cx x J x                      DJ x x x
7.   S9 2 x A                      Dx x K spade
8.   Hx 8 9 ruff                   DA x club club
9.   Cx x Q x                      Cx x ruff x
A.   DT ruff overruff x            SQ K x x
B.   CA x any ruff                 SJ club club(??) H9
C.   HA ruff-with-K any any        and declarer had to score
D.   CK x S8 SQ                         the HJ

down 1 --> NS +50                  making --> NS -620


Ken Salter
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: mrl@nerus.pfc.mit.edu
Subject: RE: Some questions about 2 over 1.
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 13:42:01 GMT

In a previous article, bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) wrote:
>In article <1993Jan22.133457.26361@odin.diku.dk> turin@diku.dk (S|ren Turin) writes:
> 
>In reply I post what *I* usually play.
> 
>>1S-2C-2D/H-2S
>>Is this merely a preference or does it show real spade support.  If it
>>shows support, whats the difference between openers 3 and 4 spade
> 
>The way I play it shows real support, but is limited to 3 cards.
>I use a jump to 3S to show 4 card support. It also shows EXTRAS.
>[as does 3S]. A jump to 4S shows a balanced minimum.
> 

Another way to play it is that 3s shows 3 card support with extras.  If you had
4 card support with extras, you would have bid Jacoby NT, Inverted Trump Swiss,
or used an under jump shift at 3 level, all depending on shape and values.

Mark London
MRL@NERUS.PFC.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: What is so terrible about doubling offshape?
Keywords: Double
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:26:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.204655.25049@galois.mit.edu> boyiny@kovalevskaya.mit.edu (Professor Who?) writes:
 
stuff deleted...
>
>Surely you jest.  I know, you are not joking, which makes it even worse.
>Why is everyone so afraid of offshape doubles?  The brainwashing really is
>complete.  Bad things may happen.  Tough, that is life, I expect to
>lose--lose big perhaps-- some of the time when I enter the auction, but I
>consider pass bordering on the criminal, no matter how many experts do it.
 
Noone is afraid of making offshape doubles. There are SYSTEMS that
use them. But if you are going to make a **takeout** double, then you
MUST have support for unbid suits.

Did it occur to you that experts play the way they do because long
experience has shown that this is what works? Nah! of course not.

Noone has suggested pass on the given hand. 1S and 1NT are both
reasonable. But a double is ridiculous. You can't handle a diamond
response from partner. Being willing to "lose big perhaps" some of
the time is just plain losing bridge because it is unecessary.

Your attitude is foolish. Experts play the way they do because 
it works. Saying that you refuse to do something no matter how many
experts do it is silly. 

I would also like to finally ask why you consider pass criminal?
The posted hand had mostly DEFENSIVE values AGAINST a heart contract.
On its own it had a minimum of 5 defensive tricks against hearts.
Your claiming that a pass is criminal shows a strong lack of hand
evaluation skils.
--
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: Assess the blame
Organization: UMCC
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 02:12:04 GMT

Whew!  I didn't quite expect *this* much of a firestorm over this one.
Fortunately, my partner and I were able to say "It's only one board"
when all was said and done.

Interestingly, no one blamed the double.  West, as much of the net
concurred, insisted East did not have a 3D bid.  East, meanwhile,
was practically certain 3NT was not the right place to be, and
went into a sort of "damage control" mode.  And it was pointed
out to me...

           AQ94               3
           AQT9               62
           K                  QT9865
           A642               9853

...that as the cards lay (ideal breaks all around), 4D is only down
one.  This doesn't prove a thing, to be sure...


...but I am reminded of another hand featuring a similar bid, with
a happier ending...

NORTH:     S) 7  H) AK92  D) A874  C) AKJT
 
SOUTH:     S) 965432  H) 5  D) T  C) 98642

West   North   East   South
1H     X       2H     2S
P      3NT     P      4S
X      XX      P      5C
P      P       X

...making 5 when West did not have a trump to lead. (AQJT QJT87 KJ92 -)

At the other table:

West    North    East    South
1H      P        2H      P
3H      X

Making 3.

I will admit that I was South at the first table on this hand, a LONG
time ago.

-- 
Kevin J. Podsiadlik          | 
Vaporware Engineer 2nd class |    "But, Master, what if we behave badly?" 
E-mail: hampton@ais.org      |    "You go to Detroit."
CompuServe: 71460,3602       |
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sc@basil.eng.monash.edu.au (Cong Shiguo)
Subject: help wanted on bridge games
Organization: Electrical & Computer Systems Eng. Dept., Monash Uni.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 09:50:24 GMT

Hello netters,

	I am a beginner in playing bridge. I am looking for a bridge game 
on IBM PC for practice. Many thanks in advance.

	regards,

	Scott
From: bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: 23 Jan 93 01:59:10 GMT
Subject: Re: What is so terrible about doubling offshape?
Organization: Princeton University
X-Subliminal-Message: You can quit reading news anytime you want.

In article <1993Jan22.012601.10364@linus.mitre.org> bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
|In article <1993Jan21.204655.25049@galois.mit.edu> boyiny@kovalevskaya.mit.edu (Professor Who?) writes:
| 
|stuff deleted...
|>
|>Surely you jest.  I know, you are not joking, which makes it even worse.
|>Why is everyone so afraid of offshape doubles?  The brainwashing really is
|>complete.  Bad things may happen.  Tough, that is life, I expect to
|>lose--lose big perhaps-- some of the time when I enter the auction, but I
|>consider pass bordering on the criminal, no matter how many experts do it.
| 
|Noone is afraid of making offshape doubles. There are SYSTEMS that
|use them. But if you are going to make a **takeout** double, then you
|MUST have support for unbid suits.
|
|Did it occur to you that experts play the way they do because long
|experience has shown that this is what works? Nah! of course not.
|
|Noone has suggested pass on the given hand. 1S and 1NT are both
|reasonable. But a double is ridiculous. You can't handle a diamond
|response from partner. Being willing to "lose big perhaps" some of
|the time is just plain losing bridge because it is unecessary.
|
|Your attitude is foolish. Experts play the way they do because 
|it works. Saying that you refuse to do something no matter how many
|experts do it is silly. 

I agree with Bo-Yin here ...  the attitude "don't do X because if situation
Y happens, you'll be screwed" is just not going to make you come out ahead
in the long run.  This is a hold-over from the '30's, where no-trump openings
denied a small doubleton, pre-empts were quite sound, etc. etc.

There are plenty of experts who don't hold this attitude, despite what
Bob claims ...  witness esp. those who play forcing-pass and such systems,
where fert bids abound, 8-counts are routinely opened (I'm not counting the
fert as an opening), etc. etc.  On first glance these systems are just
BEGGING for disaster, and occasionally it happens. But they're willing to
live with that, because of the benefits in other circumstances.  Most of
these experts, however, come from other countries, which may explain why
Bob doesn't acknowledge their existence.

ben
--

"Can't we all just get along?"
From: paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: What's the best bid?
Date: 20 Jan 93 16:08:31 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <1j7csaINNocu@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) writes:
>   S: --   H: Q x x   D: A x x   C: A 9 6 5 4 3 2
>Partner opens the bidding:
>   Pard   RHO    Me     LHO
>   1C(1)  Pass   2C(2)  2D
>   2H(3)  Pass   3D     Pass
>   3NT    Pass   ??
>
>(1) Will never be 12-14 balanced.
>(2) Inverted.  In principle 9+ HCP, but frequently shaded because
>    of exciting distribution.  Kaplan's rule is, would you rather
>    be in game or not opposite a strong notrump?
>(3) Heart stopper, 15+ HCP, 4+ clubs.
>
>... What do you bid?  Why?  Does it matter if you're 1/3 of the way into the
>session and estimate that you're about a board over average?  How
>do you think the field will bid the hand if partner opens a strong
>NT?

With a partnership on firmer ground I'd bid a forcing 4C (a grand is still a
possibility although fairly unlikely). Under the circumstances described
where the partnership is already a little uncertain as to exactly what
various bids mean I'll just bid what I think I can make, 6C. This will range
from having no play (very rare) to having a decent play for 7 (also rare).
I figure that it will make at least 12 tricks far more than 50% of the time
(the lead is running up to partners hand which should be to the good).

I'd make this bid at Imps or matchpoints regardless of the state of my game
unless I was completely out of contention or would win with an average
result.

After a strong 1NT opening I expect the great majority of the field to get
to 3NT because they will not have the mechanism to explore for a club slam.
Also, for many who do have the mechanism, the clubs will be bid from the
wrong side first.
From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Is this an infraction?
Date: 27 Jan 93 14:58:59 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbootay.sw.stratus.com

In article <C1C78v.KAu@ais.org>, hampton@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik) writes:
> A hypothetical question on the Laws:

> After West makes the opening lead to a hand, and while declarer is studying
> the dummy, East notices something very wrong.  Dummy's diamond holding
> appears to include the ace, and yet East is staring at the ace of diamonds
> in his own hand.  "Wait a minute," says East, who then shuffles through
> dummy's diamonds to reveal that the ace among them is in fact the ace of
> HEARTS.  (The suit of the card was completely hidden from view, so that
> only the red "A" was visible.  Dummy was unavailable for comment after
> the hand.)

> West now knows with virtual certainty that East has the ace of diamonds.
> When South accuses East of transmitting unauthorized information, East
> protests that he was making what he thought was an innocuous, even
> chivalrous, effort to rectify an error on dummy's part.

> Were East actions a violation of the Law?

Stop!  Hold everything!  The trouble started when North violated correct
procedure (as defined in Law 41D) by misarranging dummy!  If this irregularity
somehow worked to NS's advantage, or made normal play of the board impossible,
then the director should adjust the score in favor of EW (Law 12).

Certainly East might, in retrospect, have handled the situation more gracefully,
but it's hard to imagine calmly asking North to spread dummy's diamonds without
giving the slightest hint that East was already looking at the DA.

-- 
Tim Hill
Stratus Computer, Inc.                  tnh@vos.stratus.com
55 Fairbanks Boulevard                  508-460-2232
Marlborough, MA  01752                  fax 508-624-7488
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Steven G. Myerson)
Subject: Re: Is this an infraction?
Organization: Raytheon Submarine Signal Division
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:12:34 GMT

In article <C1C78v.KAu@ais.org>, Kevin Podsiadlik writes:

*  A hypothetical question on the Laws:
*   
* 	...
*  in his own hand.  "Wait a minute," says East, who then shuffles through
*  dummy's diamonds to reveal that the ace among them is in fact the ace of
*  HEARTS.  (The suit of the card was completely hidden from view, so that
*  only the red "A" was visible.  Dummy was unavailable for comment after
*  the hand.)

East should not have touched dummy's cards,
but should have asked dummy to arrange them for better visibility.

I used to play with someone who had a habit of rearranging
dummy's cards so they were quite spread out.
He did this to the opponent's dummy as well as when I put
down my cards as dummy. One day an opponent called the director
because she thought he was sending signals to me by the
way he touched the cards. I knew he just had this (bad) habit,
but the directory warned him not to touch any other player's
cards without permission.

Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)
From: shamrake@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Danil Suits)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: What is so terrible about doubling offshape?
Date: 22 Jan 1993 20:30:47 GMT
Organization: Zansellquasure Flamarion Bridge Club
NNTP-Posting-Host: thumper.cc.utexas.edu
Summary: What *are* expert methods?
Keywords: Double

   Me? step in between Bob and Boyin? Not really; I'm just
   trying to find out if I am completely off base here...

   As I read it, the cause of the argument is not so much
   about hand evaluation as it is about methods.  Since my
   expert opponents play a style similar to what Boyin assumes,
   I have a few questions about Mr. Silverman's comments.

   The important stuff comes after the hashes. Feel free to
   skip this next bit.

Mr. Silverman: 
--Noone is afraid of making offshape doubles. There are SYSTEMS that
--use them. But if you are going to make a **takeout** double, then you
--MUST have support for unbid suits.

  I had always understood that standard expert practice was to use
                       (1 suit) X
  as EITHER 'takeout' or a hand too strong to take another action.
  A hand too good for an overcall, for example, would under these
  agreements double, then bid the suit freely later.  Am I that
  off base?

Mr. Silverman:
--Noone has suggested pass on the given hand. 1S and 1NT are both
--reasonable. But a double is ridiculous. You can't handle a diamond
--response from partner.

  On many player's cards I see the 1nt overcall marked as 15-17? Do
  experts play the bid that way? I seem to remember that Bergen prefers
  14-16. Over either of these ranges, using the principle above,
  doubling then bidding notrump is very reasonable.

  I must of course cede that double is far out when the notrump
  overcall range covers this hand.

  Not really relevant to the discussion but...

Mr. Silverman:
--I would also like to finally ask why you consider pass criminal?

  Criminal is rather strong, but passing does seem like a deep
  position to take. This is the bast hand at the table. Will it
  be easier to come in later?  Do you really
  want to give the opponents the table over a 3rd chair opening?

  In summary, it seems to me that both Silverman and Boyin are bidding
  reasonably *given their preferred agreements*

---------------------

Welcome back.

So let us talk theory.

I think many of us (me too!) can use this hand as a learning
experience.  Forgetting blame for the moment, let us consider
instead the alternative bidding styles expressed so far.  Is
one of these markedly superior to the other?

What I'd really like to see here is a discussion of what is
in literature. No offense intended Bob, but I don't trust
Boyin's experiences either.  Don Varvel is the usual net.librarian;
can you dig out some answers for us?

As a sidelight, has anybody else given consideration to the fact
that a lebensohl sequence would have helped here?

     P     P     1H     (X or 1NT)
     2H    2NT*   P      3C
     P     3D

Danil

-- 
   It was a dark and stormy night. Suddenly a shot rang out! The maid
screamed. A door slammed. Suddenly a pirate ship appeared on the horizon!

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: altus@leland.Stanford.EDU (Steve Altus)
Subject: Re: Assess the blame
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 21:52:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.213522.14987@linus.mitre.org> bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.175103.22673@rayssd.ssd.ray.com> sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Steven G. Myerson) writes:
> 

sentiment of much of the net:
>>I think the first bad bid was 3D,
>>unless there was an agreement that this bid showed weakness.
>>East just doesn't have enough to bid, freely, at the three level.
> 
>

Bob:
>East isn't "bidding freely". He is showing playing strength in 
>support of partner.  I remember a quote about this from S.J. Simon
>on a similar situation. One partner said something like
>"How am I to bid on only blah blah at the 4 level" and the answer
>was:
>"You're not damn it! You're supporting me. The only difference is that
>you are going to play the hand"
>

i agree with Bob 100% here... but that's my STYLE, and one of the
few things i actually like to discuss with people i'm about to play
with for the first time.  i like to play that freebids after a takeout
double promise NOTHING, and that takeout doubles carry the following 
message:  "partner, i invite you to compete in any suit, please jump
right in with anything."  as you might guess, playing this style does
not work well with off-shape doubles, and i don't make offshape doubles,
unless of course i need to show a hand too strong to overcall, which is
for me 20+ balanced or a REALLY good 18 count or so WITH a GOOD 6+ card
suit...  

playing takeout doubles which guarantee either support or a very strong
hand, East's bid is MANDITORY.  (s)he has a potentially very strong hand.

>
>The East hand has a very GOOD 3D bid. It is an 8 loser hand with
>6 card support to an honor for one of partners suits and 4 card
>support for another. 
>
stuff deleted...
>
>Your comments show you do not know how to evaluate a hand in
>support of partner's takeout doubles.
>
more deleted...
>
>3D is COMPETITIVE in this auction and shows PLAYING STRENGTH in
>support of partner's TAKEOUT double. It does not promise high cards.
>


i agree with all this.  i haven't said anything new.  but over and again
i see people rate the merits of actions based on how many people write
in and say, "oh, i'm with such-and-such, that was a bad bid!"  Well, 
consider this the same thing, and don't everyone think that because, say,
Bob happens to disagree with what everyone else is writing, that he's the 
looney-tune...


--steve altus

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge