HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jonathan@cats.ucsc.edu (Jonathan Cano)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: September Go News from Japan
Date: 5 Oct 1992 23:11:43 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


rwsayer@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ronald Winston Sayer) writes:

>In article <29279@twics.co.jp> davies@twics.co.jp writes:
>>==================   SEPTEMBER GO NEWS FROM JAPAN   ====================
>>     The Meijin title match started September 9-10 in Amsterdam, and go 

>I'm new to the world of go, and was wondering,

>1:  Do the two contestants play until one has X # of points ?
>2:  If so how many?
>3:  In the event (however unlikely) of a tie, how is it scored?
>4:  Which set of rules are used for scoring?

The Meijin title is a best of seven games - like the world series.

white is given a komi (handicap added to whites score at the end
of the game to make up for black getting the 1st move of the game)
of 5.5 point.  The half point makes it really hard for a game to
be a draw :^) since japanese counting does not award fractional
points 'on the board' .  A game can be declared no contest if a 
triple ko arises in which case I believe the game is replayed.

Since this is a japanese sponsored title I would imagine japanese
rules apply.

In all of the articles and games I've ever seen in _Go World_ , I
have never heard of a best of 7 (or 5 or 3) series taking anything 
but the normal course i.e. no triple kos ...

Actually I did see a game in which a player (Rin Kaiho?) lost because
he played 2 moves in a row (illegal move).

--Jonathan

>Ron Sayer
>ron@phoenix.princeton.edu
-- 
============================================
| Jonathan Cano             |     //   _   |
| jonathan@cats.ucsc.edu    | \\ //   (_)  |
| 8kyu (+- 2kyu)            |  \X/     |<  |
============================================
From: wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: xgoban question
Date: 1 Oct 92 02:04:03 GMT
Organization: Department of Mathematics, University of Canterbury

I have xgoban running very nicely, but there doesn't seem to be anything
in the documentation about printing out a position appearing on screen.

Is this possible ? 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Bill Taylor              wft@math.canterbury.ac.nz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Of course I'm not cheating my employer by spending 3 hours a day on the net.
   I'm just using the time I would have spent on solitaire, and go problems.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: doug@cm.deakin.OZ.AU (Douglas Newlands)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: My fault ?
Date: 2 Oct 1992 02:01:14 GMT
Organization: Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: sauron.cm.deakin.oz.au

In article <davidm.717806622@voltaire: davidm@voltaire.Rational.COM (David Moore) writes:
:>However, I should say that I am not a total tricks fanatic like some. However,
:>it is rarely right to make a bid which is likely to be off by two and could
:>easily be off the total trick count by 3.
:
: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.
:
:Has anyone done a statistical analysis of the "Law" of total tricks? Has the 
:

The "Encyclopaedia" entry says it was described by Jean-Rene Vernes in Bridge
World but no exact reference is given.
I have also seen it described in a book by Mollo or Flint I think. I will look
at home later. The "law" _was_ obtained by statistical analysis of actual
hands if my memory serves me correctly. 
It is no more  bogus than say Milton Work count. It's  just a helpful 
method for judging competetive situations.

doug.
From: willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Restricting Conventions
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:31:32 GMT
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


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.

I hope most of us agree with this.  An operational definition of
surprise effect should be based on the _amount of partnership
discussion_ needed when the opponents use a particular convention.

> In order to prevent the surprise effect it is quite reasonable
> to take several things into account: the more boards being played, the more
> time opponents will have to prepare; the more sophisticated the opponents,
> the more likely they can prepare a defense; the more common a convention is
> the more likely it is that the opponents will be prepared.

You might have added whether advance notice is given, as would be
possible in knockout team competition.  (Is advance notice in fact
required in the top team competitions, Spingold, Vanderbilt, etc.?
Surely it should be, at least in the final two or three rounds, but
you imply that it is not.)

Another factor might be simply desire for a variety of contests.  How
about a "National Natural Bidding Championship" and a "National Open
Conventions Championship?"  

One of the ACBL's problem has been the belief that only two lists of
allowed conventions are adequate for all games.  (Nowadays called the
"General Convention Chart" and the "Superchart."  Under the previous
regulations, these were in effect "Classes A-D" and "Classes A-F.")
I don't know how many lists are really needed - this might be an
interesting topic for discussion - but my estimate is 6 +/- 2.
Surely it is more than two!
-- 
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: matthew@base.cs.ucla.edu (Matthew Merzbacher)
Subject: Re: PSP #21
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:46:45 GMT

maillist@base.cs.ucla.edu (Generic Mailing List ID (Guest)) writes:

>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.  

As Eddie Grove pointed out, I first say "Standard American" and then BWS.
If you don't know what BWS is, then assume Standard American.  If you do
know what BWS is, then assume Standard American.  In other words, forget
that BWS ever appeared in the post.
--

Matthew Merzbacher	ARPA:	matthew@CS.UCLA.EDU
Moo - Moo Moo  		UUCP:	...!{uunet|rutgers|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!matthew
               		This time, *with* the oys
From: dej@qpoint.ocunix.on.ca (David Jones)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re:  Bidding boxes in the US...
Date: 25 Sep 92 00:30:50 GMT
Organization: Dejital Software

In article <davidm.717271728@voltaire> davidm@voltaire.Rational.COM (David Moore) writes:
>The hardest part of the whole thing would be the extra work for the
>organizers transporting that many boxes. I guestimate 4000 bidding boxes
>would occupy around 3 cubic metres when adequately packed; not something you
>can put in the back of the family car.

Simply require each ACBL member to buy his/her own bidding box.

Advantages:

Cost - it's $8 one-shot per player.  The ACBL doesn't have to fund it,
and the players shouldn't mind a one-shot cost equal to card fees
for two club games.

Transport - if everyone brings his/her own box, the organizers need
carry nothing to the game.  The powers of distributed processing...

Options - if you're left handed, you can use a left-handed box without
worry as to the polarity of the other 3 boxes in the set.  You can
use whatever works for you - as long as the bidding cards are readable
by the other players.

This type of system works for other games.  Chess players need to
bring clocks to tournaments, and some tournaments even ask for sets!
Just as a chess clock is standard equipment for the tournament chess
player, so should a bidding box be standard equipment for the bridge
player.

BTW, chess clocks are a helluva lot more expensive than a bidding box
(or a set of 4 bidding boxes)!  I've yet to see a chess player bitch
about it.  Maybe that's because only 50% of the players need have clocks
for the system to work, but even so, I see just as many clocks unused
as in use at the tournaments I go to.

--
 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: geppo@dworkin.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Lead problem
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:20:21 GMT
Organization: Washington University,  St Louis MO

Some days ago I posted the following lead problem

> This hand was dealt last september at the international tournament of Venice, 
> one of the most important tournaments in Europe.
> 
> you are, in north, one of the strongest players of Italy, with the following
> cards:
> 
>    AKT95
>    4
>    KT9643
>    A
> 
> Team match (for the very first positions of the tournament), open room, 
> NS vulnerable, dealer W. The bidding:
> 
> W     N     E     S
> -------------------
> P     1S    2C    3S
> 4H    4S    P     P
> 5H    5S    P     P
> 6H    x     -     -
> -
> 
> what is your lead?
> 
> 
> Does you lead changes if you are the north in closed room, with the following
> bidding:
> 
> W     N     E     S
> -------------------
> 2C*   2S    P     3S
> P     4S    5C*   5S 
> 6H    X     -     -
> -
>   *) 2C = solid preempt in a generic suit
>   *) 5C = for playing in partner's generic suit
> 

I received just a couple of answers for this problem, may be the problem was 
considered too simple. Those are the lead at the tables:

Open room:   small diamond lead
Closed room: singleton of hearts

The esit of both lead was tragic, as you can see from the total:

            AKT95
            4
            KT9643
            A

4		      J63
AKQJT87532            6
7                     AQ8
8                     QJT753

            Q872
            9
            J52
            K9642

Note the initial PASS in open room with the hand of West!!
Both the declarers made the slam finessing the K of diamond.

Anyway I agree with the lead of small diamond in open room, while I completely 
disagree with the heart lead in closed room. May be some expert can explain 
the reasons for a trump lead with that bidding? at the level of 6 it's not 
better to try to cash an Ace, when you don't think there is any long suit
to be stabilized?


It was very funny the comment of a kibitzer while talking with the others:
"You cannot let such a slam be made! Why [the leader] didn't cash an Ace???
maybe the champions think that lead with an Ace is a thing for beginners!"

Giuseppe.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: MPs and IMPs--novice question
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 01:42:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.003331.11596@nntp.uoregon.edu> mikeehli@cie.uoregon.edu (Mike Ehli) writes:
>First off:  How are IMPs calculated?  The procedure for matchpoints
>looks pretty straightforward, but IMPs look a little more difficult.
 
IMP scoring is trivial (even easier than MP). Look on the inside of
the ACBL convention card, for example. There is a simple conversion
table that translates difference in absolute points to IMPS.

>Second, and more important:  People often respond to a question:
>"If we're playing matchpoints I'll do X, but at IMPs I'll do Y."
>How does the scoring system being used affect the line of play in
>these cases? (Does a general answer exist, or is it more complicated
>than that?)
 
** VERY ** generally one can answer that at matchpoints what counts
is the FREQUENCY with which your decision is right; the difference
in points is irrelevent. At IMPS what matters is your expected gain
or loss; this translates as frequency TIMES the value of the gain
(or loss).  In other words, the amount of gain counts as well.

For more details I would recommend Woolsey's book: MATCHPOINTS.
 
Let me quote something I've said in the past:

An IMP match is like a heavyweight prize fight. The two (teams)
slug it out head to head and usually the better team wins.

Matchpoints is different. In matchpoints you put a rope down the
middle of the ring and grab 12 drunks off the street, putting 6
in each half. Whichever fighter knocks out his drunks first, wins.
--
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: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Law questions
Date: 2 Oct 1992 02:35:48 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Reply-To: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ux5.lbl.gov

In article <1992Sep29.185517.13957@umr.edu> ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) writes:
>Well, in bridge, you also have things called proprieties.  If it's the
>48th board on the 5th day of a tournament, W is probably a little
>sleepy and was not trying to gain anything by revoking.  South should
>*not* require east to ruff with the AS.  He could under the law to 
>gain an advantage, but that is improper.  It's a matter of being a good
>sport.  If S misses out on a few matchpoints because of his good
>sportsmanship, he won't lose any sleep over it. 

This is total BS.  The laws are the laws and not a single one of them
contradicts the "proprieties".  If the laws specify for a penalty, then
you are entitled to it, and not taking it would be improper since it
fails to protect the rest of the field (see Edgar Kaplan for the
philosophical discussion on this topic).

BTW, the law is that there is no penalty for a revoke at trick 12 and
"equity" is to be restored.  Whatever equity is.

>Laws are always enforced on grounds of intent, just like in real life.

Which universe are you from?

>>you several options under the law that you should take the one that you think
>>will give your side the greatest advantage.  But is it allowable to have a
>>set of understandings/conventions that takes advantage of the situation?  For

>NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!
>It is legal under the law, but is a massive violation of proprieties.

Actually, you are full of it again, since it's illegal.


Now what was that about "don't intimidate" ?  ;-)
-- 
"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
From: geppo@dworkin.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Play this slam
Date: 2 Oct 92 12:41:07 GMT
Organization: Washington University,  St Louis MO

Some days ago I've posted a slam problem:

In article <29278@olympus.wustl.edu> geppo@dworkin.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi) writes:
>    KQxxxx
>    Axx
>    x
>    Axx
>
>    xx
>    KQJxx
>    AQJxx
>    x
>
> [contract: 6H, lead small club]

I was interested to hear from the netters some ideas and analysis about the 
best approach for playing this hand, independent on the particular result 
at the table. I got many responses, both email and postings, and I'd like to
thank everybody.


For sake of completeness I post now the complete hand, although it's 
not much interesting (if the defense doesn't make real big mistakes, the
slam cannot be made, at least this seems to me).
the full deal:

          KQxxxx
          Axx
          x
          Axx
AJx                Tx
8                  T976
Kxx                Txxx
Qxxxxx             KJx
          xx
          KQJxx
          AQJxx
          x

At the table my partner played small diamond for the A, spades ducked by LHO
for the K, small heart for the K, spades for the A of west, who played a 
small club, ruffed in hand.  Now my partner played for the hearts 3-2, 
cashing the Q of hearts (club discard on the left). In panic he played small
diamond ruffed with the Ace, Queen of spades, ruffed and overruffed, and queen
of diamond for West. club return, ruffed, J of diamonds and last diamond for
the trump of RHO. Down 2 .

Cheers

Giuseppe
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Forcing Pass (was "Bid these hands" and "Competitive Decision")
Date: 1 Oct 1992 22:23:23 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: levelland.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Oct1.213017.7390@rayssd.ssd.ray.com> sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Steve Myerson) writes:
|I can't follow all the attributes so I'll try to reformat
|without inserting any incorrect info.

|We were discussing this hand:

|> 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.
|> BTW, you strong clubbers, would you open such a hand 1C?
|> You are likely to run into the same problems as someone who
|> opens it 2C.

|I answered (as a member of the strong clubbers):

|* Absolutely this is a 1C opener. In fact, over any limited point count
|* showing response, I would make a bid that is forcing to game.
|* And yes, the spade void suggests possible opponent preemption,
|* but there is no alternative opening bid.

Only if your agreement *says* there is no alternative bid.  Schenken,
for instance, attended a different church.

|Furthermore, opening this hand 1D borders on a psych.
|How many times do you think you can open this type of a hand
|with a bid other than 1C, and expect to get away with it?

|Perhaps someone with directing experience could tell us
|what would happen to someone playing a strong club system
|who regularly opened something other than 1C when holding
|a hand that should have been opened 1C?

|I know it is illegal to psych a strong artificial opening bid,
|but I've never seen any discussion of this somewhat opposite situation.

This is more than a little off the deep end.  It's illegal to
psyche a strong forcing opening.  It is perfectly legal not to
use one when you might.  The game is *bridge*.  When they start
legislating this sort of thing I'm outa here.

Anyone who would like to see the other side of this argument
should find a copy of Howard Schenken's _Better Bidding in Fifteen
Minutes_.  Some libraries still have them.  In brief, Schenken
opened these big two-suiters 1 of a suit unless one of the suits
was spades.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: morgan@math.psu.edu (Ilene Morgan)
Subject: Re: You Hold
Organization: Penn State Department of Mathematics
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:05:58 GMT

In article <92275.103758JSM135@psuvm.psu.edu> <JSM135@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>All red.   You are in 2nd seat with    S - T
>Auction                                H - Axx
>       1NT (15 - 17)     ???           D - AKxxx
>                                       C - AJxx
>By the way, you are playing the following:
>
>2C - single suiter
>2D - majors *
>2H, 2S - that suit & a minor *
>2NT minors *
>Dbl - business             * Partnership expects 5-5 or better.
>
>
>

I would pass.  I have no texture and no source of tricks.  If my LHO has a
good hand, I am likely to get creamed if I act.  Also, note that if I bid
2C planning to show a 1-suiter in diamonds, I have to pass partner's forced
2D rebid; what this boils down to is, I am hoping that partner has something,
but if he does we may miss a game or play in our worst spot!

I could consider doubling, but one of two things is likely to happen: (1) LHO
was planning to retreat to spades anyway, and retreats to spades now, or (2)
partner retreats to spades from my double!  Yuck!

All in all, pass is my best initial action.  If RHO makes a weak bid, I can
consider coming in on the next round.

Ilene
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: MPs and IMPs--novice question
Date: 6 Oct 1992 06:14:48 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gandalf.think.com

In article <1992Oct6.003331.11596@nntp.uoregon.edu> mikeehli@cie.uoregon.edu (Mike Ehli) writes:
>First off:  How are IMPs calculated?  The procedure for matchpoints
>looks pretty straightforward, but IMPs look a little more difficult.

IMPs convert scores (or score differences or totals) into a logarithmic
scale.

>Second, and more important:  People often respond to a question:
>"If we're playing matchpoints I'll do X, but at IMPs I'll do Y."
>How does the scoring system being used affect the line of play in
>these cases? (Does a general answer exist, or is it more complicated
>than that?)

In IMPs, small score differences (e.g. those produced by individual
overtricks or additional undertricks) have little effect on the resulting
score.  In matchpoints, small scoring differences can have dramatic
effects.

At IMPs it usually makes sense to bid aggressively (you want to be in game
or slam if it's makable) and play conservatively (just make your contract).
Matchpoints rewards taking chances.

Consider the case where most pairs are making 4S, but you bid 3NT.  At IMPs
it doesn't make much difference if you make an overtrick -- it's at most
1 IMP -- so you wouldn't risk going down just to get that extra trick.  At
matchpoints, though, the difference between making 3 and 4 is the number of
pairs that made 4S; it could be the difference between a top and a bottom.

Alternatively, consider a case where bidding misunderstandings have landed
you in an unmakeable slam, while most other pairs are in a cold game.  At
matchpoints it doesn't matter much how many down you go -- you can't do any
worse than a bottom, which is what you'll probably get.  But if you're at
IMPs and doubled, those undertricks could start adding up.
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: Professor WHO?
Subject: Re: Limit Raise over Takeout Double
Summary: 2NT promises 4 trumps? YES!
Originator: boyiny@kovalevskaya
Keywords: double, Jordan, raise, fit-showing bid, Manfield.
Reply-To: maboyiny@ccvax.as.edu.tw (Dr. Weird)
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
X-Subliminal-Message: Trust the law of Total Tricks?  ME?
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 23:50:41 GMT

About that situation of responding to partner's 5cM opening over a takeout
double with 3 card support and limit raise values.....

I think it is right for Jordan to promise 4 card support.  If you, like me,
like to open a 4-card suit from time to time (indeed all the time, but that
is another story) you'd know how important that is.  BUT EVEN IF you are a
wimp^H^H^H^Hdisciplined 5-card majorite, you'd still want to know how many
cards partner has in support.  Otherwise, it is hard to know when to stop
off and double!  [All right, all right, so I am bloodthirsty too-- sue me!]

So what do I do with that 3-card support and a goodish raise?  Well, it is
simple, first off, you play TRANSFERS-- give up 1N and get a distinction
between good and bad raises; next, you play FIT-SHOWING jumps (weak jump
shifting just never appealed to me-- I have collected too many numbers from
opponent's WJS' over doubles) which takes care of those nice 3-6 and some
3-5 hands.  After all that, you should adopt one of the best ideas in
bidding theory--- the Manfield Trap Treatment.

With a goodish semi-balanced hand and no good suit, WHY redouble?