HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Rules about psychs?
Keywords: Psychs, artificial bids
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:40:19 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky) writes:

>In article <1992Mar30.175029.17298@linus.mitre.org> bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>>It is illegal to psyche STRONG FORCING ARTIFICIAL OPENINGS.  It is not
>>illegal to psyche artificial bids.

>Sorry, Bob, that is wrong, go stand in the corner with Don, and your
>punishment will be the same:  You have to let 3 inane postings go by
>on r.g.b without following up on them (I know, I'm tough!)

>It's illegal to psyche artificial opening bids.  

Does the verb "psyche" require intent?

I.e., suppose I miscount and open 1C with 15 (when our express agreement
is 16+)?  Do I then have to go stand in a corner for a few rounds?
****************************************************************************
The Slug		valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu

"Can I shake your hand or would I be violating about 15 federal laws ?"

(THis [sic] message should be assumed to have been smiley captioned for the
humor impaired)
From: davidm@rutabaga.Rational.COM (David Moore)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Can you beat 3 NT ?
Date: 9 Apr 92 00:22:50 GMT

A very nice squeeze, which i did not see "at the table". I see that here
it is INCORRECT to cash your winners when threatened by an end-play
because you then rectify the count for a throw-in squeeze. So, I've
just added another plate to my defensive armament.

Of course, partner is following to clubs like a man with only two (no
mention was made of playing present count), so declarer may be
1345. So now when you lead your small spade, declarer must play the
king and another spade. Your partner must rise with the Q and return
a heart. If he allows you to win the second spade, you are squeezed again.

Altogether an interesting hand.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ted@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu (Ted Ying)
Subject: Re: *My* Thoughts on the Jihad and ACBL
Organization: Johns Hopkins Univ. Welch Medical Library
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:08:55 GMT

bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
> milord@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Milord) writes:
> 
> stuff deleted..........
>
> : I also believe that Bridge tournaments should have more money 
> : prizes.  Why won't the ACBL allow tournaments (or even clubs)
> 
> I hope NOT!!!!!!!!
> There is too much cheating now that goes on in ACBL tournaments.
> Can you imagine what it would be like with cash prizes???
>
> : to give more than $25 a game in cash prizes?  How detrimental
> : to the game would that be?  Or, could it possibly be that
> 
> It would be extraordinarily detrimental. See above.
>
	There is another problem.

	Currently, the ACBL and local units have been starting to hear
	signs that the federal, state, and local governments are trying
	to start taxing bridge events under the "entertainment tax".
	Thus entry fees, etc would be taxable just as a ticket to a
	movie or sporting event, etc would be taxable.

	If we were to start offering cash prizes then it could be
	considered a form of either professional sport or a form of
	gambling.  In any event, the government could require that
	people report winnings of this sort as additional income to be
	taxed.

	We really don't need to get the game of bridge involved in
	something like this.  It isn't necessary and it would add a
	drawback to the game as Robert pointed out.

	I could see occasional special events which offer cash prizes,
	but regular events/tournaments shouldn't be included.

	Ted Ying			ted@welch.jhu.edu

#include <std.disclaimer.h>

	Tommy Thrush: "Captain Buffalo, I'm hungry, can we eat now?"
	Captain Buffalo: "Well, alright Tommy, how about here?  They
		have a special on Buffalo Wings."
	Tommy: "Can I get the Mud-pie?  It comes with a special Mudman
		action figure!"
	Captain Buffalo: "Hmmmm...."
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bs@fatima.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: What is going on?
Keywords: No cue after strong jump shift?
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:32:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.163320.9104@rice.edu> danil@boreal.owlnet.rice.edu (Danil Patrick Suits) writes:
:IMP teams, everybody green
:
:Axx
:KQx
:xxx
:Axxx
:
:Absolutely spotless.
:
:Second chair, playing Standard American, you open
:1C. Partner skips the bidding up to 2H (strong)
 ^^

Not me. Not in 1st or second seat. I don't open 8 loser hands with no spots.

:you raise to 3H....
 
Unless you let everyone in on your methods we can't make a judgment about
this call. Most good partnerships play 3H shows extras and a jump to 4H
shows a minimum.

:
:Partner bids 4H.
:
:1] What is going on?
 
Even in "old-fashioned" S.A. a jump shift shows a good suit. Partner
has AJ at best. Thus, partner cannot have a valid jump shift in hearts.
As for what is going on, you've got me. Someone who can jump shift on
a bad suit is capable of misbidding in many different ways.

:
:2] What should partner's hand look like?
 
Who knows? His 2H bid was impossible, and he failed to cuebid at the 4 level.

Could it be that partner really had a WEAK jump shift???

The way I play, the 3H bid  MANDATES cuebids from partner.

:
:3] What do you call?
 
This is trivial. You have already bid your hand. You pass. No other bid
can even be contemplated.

Were you actually thinking of taking ANOTHER 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"
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: atleung@troy.uucp (27354-leung)
Subject: Re: Misalert
Reply-To: atleung@troy.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 13:17:49 GMT



Sorry about the misinformation about my partner's hand.  My partner
is 2-3-6-2 distribution.  And we are both vulnerable.
From: valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Not another Jihad
Date: 5 Apr 92 17:40:22 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

chen@informatics.wustl.edu (The Chenster) writes:

>Year 1995:  The United States Chess Federation has felt that it's about 
>  time to put some restrictions on wild, crazy and just plain stupid 
>  openings.  The commitee deciding what openings should be allowed 
>  has done a very thorough and methodical study.  The list of 
>  allowable openings include almost all of the popular openings --
>  K's Gambit, Q's Gambit Sicilian, Caro-Kahn, King's Indian have
>  most of their main lines preserved. Also the commitee will meet 
>  every year to allow in new openings as demonstrated by TN's (Tech Novelties)
>  and phase out old openings.  This is to prevent weak players from adding
>  more "randomness" to the result by using nonstandard techniques that
>  are probably unsound anyway.  

I am on the side of unrestrained conventions.  I admit that this gives
younger players an advantage, since, all other things being equal,
younger people have better memory capabilities.  However, young people
(among which group I count myself) have an advantage in just about every
area of endeavor (If this is news to anyone, I will glady explain)

In particular, I think restraint of conventions tends to make the
results, particularly at the club pair game level, more random (more random
than they already are), since one of the major ways in which certain
pairs might be able to obtain a consistent advantage would be denied
them.

Nevertheless, I think the analogy raised above is specious.  Playing
a dippy opening in chess is like evolution (most deviations from the
norm are failures)  Playing an oddball system at bridge confers an
advantage (particularly against weak opposition) regardless of any
technical merits it may or may not have.  What follows is a rather
winded exposition, but the point is that if you are allowed to
play a gadget, you should cart it out at every opportunity.

Let me give a couple of examples (not that the point isn't obvious).

1) 10 or 15 years ago, I played Flannery.  Not because, in my opinion,
it had any technical merit, but simply because it blew the opps away.  I
always got a good board when our side opened Flannery.  Nowadays, this
isn't true, and I think Flannery is absurd.

2) The other night, I picked up (matchpoints, VUL:0, 2nd seat) :

	S - K J T x x x
	H - <none>
	D - Q T x x
	C - x x x

Normally, this is a bad hand to pre-empt on.  The spades are bad, and
the shape is too good.  Nevertheless, I opened 2H (weak 2 in a major),
partner duly alerted and explained, partner bid 4H and I bid 4S.  Making
5 with the opps having 10 hearts between them.  The point is that even
knowing what we were doing, they didn't have the ability to diagnose
that 5H was an obvious sacrifice.
****************************************************************************
The Slug		valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu

When all other means of communication fail, try words.

(THis [sic] message should be assumed to have been smiley captioned for the
humor impaired)
From: desj@idacrd.UUCP (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Matchpoints, opposite a 2C opener
Date: 17 Apr 92 03:24:09 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research

In article <1992Apr16.194521.1682@linus.mitre.org> bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>>2C-2D
>>2H-3C
>>3D-3S
>>4D-4N
> 
>Looks just fine to me so far. 4N is natural of course.

I don't think this auction is "just fine."  Responder should pass 4H.
The black suit cards may be completely wasted, and there is no
particular source of tricks outside of the red suits.  Given that you
are going to need heart tricks anyway, there's no reason not to play
in hearts.

On the actual hand 4H is virtually cold, but 4NT has a substantial
chance of failing.

					David desJardins
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: tpermutt@eng.umd.edu (Thomas Permutt)
Subject: No problem on this card
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 19:06:53 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park, College of Engineering

In the discussion of hesitating with a singleton at trick 1, some writers
have mentioned the possibility of saying something like, "I am thinking
about something else."  Personally, it drives me up the wall when people
do this.  In the first place, it offers the speaker's partner unauthorized
information (what can be concluded when partner hesitates and doesn't make
such a statement?).  Alternatively, assuming this is done by players on
such a level of skill and ethics that partner couldn't imaginably profit,
it is patronizing, assuming I, unlike speaker's partner, haven't considered
that there might be more than one reason for hesitating.

Speaking of (not) hesitating at trick one, allow me to immodestly present
the following example.  You hold 7 spades to the K, a club void and the
Ace of diamonds, and opponents play 5H after vigorous spade bidding by
you.  Partner leads the Ace of Spades, and 3 to the Q appear in dummy.
What do you do?  You could dither long enough so that it is clear that
you are not thinking about whether you have the King or not, and then make
a suit-preference signal, but then your ethical partner will certainly lead
the opposite of whatever you signal for.

I followed with the King, as smoothly as if it were a singleton.
From: davidm@rutabaga.Rational.COM (David Moore)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: A couple of hands.
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:34:11 GMT

eric@pencom.com writes:

>White-White You (South) hold :

>x
>AKJxx
>Qx
>AJ109x

>Bidding proceeds :
>E       S        W         N
>P       1H       P         3H(1)
>4S      ???

Double in my sleep. I have some extra values and good quick-tricks (I may
even be able to cash two hearts, though given that E is clearly a weak 
player, there's a good chance he has a void in hearts and has not paused to
consider that the trumps are not splitting for us).

If I don't double here, partner will double 4S but will never bid 5H. Doubling
gives partner a chance to get to 5H with the right hand. If Easts bidding
has any basis in reality and 4S is making, you were getting a bottom anyway,
so there is no need to worry about that.

>White-Red You (South) hold :
>9xxx
>Q
>J109x
>AKxx

>S         W          N          E
>P         P          2H(1)      P
>P         3D         P          3H
>P(2)      3S         P          4C
>P(2)      4D         P          P
>P(2)

>(1) Weak, but not disiciplined in 3rd seat.
>(2) Do you double?
          over 3H - No, suggests a heart sack.
          over 4C - No, why would I want to help declarer set up
                    dummy's long suit?
          over 4D - tempting, isn't it. Declarer has denied a heart stop, so
		    you are making a heart trick (dummy probably has
                    a high honour), probably one club, and a trump. Guess I
		    am going to do my chook impression. (i.e., for US
		    viewers, I pass). Besides, the rest of the room is
		    probably making 3NT.


>Incidently, East's hand was :

>AQ
>Axxxxx
>-
>Jxxxx

I would not have guessed it from the bidding. 
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sbenson@leland.Stanford.EDU (Scott Sherwood Benson)
Subject: Stanford Bridge Club Meeting
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 22:48:42 GMT


Come play bridge at the Stanford Bridge Club.  Players of all skills
and experience are welcome (even if you've never played before, but
would like to learn!), and partners are always available.

We meet Wednesday nights starting at 7pm in the Old Union Clubhouse.
Come a little earlier if you need a partner.

If you have any questions, send e-mail to altus@leland.stanford.edu
or sbenson@cs.stanford.edu.

(Apologies in advance if this posting is distributed worldwide.  I'm not
sure if they've fixed the distribution software yet.)
From: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Ruling, Please
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:19:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: overload.1992Apr9.221916.16437
Reply-To: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

In article <19945@castle.ed.ac.uk> graeme@castle.ed.ac.uk (G J Ackland) writes:
>Who has the right to say what the auction was?
>Here, north would most likely say "That's wrong, I passed"
>East may disagree,  West may agree with east, south with north.  Are
>there rules about this?  The tactic of agreeing with partner's version
>regardless seems to be a good way to avoid a penalty here.  
...
>When the director comes,  what is the ruling if you say
>a)  It should be weak take-out, partner gave misinformation. 
>b)  Partner's right, it should be Stayman, but I forgot.
>c)  It WAS Stayman.  I was deliberately psyching.
>d)  You can't bid 2s after 1N - X - 2c - P - P - P  (and partner holding
>      5-2-4-2 backs up your assertion that he never bid 2h)
>
>OK, (d) is rather fanciful in this case.
>If you think defence to 1nt*  should be on the convention card, and
>you're at fault for not filling it in, apply the same arguments to a
>different auction.

Yeah, right, and we Americans are the ones cheating and unjustly
accusing them poor Europeans of unethical behavior.  Sure. Right.
-- 
"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: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: System generalities (was Re: Not another Jihad)
Date: 7 Apr 1992 19:21:27 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: muleshoe.cs.utexas.edu

In article <22509@alice.att.com> td@alice.att.com (Tom Duff) writes:

>To forestall complaints, here is some Bridge Content:
>	I've just found Kaplan & Sheinwold's book about their system
>in a dusty old box of books and have started re-reading it.  The
>date on it is 1963 (2nd edition), and the title is
>``How to Play Winning Bridge'' (or is that the wrong title --
>I'm old, I'm old, I think I'll wear my trousers rolled.)

>I'm not intimately familiar with the particulars of the 2/1-GF style,
>but from what I've osmosed, it seems not very different from K-S.
>(Does it use 1NT strong instead of weak?)
>Can anybody explain, in general terms, how these systems (and other
>current methods) differ in approach, and how well-regarded they are
>by players generally?

He, he, he.

K-S is a particular 2/1 style built around a weak notrump.  Of
course, K-S *predates* 2/1, so it might be more accurate to
say that 2/1 is essentially K-S with a *strong* notrump.  Both
base their major-suit bidding on the forcing notrump response,
an invention of Alvin Roth.  Neither uses Roth's particular
(and peculiar) structure of rebids.

K-S minor-suit openings seem strangest.  The use of a 2C rebid
by a 1D opener never caught on.  The approach to reverses and
jump rebids is unique to the system.

Many people who call their approach "2/1" consider 1S-2C; 2S-3C
nonforcing, as it is in K-S.  Most seem to consider 1S-2H; 2S-3H
forcing, although I can't imagine why.  It isn't in K-S.  (It
is described as "2/1 game force except on minor repeat".)  Most
consider 1S-2C; 2S a waiting bid with no defined range, whereas
it definitely shows a minimum in K-S.  At least those are the
features I notice among the 2/1 bidders around *here*.  Your
mileage may vary.

In a relatively "pure" 2/1 style, major-suit openings should be
fairly sound.  They definitely aren't in K-S.

I think 2/1 with a weak notrump makes a rather nice system.  I
wish there were a K-S book still in print.  My copy is getting
badly worn from being lent to partners.  At the least, it would
be nice if someone would do a system description on the order
of _Aces Scientific_ on a 2/1 weak-notrump system, even if it's
*not* K-S.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
From: adam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Adam Hamilton)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Cheating?
Date: 16 Apr 92 08:34:48 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Apr16.001554.22976@m.cs.uiuc.edu> bharat@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
:More interesting quandry ...
:
:Our opponents sit down and they play Precision or some complex relay
:system ... it goes 1C(alert)-P-2D(alert)- at this point we request no
:more Alerts, since its going to help the opponents more... now the
	In Britain, at least, you may not change your alert/don't alert
request in the middle of a hand.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Subject: Re: *My* Thoughts on the Jihad and ACBL
Reply-To: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 07:09:00 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.044334.8697@leland.Stanford.EDU> altus@leland.Stanford.EDU (Steve Altus) writes:
>which brings me to a new topic:  i stopped playing (for the most part)
>for about 20 months and started again in january, and it seems the
>fields are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  much worse than they used to 
>be!!  is it just me, or have other people noticed this???

It's just you, Steve, you are sooo much better now :-).

No but seriously... I only play in two levels of play -- home games and
National events and the level of play at the former is miles above what
it used to be (mostly a function of my selection of friends) and the 
level at the latter seems to be deteriorating.  Then again, like Steve,
I might have gotten better, and simply see the mistakes that I might
have missed in the past.  The fact that the Granovetters also noticed
it and wrote about it in their magazine a year ago seems to indicate
that it's not just us.
-- 
"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: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Myerson)
Subject: Re: Ruling, Please
Organization: Raytheon Company, Portsmouth, RI
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 12:01:44 GMT

In article <19945@castle.ed.ac.uk> graeme@castle.ed.ac.uk (G J Ackland) writes:
>
>>> North deals (in a KO) and passes.  East bids 2C, South passes.
>>> Now, West asks for a review, and _East_ says "1H-2C-P."
>
>Who has the right to say what the auction was?
>Here, north would most likely say "That's wrong, I passed"
>East may disagree,  West may agree with east, south with north.  Are
>there rules about this?  The tactic of agreeing with partner's version
>regardless seems to be a good way to avoid a penalty here.  I seem to
>recall it's the same with responses to questions about conventions.  If
>you can't remember what you are playing, you wont get penalised if you
>claim to be playing whatever partner told the opponents. e.g.
>
>third in hand, you hold xxxxx xxx xxx xx
>
>1nt  X  2c(1) p
>2h   p   p    2s
>etc
>
>(1) You think this is a weak take out, partner alerts it as Stayman.
>
>When the director comes,  what is the ruling if you say
>a)  It should be weak take-out, partner gave misinformation. 
>b)  Partner's right, it should be Stayman, but I forgot.
>c)  It WAS Stayman.  I was deliberately psyching.
>d)  You can't bid 2s after 1N - X - 2c - P - P - P  (and partner holding
>      5-2-4-2 backs up your assertion that he never bid 2h)
>
>OK, (d) is rather fanciful in this case.
>If you think defence to 1nt*  should be on the convention card, and
>you're at fault for not filling it in, apply the same arguments to a
>different auction.

Another reason for using Bidding boxes.  There is never a
question of what the bids were.  Controversy solved.

Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)
From: valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Cheating?
Date: 17 Apr 92 16:52:05 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

desj@idacrd.UUCP (David desJardins) writes:

>This reasoning doesn't always work.  I've had exchanges exactly like
>this with world-class players.  Some people just don't want you to
>know what they are doing.

The concensus here appears to be that you should not name the
convention, but rather should explains what it means and what it shows.

This is all well and good in the hands of competent players, but I
think that for incomps, it is actually better to "use the macro".

In fact, there is a direct analogy to computer programming/user
interfaces.  The ongoing conflict is whether to design a program to be
maximally useful to the power user/propeller head/technodweeb/whatever
you want to call them, or to make it at least minimally usable to the 
idiot/end user/whatever you want to call them.

To get back to bridge, I would rather have an incomp say "negative",
since that means something, than to just grunt "hearts".  Convention
names are like macros - they save you from having to compose them each
time.  What I'm saying is that they usually have some idea what they are
doing (playing), but don't know how to express it.
****************************************************************************
The Slug		valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu

"Can I shake your hand or would I be violating about 15 federal laws ?"

(THis [sic] message should be assumed to have been smiley captioned for the
humor impaired)