HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: MIT defeats Harvard and Brown!!!  Yale fails to show!!!
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 04:18:09 GMT

In article <1dueipINNt89@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> sidlives@athena.mit.edu (Sid Vicious) writes:
:November 7, 1992
:
:MIT continues its long tradition of domination in intercollegiate
 
Much of it by cheating.

:bridge competition.  MIT won the match against Harvard, Yale, and
:Brown held on November 7, 1992 with MIT placing first, second and
:third.  MIT-1 team took the lead after the third round, then routed
:Harvard-2 and Harvard-1 garnering 82 victory points out of a possible
:100 with blitzing wins over Harvard-1, Harvard-2, Brown-1 and
:Harvard-4.  Meanwhile MIT-2 came in 2nd going undefeated winning
:steadly over Harvard-4, Brown-2, Harvard-1, Brown-3 and Harvard-2.
:MIT-3 came in third crushing Harvard-5 and Brown-2 and with wins over
:Harvard-3 and Brown-1.
:
:Listed below are the final results and the team compositions.
:
:MIT-1 103imps 82vps
:Moses Ma, David Rho, Philips Santosa, Matt Stevens
:

Ah yes. Moses Ma. and [I believe] Philips Santosa. 

The cheats who were caught flagrantly using special signals by a
former Harvard student, Mike Massimilla. [and subsequently tossed out
of the ACBL]

If I were these guys, I wouldn't admit in public that I was playing
again.
 
This bragging by (at least one of) the most flagrant cheaters ever
caught by the ACBL has a hollow ring. 

I also note that these clowns are considerably older and more 
experienced than the students from the other schools. These guys
were undergrads in the early 80's.  How can they claim to represent
MIT now?

Hey, if they want to compete with *former* students, I'll get together
a few ex-Harvard students [Howard Piltch, Arthur Moore, Kitty Bethe,
Peter Boyd, Eric Robinson, R. Becker etc.] and we'll have a little
match.

I think the above posting really stinks.

Feel proud of yourselves guys??
--
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: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Playing in an individual
Date: 9 Nov 1992 10:28:23 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: cypress.cs.utexas.edu


Received from Danil Suits:
-------------------------

I havent figured out how to keep rn from
calling vi as an editor.  Please post this
to RGB for me

text begins after dashed line

Danil
-----------
The Keohane Individual is coming up soon,
and I am trying to prepare.

I read an article in an old Bridge World
(May, 1981. Sorry, I cannot recall the name
of the author) which had many suggestions 
about playing in an indy, with some discussion
about the convention card one should use.

The author suggested that it should always be
*your* convention card that is used. Make it simple
and instructive (ie simple in agreements, but with 
the agreements written on the card)

His suggestions were fairly limitted and are as follows:

   Open all hands with 12HCP. Open hands with 11HCP if
   they have an ace or a king.

   1NT opening 15-17, never with a five card major

   1M opening never on 4 card suit

   weak 2 bids ALWAYS 6 card suit and 2 of top 3 honors

   No negative doubles

   No gerber

   Jump overcalls showing opening values and good suit

   1NT overcall DIRECT = 15-17
               BALANCE = 10-12


   The author also recommended that you discuss takeout
   doubles with your partner before the round starts

Now questions to which I hope people can supply reasonable
answers follow below.

1) What systems should be played over 1NT. Stayman plus
   natural is my own inclination, but what should 1NT-3m
   be?

2) Limit or forcing major suit raises?

3) Limit or standard notrumps over the minors?

4) should any direct q bids be allowed? (michaels and the like)

5) are there other topics to be considered?

Also a legality/ethics question.  Is it appropriate to have
2 cards? That is one to use when partner will be first to 
speak, and a second when you will be?  If there are 
differences, what should they be?

How about a third card, to be used when you recognize your 
partner? For example, if I draw Charlie Coon, should I
ask him to play 2/1, or simply accept the A+'s his card
play will generate anyway....

Danil (hoping to not see many of you there. my chances
       are bad enough already :-)
From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: When does cuebidding begin?
Date: 13 Nov 92 18:16:36 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbootay.sw.stratus.com

In article <7112@apadravya.princeton.edu>, bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing) writes:
> In article <1dqvutINNagb@transfer.stratus.com> tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill) writes:
> |> In article <9211090824.aa21965@Paris.ics.uci.edu>, kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler) writes:
> |> > No opposition bidding, 2/1 with WJS.

> |> >   North: QJxxxx, AKQx, xxx,--
> |> >   South: K10x, xx,Axx,AKQxx

> |Adam Beneschan, Olof Morell, Bharat Rao, and Don Varvel all suggested that
> |1S-2C,2H-2S,3C shows club support rather than first round club control.

> |If 1S-2C,2H-2S,3C shows club support rather than first round club control,
> |when DO you stop showing suits and start showing controls?  (Remember that
> |1S-2C,2H-2S has already established a major-suit fit and a game force.)

> It seems more sensible to me to have low bids be pattern-showing rather
> than cueing, because the pattern is important in hand judgement and there's
> lots of room for cueing.  Generally, I would think that suits below 3 of
> trump should be pattern and suits above 3 of trump cues.

That sounds okay.  But what if we don't have any more pattern to show?

What do we bid over 2S?  We've already shown both our suits.

Would 3H show a fifth heart?

What would 3S show?  (Systemically, 3S offers partner a choice of 3N.)

Wouldn't 4S be an underbid?  (Granted, our hand would be much better if the
minors were reversed, but it still counts to about 16 after partner shows
spade support.)

How do we mark time 'til the bidding gets high enough for us to show controls?

Anybody else who thinks 3C isn't control-showing care to comment?


                                    Tim
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Steve Myerson)
Subject: Re: Assign the blame
Organization: Raytheon Company, Portsmouth, RI
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 13:28:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.174425.9960@sco.COM> Paul Jackson writes:

* Club matchpoint game, you're vulnerable, opponents aren't. You're south and
* hold
* S A953 H 8532 D 32 C 732
* 
* Auction goes :
* W	N	E	S
* 2H(1)	3D(2)	3H	P
* P	3S	P	????
* 
* 1) Weak, not specifically disciplined but not completely random
* 2) In case it matters (negative inferences and all), you're playing
* Lebensohl over take out doubles of a weak 2. A direct cue bid by partner
* would be an undisclosed two suiter.
*
* What actually happened :
* South passed in the above position
* 
* North's hand is :
* S KQ874 H A D AT9864 C 6
* 
* On less than perfect defence 6 spades are made but 4 spades is a touch
* frigid.

Only brain-dead defense would let 6S make.

* Please assign the blame between north and south

Why didn't North cue bid 3H directly?
Or aren't 6-5's distributional enough to be considered a 2-suiter? :-)

South is sitting there wondering why North is showing a 2-suiter hand
and didn't cue-bid 3H originally.

I give North 67% of the blame for deviating from the agreed
bidding system for no apparent reason.

I give South 33% of the blame for failing to be imaginative enough
to figure out that  S A953 H 8532 D 32 C 732 opposite partner's
bidding merits a raise to 4S, regardless of the lack of a direct cue bid.
North has bid to 3S without any assurance of a fit.
South has a *huge* hand on the bidding.

Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: pynq@quads.uchicago.edu (George Jetson)
Subject: Re: Simple question about how to play takeout doubles
Reply-To: pynq@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: D. J. Dougherty & Associates
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:49:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.222945.14874@midway.uchicago.edu> I wrote:
(Bidding style discussion deleted)
>Overall, I am happy playing this way, but it does give you a problem on:
>
>	AKTxx,x,KQxx,Axx
>
>when RHO opens 1C, you bid 1S, and partner bids 1N (opps silent).

Many have written me asking "WTP" about this hand.  Just to clarify, in
practice, I bid 2D (as most recommended), and partner passed
with something like: xx,JT9xx,AJxx,Kx (making 5, with 3N a reasonable
spot as well)  And who can blame him when our overcalls are marked as 6+?

************************************************************************
I've been told to back off on the diode jokes, but I still don't
like smileys ;-)

	- pynq@quads.uchicago.edu, who is still costing the net
	  hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars, every time he posts -
************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Steve Myerson)
Subject: Re: Comments Please
Organization: Raytheon Company, Portsmouth, RI
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:00:52 GMT

In article <thijs.720875456@ei0> Thijs Veugen writes:

* We play Dutch ACOL, i.e. 5card spades, 4card hearts, strong NT, 2/1 not
* GF.
* I would like some comments on the following hands (IMP's):
* 
* 1. South			North
* 	A8xxx			QJx
* 	JTxx			Axx
* 	AKxx			Qxx
* 	-				xxxx
* 
* 	White vs. red:
* 	1s				1NT
* 	2h				3s
* 	4s				all pass
* 
* 	Result: -2
* 
* 	What about the 1NT bid and the final contract?

I can sympathize with North's 1N bid. Even though North has good
3-card support, the hand is still a 4-3-3-3 with half the points
in quacks. That said, I still think a immediate raise to 2S is best,
especially at IMPs.

After the 2H rebid, it seems that North tried to make up some lost
ground by jumping to 3S, trying to give the impression of a hand
better than just a simple preference.
Both players slightly overbid their hands, but I think the 1N bid
was the one that started the ball rolling.

BTW, please don't use tabs when posting hands.

* 2. South			North
* 	T				AKQJxx
* 	-				xxx
* 	AJTxxxx		KQx
* 	Axxxx			x
* 
* 	All white:
* 	W		N		E		S
* 	1c		2s		3h		4d
* 	4h		4s		all pass
* 
* 	Result: +3
* 
* 	2s shows openingstrength and a good 6card. 
* 	7d and 7s allways makes. 

2s shows opening strength and a good 6 card? Well, that is exactly
what North has. What is the purpose of the 4S bid?
South has introduced a suit at the 4 level, so should have at least
5 cards and probably has more. North has KQx.
A raise to 5D seems obvious.

We've already seen that QJx is not enough support for a 5-card suit.
Isn't KQx adequate support for what is probably at least a 6-card suit.
Doesn't North trust South's declarer play?

* 3. South			North
* 	Kxx			Qxx
* 	KQ9xx			x
* 	Qxxx			Ax
* 	x				AKxxxxx
* 	
* 	Red vs. white:
* 	-				1c
* 	1h				2c
* 	2d				3c
* 	pass
* 
* 	Result: +1
* 
* 	2d is roundforcing.
* 	3NT is the better contract provided they don't lead dK.

You need the opening leader to hold the Ace of spades and the king of diamonds.
Otherwise, a spade lead (when not holding the ace) sets up 3 spade tricks
to go with the club and heart ace.
A diamond lead (when not holding the king) threatens to kill the dummy.

Presumably South will be the notrump bidder. With just a singleton
in partners suit, I think passing 3C is safest.
Had South been dealt a doubleton club, taking a shot at 3N seems reasonable,
given the vulnerability.

Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)
From: opium@hardy.u.washington.edu (Just dance and move your body)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: UNIX/XWINDOWS Source for Bridge Game - MBC??  Anything..
Date: 13 Nov 92 03:57:48 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

I recently killed DOS from my 486/33 and installed Linux/X11, now in order
to play Bridge, I must boot from DOS floppy.  I have thought about writing
to Hoyle or the makers of MBC to find out about getting the source to the
games but I doubt they would do it under any circumstances....  Are there
any UNIX sources for Bridge games?   Thanx in advance,  8-)
From: shamrake@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Danil Suits)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Indys (part II)
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:57:21 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX


Let me try to clarify my earlier question.

  I am concerned about the legality and ethics of chosing
  which convention card I offer to my partner.

  Let us suppose that I have 2 convention cards (ie two
  different bidding systems)  The first system increases 
  the chance that the player in the earlier position gets
  to play more hands, the second system increases the chance
  that the player to speak later gets to play more hands...

  (for example, card A, the first card, has 12-14 notrumps...
   card B has 15-17.)

   So am I within my legal rights to quietly look at the 
   boards we are playing, and pass card A across to partner
   when I am in 1st or 2nd seat, but card B when I am in 3rd
   or 4th ?

   Ted, this is not a matter of playing different systems, but 
   chosing which system to play each round.  I do not believe
   that the law you quote is appropriate

Danil Suits
-- 
-- The Shamrake --    Zansellquasure  Flamarion
@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu          Bridge Club
From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Freak hand. YBTJ
Date: 13 Nov 92 14:43:11 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbootay.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov13.082058.13337@eua.ericsson.se>, ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se (Lars Andersson) writes:
> In article 1dukuaINN7cq@leo.asc.slb.com, hargrove@nobelium.asc.slb.com (Jim Hargrove) writes:

teams, both vul., yellow card

     Q74       AK6532
     T         A2
     J         KT86
     AKQJ9753  T

> Don't know this excellent system but here goes;

>    1C        2S(Strong jumps simplifies life...)
>    3S or 4C

> From now all roads leads to slam. I would prefer 4C myself. The slam
> probably plays much better in clubs.

Strong jump shifts simplify life with a fit (as recently discussed in the
thread titled "Bidding problem"), but they use up too much space with a
misfit.  I prefer that responder's strong jump shift promise either a
self-sustaining suit or support for opener's suit.  In either case, the
second round of bidding will establish at least one good trump suit.

With AK6532 A2 KT86 T, I'd respond 2S if partner opened 1D, but only 1S
if partner opened 1C or 1H.

My vote's for:

     1C        1S
     3C        3D
     3S        4N
     5D        6S
     P


                                    Tim
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Secure(?) 3 NT
Date: 7 Nov 92 06:34:05 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Dag stvang <Dag.Ostvang@avh.unit.no> writes:
>>> S A 6 5
>>> H Q T
>>> D Q 7 3 2
>>> C K 6 5 3

>>> S K J 8
>>> H A K 7 3
>>> D J 5
>>> C A J 9 4.

> When the deal arose, the west hand was S Q73 H J84 D AK3 C QT87. Yes,
> LHO had made an irregular lead.
> At one table, the secure line was found. At the other table, declarer,
> playing the other way around, on receiving a low heart lead, proceeded
> to take all the finesses for down one. This was not a good hand for
> finesses.

> I would really have hated to have this problem at pairs.

I don't understand this analysis.  Against this hand, and ANY hand that
I can construct for West, there is no particular problem, and no need
for an extreme safety play (such as leading to the club ace, as some
have suggested).

Say I win the heart queen, unblock the heart ten, cash the club king,
and finesse the club jack.  (I would call this the "normal line," and I
think it is the one most would take for maximum tricks at matchpoints.)
When East shows out and West wins, and West unexpectedly has a third
heart to return, I still have an idle card to discard on the third
heart, and I can endplay West again with the fourth round of clubs.
What's the problem?

The only way this "normal line" can fail is if West unexpectedly has
FOUR hearts.  And this would be not just unusual, but bizarre.

                                        David desJardins
From: geppo@dworkin.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Simple question about how to play takeout doubles
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:43:47 GMT
Organization: Washington University,  St Louis MO

In article <WALLACED.92Nov10200716@kauri.vuw.ac.nz> wallaced@kauri.vuw.ac.nz (David Wallace) writes:
>
> [...]
>
>George> However, the downside of this is that you have to play
>George> essentially unlimited overcalls (the ubiquitous "6+ HCP" on
>George> the card...).
>
>I've never liked the idea of an unlimited overcall: an overcall
>shouldn't be forcing because then you can't make them on a shapely 7
>count. But if they're unlimited but not forcing, how can partner
>decide when to respond, and when he/she won't be missing game to do so.
>
>What my partner and I do is the following. Our standard overcalls are
>limited, although the exact numbers aren't set in concrete, they're
>generally about 8-13 at the one level and 10-15 at the two level (plus
>or minus a tad for the vul). Anything stronger than this is indicated
>by doubling, then bidding the suit later. 

I found a lot of different opinions about the count-range of an overcall.
Anyway I find that the two extreme positions have several drawbacks 
(and I'm sure I'll open many flames :-).

Reversing with 14 points, but also with the hand indicated by George
(AKJxx, x, KQxx, Axx) is awful. You can find yourself at a too high 
level to have any possibility to find the right contract. For example,
with the hand of George, 1D - x - P - 4H - P - ???

On the other side, I'd be scared to say only 1S with a hand like
AKQJTxx, xx, AQxx, -, (also without the DQ ..) playing 'unlimited' overcalls,
and 4S of course is not a solution.

I think that a better sistemation stays in the middle:

1) play overcalls with 6-15(but also 17,18p in case of fairly flat shape)

2) reverse with 14/15+ with a solid suit (I personally would reverse in
spade with a hand like AKQJxx, xxx, KQx, x - taken from a previous posting).

The problem is how to handle overcalls varying from as low as 6 to as high as
17,18: in case of fit it is easy playing cue bid limit raise or better (few
good books write details about this);
in case of misfit there are some more problems, but the upper overcall limit 
helps in avoiding new suits of the partner with KQxxx and nothing else.


May be that what I'm writing is trivial, but I would like to hear something
from the followers of the unlimited overcall approach, expecially how
they handle the cases of immediate misfit by the overcaller partner.

>George> 	AKTxx,x,KQxx,Axx
>Double first time round. If partner bids diamonds or spades, a raise
>is in order. If he/she bids hearts or notrumps, show your spades
>(indicating 14+ HCP or thereabouts, and at least 5 spades) and await
>developments.

As i told, I'd bid just 1S with this hand, reserving reverse for fairly strong
monocolor hands or very strong flat hands (add the CK to the previous hand, 
for example). if my partner has misfit and less than (say) 6/7 points 
(for what the points count), I don't find many hands that can play game!


Giuseppe.
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Comments Please
Date: 7 Nov 92 06:19:08 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Steve Myerson <sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com> writes:
> I can sympathize with North's 1N bid. Even though North has good
> 3-card support, the hand is still a 4-3-3-3 with half the points in
> quacks. That said, I still think a immediate raise to 2S is best.
> After the 2H rebid, it seems that North tried to make up some lost
> ground by jumping to 3S, trying to give the impression of a hand
> better than just a simple preference.

When I responded to this question, I was assuming that 1NT was forcing,
thus that responder always intended to bid 3S.  As I said, I think this
is a substantial overbid.

If 1NT is nonforcing, then it is closer to the mark as far as values go,
although 2S would still be better.  But in this case 3S is just strange.
This bid shouldn't even exist on that auction, or perhaps it should be
defined as some sort of heart raise.  If North previously evaluated the
hand as worth a 1NT response, North should definitely stick with that
evaluation and simply correct to 2S.

                                        David desJardins
From: sidlives@athena.mit.edu (Sid Vicious)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: MIT defeats Harvard and Brown!!!  Yale fails to show!!!
Date: 12 Nov 1992 20:24:57 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kurt-vonnegut-jr.mit.edu

November 7, 1992

MIT continues its long tradition of domination in intercollegiate
bridge competition.  MIT won the match against Harvard, Yale, and
Brown held on November 7, 1992 with MIT placing first, second and
third.  MIT-1 team took the lead after the third round, then routed
Harvard-2 and Harvard-1 garnering 82 victory points out of a possible
100 with blitzing wins over Harvard-1, Harvard-2, Brown-1 and
Harvard-4.  Meanwhile MIT-2 came in 2nd going undefeated winning
steadly over Harvard-4, Brown-2, Harvard-1, Brown-3 and Harvard-2.
MIT-3 came in third crushing Harvard-5 and Brown-2 and with wins over
Harvard-3 and Brown-1.

Listed below are the final results and the team compositions.

MIT-1 103imps 82vps
Moses Ma, David Rho, Philips Santosa, Matt Stevens

MIT-2 72imps 76vps
Melisse Leib, Dan Berlowitz, Lim Chui, Eric Shukan

MIT-3 71imps 67vps
Zong-Yi Li, Wei-Qiang Wang, Diko Mihov, Svilen Ivanov

Harvard-2 42imps 65vps
Brady Richter, Mark Paltrowitz, Sandy Kutin, Andy Lewis

Harvard-3 31imps 61vps
Wayne Whitney, Josh Newman, David Grabiner, Tom Rozinski

Brown-1 17imps 53vps
Kelley Wilson, Paul Markowitz, Marcy Grien, Andrew Brecher

Harvard-1 19imps 52vps
Peter Reiss, Dean Hildebrandt, Bill Cole, Ezra Perlman

Brown-3 -3imps 52vps
David Prentiss, David Miller, Yannis Yannakis, Charlotte Taylor

MIT-7 -33imps 45vps
George Heintzelman, Dan Shoham, Luke Sullivan, Juanita Fernandez

MIT-4 -20imps 43vps
Barry Margolin, Suresh Adina, Robert Johnston, Jung Yueh

Brown-2 -46imps 42vps
Scott Lewis, Jerry Allison, Manolis Tsastsas, George Tsagaropolous

Harvard-4 -50imps 37vps
Lawren Smithline, Eric Wepsic, Matt Gelbart, Dakota Pippins

MIT-8 -40imps 36vps
Gregg Penn, Slava Brodsky, Yanzhong Wu, Jean Wu

Harvard-5 -44imps 34vps
Stefano Merlo, Steven Ketchpel, Ming-Yu Tsai, Matthew Bengtson

MIT-5 -53imps 32vps
James Wong, Andrew Feig, Mike Sheldon, Brian Teeple

MIT-6 -66imps 23vps
Sabbir Rahman, Sourabh Niyogi, Kevin Yeh, James Jones



The MIT Bridge club holds Duplicate bridge on Thursday and Saturday.
Game time is 7:30PM with lessons starting at 7:00 PM.  Games are held
in the Student Center.  Games are open to the public, so come and play
play with the best in Collegiate bridge!!!
From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Committee Ruling - Opinions?
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:36:03 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbootay.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov11.130819.18767@athena.mit.edu>, jmh@athena.mit.edu (J Michael Hammond) writes:
> ...
> I don't remember the specific chapter and verse,

Law 88

> but there's a section in the ACBL

(and WBF)

> rules that describes that an adjusted "average plus" is
> the higher of that pair's actual score on the other boards and 60%.

Right.

> I forget whether the other pair's score is the lower of their score on
> the other boards and 40%, or whether it's 100% minus the average plus
> score.

Neither.  Average minus is 40%.  "Period.  Period." [Adm. Stockdale]

(Of course, the original problem was scored at IMPs, so A+ is +3 and A-
is -3 [law 86A].)


                                    Tim
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge