HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pynq@quads.uchicago.edu (George Jetson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Simple question about how to play takeout doubles
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:29:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Nov9.222945.14874
Reply-To: pynq@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: D. J. Dougherty & Associates

My partner and I currently play that a takeout double guarantees 3+
cards of each unbid suit.  This was his idea, not mine, but I think it
is essentially sound.  It means that you can compete in any suit after
partner's double.

However, the downside of this is that you have to play essentially
unlimited overcalls (the ubiquitous "6+ HCP" on the card...).

My question is this, "Is this style playable, or is it necessary to have
an upper bound on overcalls?"

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).

************************************************************************
A note to new readers:  the weasely :-) symbol is frowned upon in this
group.  Any questions, see Phil Gustafson who will gladly rearrange your
diodes for you.
			- From the AFU FAQ -

	- pynq@quads.uchicago.edu, who is still costing the net
	  hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars, every time he posts -
************************************************************************
From: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Committee Ruling - Opinions?
Date: 12 Nov 1992 02:42:55 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Distribution: can
Reply-To: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ux5.lbl.gov

In article <1992Nov11.161626.5090@venus.ic.cmc.ca> antosz@scorpio.ic.cmc.ca writes:
>A recent change in the Laws covers this situation.

Gee, which change would that be, and how did it get by everyone but you?

>The moment a player coffee-houses you may play them for the card in 
>question at no risk.  In other worlds E is deemed to have the KD.  S can safely
>play the QD and if it loses the trick is restored to S.

This is a gross misstatement of the situation.  The law says that a person
may not benifit from coffeehousing, however that doesn't mean that you
will be protected when you take advantage of that.  In fact split scores
might very well be the ticket here.
>Ed


-- 
"In nature there are no rewards or punishments, only consequences"

Asya Kamsky	      e-mail: asya@ux5.lbl.gov                   Go Red Sox
"In order to command you must first learn to submit" - chinese fortune cookie
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao)
Subject: Re: Striped Tailed Ape Swings Low
Reply-To: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:51:13 GMT

sneedham@aggie.ucdavis.edu writes:

>Many of you are probably familiar with the 'striped-tail-ape double',
>which is a way of getting a great pairs score in high-level competitive
>auctions. You have to believe that opponents can make six of their suit,
>and that sacrificing against six of their suit is too expensive.

>I picked up KJ9xx, x, KJxxx, xx and passed (vulnerable against not) to hear:

>	Me	LHO	Partner	RHO
>	 /	1H	/	2C (playing 2-over-1 game force)
>	X	/	/(!!!!!)
>				XX
>	/	/	2S	3NT
>	(end)

>Making six. Opponents were cold for 6C and many pairs got there. RHO was
>right to redouble, as his best shot at a top - 2C doubled, making six, is
>not as much as 6C bid and made.

>Partner's penalty pass was made on 10xxx, xxxx, xxx, KJ - a brilliant
>and probably unprecedented STA double at the two-level!

I guess a 2 level STA is unprecedented.  However, I do know that Paul
Soloway playing with our own Marty Seligman, made an STA double of a
3-level contract at Orlando a month ago.  Perhaps Marty could relate
the story as I have forgotten the hand...

And unlike the above scenario, he did it on purpose as well :-).

>Nothing to do with giving up caffeine and sugar earlier that week...

Ummmm, why no 2S by your partner with a double fit:-)

>							Sam

Bharat
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler)
Subject: Re: Comments Please (without tabs)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:32:18 GMT


>In article <1736@idacrd.UUCP> desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
>:Karel Strasters <karel@ph.tn.tudelft.nl> writes:
>:>>   A8xxx      QJx
>:>>   JTxx       Axx
>:>>   AKxx       Qxx
>:>>   -          xxxx
>:
>:>>   1s         1NT
>:>>   2h         3s
>:>>   4s         all pass
>:



(1) North should only raise to 2S. :: I knew this.
(2) South should not accept the 3S call. :: I now know this, thanks
 to Bob Silverman's clear explanation.

dennis
From: jmh@athena.mit.edu (J Michael Hammond)
Subject: Re: Committee Ruling - Opinions?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:08:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.182027.2005@speedy.aero.org> 
(martino@courier6.aero.org(Nick Martino)) writes:

>
>The A+/A- score adjustment raises a question in my mind.  Say, you're
>having your average 70% game and the offenders are having their average 29%
>game.  In such case, a 60/40 score would be disappointing result for you
>(not to mention being a positive boon to the incompetents).  It sounds
>silly, but I could see an instance where A+/A- isn't enough.  Are there any
>provisions in the rules which might allow leeway in awarding adjusted
>scores?
>

I don't remember the specific chapter and verse, but there's a section
in the ACBL rules that describes that an adjusted "average plus" is
the higher of that pair's actual score on the other boards and 60%.
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.  So in this example the rules mandate that you get 70% for the
"average plus" and the opponents will either get 29% or 30% (and maybe
someone can finish this.)

---------------------------------------------------
J. Michael Hammond           The MathWorks, Inc.  |
Manager of Software Quality  (voice) 508 653-1415 |
jmike@mathworks.com          (FAX) 508 653-2997   |
---------------------------------------------------
From: doug@cm.deakin.OZ.AU (Douglas Newlands)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Simple question about how to play takeout doubles
Date: 10 Nov 1992 21:36:53 GMT
Organization: Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: sauron.cm.deakin.oz.au

In article <WALLACED.92Nov10200716@kauri.vuw.ac.nz: wallaced@kauri.vuw.ac.nz (David Wallace) writes:
:George> My partner and I currently play that a takeout double
:George> guarantees 3+ cards of each unbid suit.  This was his idea,
:George> not mine, but I think it is essentially sound.  It means that
:George> you can compete in any suit after partner's double.
:
: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.

Two things, in the last 2nd last line you say "unlimited but not forcing", this is a contradiction. "unlimited" implies "forcing".

Secondly, you can tidy up this bidding structure by playing intermediate jump
overcalls so that the gap between a "normal" take out double and the big hand
becomes much larger and it's easy to correct in the auction. There is nothing
inherently "correct" about weak jumps; you just have to decide where your
bidding priorities lie and balance your perceived gain with weak jumps against
the losses in this other area. Even with intermediate jumps you can still have
fun with the weak jumps by either taking up Bergen style preempting (weaker
and shorter than you might think is healthy) or by playing the comic NT (if
ACBL allows it). It covers all strong NT overcalls and all sorts of weak 1 and
2 suited rubbish.

doug.
From: grove@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Eddie Grove)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Illegal Carding Agreement
Date: 9 Nov 1992 19:06:37 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: triangle.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Nov4.043706.9919@news.vanderbilt.edu> LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Andy Lipscomb) writes:
>In <32290004@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com> mcmahan@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com writes:
>> My partner and I play that when following suit, any card not
>> intended to take the trick is a suit preference signal for all four
>> suits.  2-4 denotes an honor in a minor, 7+ denotes an honor in a
>> major, and 5 and 6 are neutral.  We play that this carding is only

>> Is this illegal? If so, why?  If not, how can I get a 'definitive'
>> ruling, so this does not happen again.

I would have guessed that this is illegal, for the same reason that
odd-even is illegal (you can use it once, but not as a full method).
The ACBL thinks that absolute signals encourage cheating, in that
if you don't have the right card to signal, you hesitate before playing
a wrong signal.

If you changed it so that the agreement was low vs. middle vs. high
it would be more likely to be legal.

Legality depends upon the director as well as the rules, of course.
If you can convince the director, then it is legal.  

[Asbestos on].

Eddie Grove
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: davidm@voltaire.Rational.COM (David Moore)
Subject: Re: Simple question about how to play takeout doubles
Organization: Rational
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:08:50 GMT

pynq@quads.uchicago.edu (George Jetson) writes:

>My partner and I currently play that a takeout double guarantees 3+
>cards of each unbid suit.  This was his idea, not mine, but I think it
>is essentially sound.  It means that you can compete in any suit after
>partner's double.

In my view, partnerships that do not guarantee support for the other three
suits with a take-out double (unless strong) should be alerting their 
take-out doubles. 

I am sure I am not the only one who has declared after hearing a takeout 
double on his left; something like 1D (X) 1H - 2H AP and had LHO come
down with a singleton trump! Naturally, you play for the length to be
on your left, and fall in a screaming heap when they are the other way
round.
From: willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Illegal Carding Agreement
Date: 11 Nov 92 06:57:24 GMT
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


In <32290004@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com> mcmahan@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com writes:
> My partner and I play that when following suit, any card not
> intended to take the trick is a suit preference signal for all four
> suits.  2-4 denotes an honor in a minor, 7+ denotes an honor in a
> major, and 5 and 6 are neutral.

> Is this illegal? If so, why? 

The agreement isn't illegal, it's impossible.  What will you do if
you are dealt 432 in a suit but have no honor in a minor?  Revoke?
Or go into a long huddle and then play the 4?  Or put your cards back
into the board and walk away?

Since the above _cannot_ be your actual agreement, it is illegal
("misinformation") to tell your opponents that it is.

It would seem normally to be legal to play suit preference instead of
count when following suit, but I believe clubs can regulate carding
as well as bidding agreements.
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu
  member, League for Programming Freedom; contact league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: Comments Please (without tabs)
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:40:01 GMT

In article <1736@idacrd.UUCP> desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
:Karel Strasters <karel@ph.tn.tudelft.nl> writes:
:>>   A8xxx      QJx
:>>   JTxx       Axx
:>>   AKxx       Qxx
:>>   -          xxxx
:
:>>   1s         1NT
:>>   2h         3s
:>>   4s         all pass
:
:> Matter of style. After the 3S bid south knows the north hand.
:
:I have to strongly disagree with this analysis.  Bidding 1NT followed by
:3S with the North hand is not a question of style, it is a question of
:evaluation (or misevaluation, in this case).  This 3334 nine-count is
:simply not a limit raise, and you would have a very hard time finding
:any strong player to say that it is.
:
:North was dealt a single raise and North should have made a single raise.
 
Let me second this opinion.

I am also of the opinion that South does not have an accept of a 3 card
limit raise. One normally accepts a 4 card limit raise with a 6-loser
hand. South has a 6 loser hand. However, South also has to worry about

(a) The 4th card in each of the round suits. Partner not having 4 trumps
    may make it difficult to handle these 2 cards.

(b) Duplication in clubs. Partner is likely to have at least one wasted
    card in clubs.  Note that partner showed up with ABSOLUTELY no 
    wastage whatsoever. Every card in the North hand was working, and
    still 4S was only a marginal game.

Note that even if you may North slightly stronger, [add say Q or K
of clubs] giving him a legitimate 11 count or so, game is STILL
marginal.

North could even have:  Kxx  Axx xxx KQxx  and game is HOPELESS.



So:

(1) North should only raise to 2S.
(2) SOuth should not accept the 3S call.

--
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: grove@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Eddie Grove)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Freak hand. YBTJ
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:45:52 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: triangle.berkeley.edu

In article <1dukuaINN7cq@leo.asc.slb.com> hargrove@nobelium.asc.slb.com (Jim Hargrove) writes:
 
 Both Vul.
 Dealer North.
 
>                        S Q 7 4
>                        H 10
>                        D J
>                        C A K Q J 9 7 5 3

I would be dull, and open a 4-loser hand with great clubs 5C.

>                        S A K 6 5 3 2
>                        H A 2
>                        D K 10 8 6
>                        C 10

This seems like a raise to 6C.

We lose a couple imps to opponents in 6S or 6N, oh well.

Eddie Grove
From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bidding problem
Date: 9 Nov 92 21:06:02 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbootay.sw.stratus.com

In article <9211090824.aa21965@Paris.ics.uci.edu>, kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler) writes:
> No opposition bidding, 2/1 with WJS.
> North deals and opens 1 spade. South responds 2 clubs.
> Now what?
> 
>   North: QJxxxx, AKQx, xxx,--
> 
>   South: K10x, xx,Axx,AKQxx

    1S   2C
    2H   2S
    3C   3D
    3H   4C
    4H   5N
    6S   P


                                Tim
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Comments Please (without tabs)
Date: 5 Nov 1992 15:22:43 -0600
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: latexo.cs.utexas.edu

In article <thijs.720951553@ei0> thijs@ei0.ei.ele.tue.nl (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?

Playing 5-card spades I would raise to 2S with the North hand, bearing
in mind that I had a bit in hand.  South would then make a short-suit
game try which North would accept.  There appear to be several plays
for the contract, generally requiring a 3-2 trump split and a bit of
luck somewhere else.  An extra spot just about anywhere makes it quite
a good contract.  I think it was very unlucky to go down two.

>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. 

If I used intermediate jump overcalls and decided the North hand was
one (it looks a little strong to me), my only problem over 4H would
be deciding among 5D, 6D and 7D.  Can partner really have something
like xx K AJTxxxx KQJ?  If so, perhaps 4NT (presumably Blackwood)
would be useful here.

>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.

I think I would get to 3C on the same bidding.  Each partner underbids
slightly in the face of a presumed misfit.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: davidm@voltaire.Rational.COM (David Moore)
Subject: Re: Bidding problem
Organization: Rational
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:56:23 GMT

adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) writes:

>Finally, nobody discussed whether strong jump shifts would be better
>or worse on this hand.  If the auction had started 1S-3C (strong),
>would we stand a better chance of reaching the slam?

The problem with a jump shift with this hand is you have neither a nearly
self-sufficient suit of your own, nor excellent support for partner. Rather,
you have a good suit of your own plus decent support for partner.

On this hand, you may belong in 6 of either black suit, and you need partner's
help to decide which, so I think 2C would still be correct (especially at 2/1)

Incidentally; somebody was suggesting that weak jump shifts were more common in
the US than strong ones these days. I find that a surprising statement. Who else
out there is still using strong jump-shifts? 

I have only used weak jump shifts once or twice, and they were a complete
disaster, but this may have had more to do with my partner's over-liberal use of
them rather than any defect in the general method.

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ed@scorpiocmc.ca (Ed Antosz)
Subject: Re: Committee Ruling - Opinions?
Reply-To: antosz@scorpio.ic.cmc.ca
Organization: Canadian Microelectronics Corporation
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:18:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.161626.5090@venus.ic.cmc.ca>, ed@scorpiocmc.ca (Ed Antosz) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov10.181241.835@rayssd.ssd.ray.com>, sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Steve Myerson) writes:
|> 
|> |> 
|> |>
|> |> * 2C*  p 2S** 3C
|> |> 
|> |> * 2nd hand.
|> |> * 
|> |> * This time I don't remember the exact hand, but the problem came at this
|> |> * position:
|> |> * 
|> |> *              AJ, - , xx, xxx
|> |> * Kx                           xx
|> |> * KQxx                           j
|> |> * Kx                           JTxx
|> |> * -                            -
|> |> *              QTxx,  AQx -
|> |> * 
|> |> * or something like that. NS were playing 4S, and need all the tricks.
|> |> * Clubs are good. W overruffed once. Now, the lead is in dummy
|> |> * S played a diamond, intending to  win the A and finesse in Spades, hoping
|> |> * for a 2-2 break. However, on the play of a low diamond, E went into a trance.
|> |> * pulling one card, then the other, finally played the J. There was no
|> |> * dispute on the facts of the matter.  Now S thought the E had the K of D,
|> |> * and decided to finesse, planning to ruff one in dummy, and hope that the
|> |> * K of spades in now single.
|> |> * 
|> |> * In the auction. S opened 1S, E overcalled 2H and N doubled (-ve) and W
|> |> * remained silent.  South claimed that he thought that the high cards were
|> |> * marked, and that without the hesitation, he would have certainly not finessed.
|> |> * South is a good player. E is an LOL.
|> |> 
|> A recent change in the Laws covers this situation.
|> The moment a player coffee-houses you may play them for the card in 
|> question at no risk.  In other worlds E is deemed to have the KD.  S can safely
|> play the QD and if it loses the trick is restored to S.
|> 
|> 
|> Ed
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Committee Ruling - Opinions?
From: avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:07:05 GMT
Organization: Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

By now I have received enough answers, including a few as private mail. So
I'll tell the net what we did and summarize the responses. I thank everyone
who took the trouble to answer.

On the first hand, NS (the non offending side) scored +4 imps anyway.
Some pairs were in 6D or 6H making. One went down, and two pairs never bid
game. Consequently, we decided to let the result stand, but to give EW a
procedural penalty of -3 imps. I think this was reasonable.

Essentially, we felt that it was impossible to determine the correct outcome
as was pointed out by several posters, most succintly by our very own National
Director:
asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky) writes:

:
: >>2C*  p 2S** 3C
: >>3d   p 3H   4C
: >>4d   p 5d   all pass
:
: Question 1: was there an infraction?  Yes.
: Question 2: did it cause damage? Yes.
: Question 3: can we determine likely result had the infraction not occurred? No.
:
: A+/A-.  Next.

However, since giving NS +3 imps would rob them of an imp, we let their score
stand, and penalized the offending side.

On the second question, there was a concensus, supported by the laws, that S
is making inferences at his own risk. We too felt like this, and let the
result stand.  We did not penalize the offending side either, as was suggested
by one or two repsonders.

A notable comment by Asya was:
:
: *IF* East COULD have known at the time of hesitation that it might mislead
: opponent, then yes, adjust the score. For a GREAT example of this see the
: April or May Bulletin, where it's explained how a committee ruled on a nearly
: identical case (save for no LOL, this was the Vanderbilt).
:
I think that the Vanderbilt and this club game are  totally different
propositions. There is no way in the world that this particular player would
know her hesitation might have mislead S. I think she had a real problem,
for her, whether to play the T, J or small. She did play the J of all cards.
and I didn't think S should have been fooled. I agree with the poster who
said "Why would an LOL think about putting the K?"

Why would she indeed?  I can attest that when a LOL hesitates like that, the
one card she does not have is the K.  After all, S led low from dummy. With
the K she would have been prepared. The hesitation is misleading only when
you lead a Q or another honor card.

I actually thought that S took the finesse thinking it was a no lose situation.
If the Q won, fine; else appeal.I considered a procedural penalltyagainst S!
for wasting the committee's time, but this was rejected by other members of
the commmittee. :-)

I again thank everyone for the interesting comments.

Avi
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se (Lars Andersson)
Subject: Re: Freak hand. YBTJ
Reply-To: ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 08:20:58 GMT

In article 1dukuaINN7cq@leo.asc.slb.com, hargrove@nobelium.asc.slb.com (Jim Hargrove) writes:
>=================== 
>Freaks are always hard to bid. This hand proved too much for both
>tables in a recent team game.
>
>Both Vul.
>Dealer North.
>
>                        S Q 7 4
>                        H 10
>                        D J
>                        C A K Q J 9 7 5 3
>
>
>
>
>                        S A K 6 5 3 2
>                        H A 2
>                        D K 10 8 6
>                        C 10
>
>The pairs at both tables were playing the "yellow card."

Don't know this excellent system but here goes;

N       S
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.

--lars