HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Subject: Re: Laws was Re: hesitating with a singleton
Reply-To: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:28:01 GMT

In article <davidm.703205833@rutabaga> davidm@rutabaga.Rational.COM (David Moore) writes:
>asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky) writes:

>>Why should they be frowned upon?  They are 100% legal.  It would "rightly"
>In the rest of the world, they are illegal. The rule used in the rest of the
>world should be adopted here. For the following reasons:

It was.  It created many problems.  It got changed back.  Maybe you'd like
to get on the National Laws Committee and work to get it changed back?

>As for the unsuuficient bid announcement, the result is invaraibly that the
>maker of the insufficient bid rectifies the error. This gives the partner

Well, tehre is your problem.  The result INVARIABLY should be that a
director should be called, who will then explain the next person's
options and the bidder's options.

>of the infringer unauthorised information. The partner of the infringer
>should only be allowed to speak (if at all) after the RHO has bid without
>announcing that they accept the bid. 

Give me a break.  You mean you think you should accept the bid without
saying anything and hope that the partner of the bidder doesn't notice?
Or that the bidder hirself won't notice when it comes around again?
Maybe we are talking about two different games of bridge here...
-- 
"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: brett@oce.orst.edu (Brett Barksdale)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Matchpoints, opposite a 2C opener
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:52:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: talon.1992Apr16.225208.27410
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography

In article <matthew.703447938@pram.cs.ucla.edu> matthew@pram.cs.ucla.edu (Matthew Merzbacher) writes:

-Partner holds (and deals):
-Kxx
-AKQxx
-AKQJx
-(void)
-
-We managed to end up in 5NT, which makes on the matchpoints defense of taking
-the top two clubs.  Our auction:
-
-2C-2D
-2H-3C
-3D-3S
-4D-4N
-5H-5S
-5N
-
-Can you provide a less perverse auction?

Start by opening 2C quality 2-suiters with the longest or higher ranking
suit. When the club bids start coming from the opps, you'll never get
enough info across. Open 1H and bid diamonds at the level you feel your
hand can make at next opportunity.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    "Want a twinkie, Genghis Khan?"
             Brett Barksdale        brett@porky.oce.orst.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ECL4JN2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Jack Newsbaum)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: 2 Problems (IMPS)
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:16:46 GMT

>
>Here's two problems. IMPS against a BAD team.
>
>(1) You hold Both Vul.
>
>7x
>AQ10xx
>AKJx
>Kx
>
>The auction:
>
>You LHO  Pard RHO
>1H  2C    2S   P
>3D  P     3S
>
>You do NOT play negative freebids. Partner has a good (but not game-forcing)
>hand.
>
>Your call?   There are only 2 choices. 4S and 3NT.  4S will be right
>if partner's spades are not solid, since you only have a single club stopper.
>3S is not forcing, but you are too good to pass.
>
I bid 4S. If spades are not solid you have no chance to make 3NTwith
a club lead and continuation (how bad can they be not to do that?).
Whereas, if spades are solid and you are destined to lose the first
two clubs, your chances to make 4S are still good. It is important to
play low on the first club to force West to win the second trick if
the defense continues clubs. This endplays West.
>
>(2) This is a play problem. Both Vul.
>
>        Ax
>        AK9
>        KJ98
>        J9xx
>
>        Q10
>        Q10xxx
>        10x
>        AK10x
>
>1NT 2S 3H P
>4H  all pass.
>
>8 spades led.  Plan the play. Both Vul.
>
Duck the spade expecting the SQ to win in your hand (LHO did overcall
vulnerable). Over to dummy to play the A and K of trump. If they split
3-2 or if East has 4, the contract is secure by pulling trumps and
conceding a club if necessary (5 trumps, 2 spades and 3 clubs at least).
If West has 4 trumps, get back to hand and leave the master trump
outstanding. Play the Club Ace (maybe West will drop a singleton Q).
If not, lead a low diamond to dummy and go up with the King, again
playing West for the DA because of the overcall. If the DK holds, West
is marked with at most one club (at least 6 spades, 4 hearts, and
2 diamonds), thus the club finesse through East is marked. You thus
lose only one trump and two diamonds.

    ====Jack====
From: ECL4JN2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Jack Newsbaum)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: What is going on?
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:59:48 GMT

>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)
>you raise to 3H....
>
>Partner bids 4H.
>
>1] What is going on?
>
>2] What should partner's hand look like?
>
Partner has a slam-invitational hand, but can do nothing more than
make a jump shift. He may have any of a number of hands without
primary club support, such as:

KQx, AJTxxxx, Qx, K   or KQxx, AJTxxx, x, KQ

>3] What do you call?
>
Cue bid 4S. Despite the fact that you also have a minimum hand, your
controls are excellent, and you should be willing to be in 6H if
partner has second round control of diamonds. After 4S, partner will
bid 5C, you will bid 5H, and partner will pass for lack of a diamond
control on the first hand. Holding the second hand, he will bid 6H.

    ====Jack====
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: Matchpoints, opposite a 2C opener
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 14:29:09 GMT

In article <1255@idacrd.UUCP> desj@idacrd.UUCP (David desJardins) writes:
>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.
							      ^^^^^^^^

Huh??  Pass 4H?   WHAT 4H bid are you referring to???  4H was never bid!!!
Or are you saying responder should pass 4D???

Rest deleted............
--
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: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: In memoriam, Rixi Markus
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:22:18 GMT
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


Reuters reported that Rixi Markus has died in London at the age of
82.  I understand that the date of death was Saturday, April 4.  Ms.
Markus had quite a colorful career, being among other things one of
very few (three ?) women to play on teams competitive in open World
Championship events.

A partner of mine had a memorable encounter with Ms. Markus at a club
in London.  He had just played a hand - he thought reasonably - but
had made one trick fewer than some other declarers.  When he wondered
aloud how they had done it, a little old lady, who seemed to have
been paying more attention to her knitting than to her kibitzing,
spoke up and explained that he had missed a squeeze and throw-in.
("Just cash this suit and lead that... simple."  He didn't even
understand the explanation at first.  That was several years ago;
he'd have gotten it right today!)  Only later did he find out who the
mysterious kibitzer was.

One memory fewer from the golden age.
-- 
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
From: doug@cm.deakin.OZ.AU (Douglas Newlands)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Cheating?
Date: 16 Apr 92 04:52:53 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computing & Mathematics, Deakin University, Australia

In article <92106.211546DNASTASZ@ESOC.BITNET: DNASTASZ@ESOC.BITNET writes:
:Good Evening,
:Ian Crorie writes:
:
:Ian, I can assure you that in England, Germany, Austria (and I expect
:most of the rest of the world) the cry of DIRECTOR! is a cry with the
:expectation of "divine retribution" to descend upon the opponents of
:the caller, and sets the tone for a confrontation.
:
:Of course, there is a difference between calling "DIRECTOR!" and
:"director". 

You can have some fun here tho as well; we had a night a couple of months back
where a competition arose to see who could make the most stentorian call of
"director". It's astonishing what a variety of manners there are in calling,
all of which sounded offensive, aggressive and intimidating.
It was great fun, well at least for those who caught onto what it was all
about.

   __
  |  \     __             __   _     __     __
  |   \   /   \   |   |  /  \   |    __\   (
  |   /   |   |   |   |  \__/   |   /   |   \
  |__/    \__ /   \__/|   __|  _|_  \__/|  __) o
         

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bs@fatima.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: Pridding Boblem
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Distribution: rec.games.bridge
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 15:23:53 GMT

In article <1992Apr2.112307.7736@lth.se> f84beo@efd.lth.se (Bjorn-Erik Olsson) writes:
:In article <1992Mar31.142637.28135@linus.mitre.org> bs@gauss.mitre.org
:(Robert D. Silverman) writes:
:> 
:stuff deleted.....
:>
:>It is a SURE sign of a weak or novice player when they want to open 2C
:>based on playing strength alone without defense. Or when they want to open
:>2C with strong 2-suiters.
:>
:>Let me offer some advice to those playing SA variants. 
:>
:>2C should promise a MINIMUM of 7 controls. (A=2 , K=1). This usually
:>guarantees not only the playing strength to open 2C, but some defense
:>that partner can count on as well.
:>
:
:In Bermuda Bowl 1987 Tony Forrester opened a gameforcing 2C on:
:
:      x
:      xx
:      Ax
:      AKQJxxxx
:
:But it was probably OK since he wasn't playing SA :-)
:BTW, it got him to an unbeatable 7NT, that almost noone bid.
 
Wonderful. What do you want to give him?  A medal???
 
Opening 2C did not get him in trouble because PARTNER held a strong hand
as well. The problems arise when partner holds a mediocre hand [not weak,
not strong] and the opponents compete.

 

This hand is TWO (not one, but two) tricks short of game in its intended suit.

It has only two defensive tricks.

Wonderful call.

Presenting anecdotal evidence from one particular call on one particular
hand does nothing to refute statements about what should constitute a 2C
opening.
 
This hand is much better served by a Namyats 4NT opening bid.
 
By the way, what point were you trying to make by bringing up this hand?
Your post seemed rather pointless in that it said nothing constructive.
--
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: Re: Misalert
Date: 16 Apr 1992 13:26:08 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: cypress.cs.utexas.edu

In article <22606@alice.att.com> jj@alice.UUCP (that old grouch jj) writes:

[Story about bad bridge players getting to a contract that if they
 had been *good* players would have required cheating, and what to
 do about it.]

>No wonder bridge is dying in the US.  Now, if it was CLEAR that something
>was happening sub-rosa, fine, but the evidence here is that people
>were CONFUSED.  

Last weekend in a tournament in Kerrville, Texas, in stratified Swiss,
a nearly-blind 90-year-old woman carefully peered at the bottom card
of each hand after she dealt them and before putting the hand in the
holder.  I didn't do anything about it.

In weak fields, I start out with "Skip bid", progress to "I am about
to make a skip bid.  Please wait at least 10 seconds before bidding",
and finally stop giving skip bid warnings.  With older players none
of it does any good.  With true beginners, I explain what's going on
and why.

But when an experienced and aware bridge player does something
unethical, like one player bidding largely with facial expression and
the other bidding as if he understood the facial expressions as well
as I did, or "Am I third hand?  Oh, then I'll bid 1H," I'm inclined
to call the director.

At least the blind woman in Kerrville was simply cheating.  I think 
The people who ignore skip bid warnings are probably oblivious.  I
still don't know what to think of experienced (if not particularly
good) tournament players in full possession of their faculties sending
and receiving and using unauthorized information.  It goes on all the
time.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: spencer@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: sources for supplies
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton Univ. Class of '94
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 05:51:59 GMT

I'd appreciate it if people could tell me where to get supplies... I
have a Baron/Barclay catalog but will shrewdly hypothesize that they
don't enjoy a monopoly on the business and thus hope that someone
replies...

E-mail me, please, to minimize bandwidth usage... :-)
----------
Spencer Sun - Princeton Univ. Class of '94 - Dept. of Computer Science
Clockwork Orange (Princeton Ultimate) (when I bother to show up for practice)
"Horror?  Steckall, it's ignorance we fear.  Since when did truth and
knowledge become a horror?"
From: gnstragu@mcs.drexel.edu (Nicholas Straguzzi)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Not another Jihad (some EVIDENCE)
Date: 10 Apr 92 02:21:54 GMT
Organization: Drexel University

In article <1992Apr8.152338.18345@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu> ted@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu (Ted Ying) writes:
>Nick may be willing to let this go uncontested, but I'm not.
>
>  [stuff deleted...]
>
>My position has always been that we should relax the restrictions, but very
>slowly so that everyone has a chance to cope with everything.  Nick would like
>to enjoy the game as is, but let's face it...people who like the game as is,
>are willing to adjust to small changes.

I know I said I wouldn't write any more on this subject, but I just
want to clarify one point.  I *would* like to see changes, major
changes in fact, made to the GCC.  I'd like to see many more
conventions and artificial bids permitted.  *And* I'd also like a rule
stating "if it ain't on the (very liberal, very broad) chart and it
ain't natural, you can't play it."  The point, which many readers
unfortunately missed (perhaps my hurried prose wasn't clear enough),
is that virtually every game and sport, especially team games, have
rules outlawing certain plays and tactics solely to maintain
competitive balance.  I just don't understand why so many people think
bridge should be an exception, but (with one exception, see below) I
respect all of the dissenting opinions aired here in the past week.

Now, if I hadn't given my word that I would let this thread die a merciful
death, I might heap some well-deserved abuse on the would-be satirist
who tried to draw the lame, illogical, and thoroughly irrelevant parallel
between chess, an individual game of perfect information, and bridge,
a partnership game of imperfect information.  But I gave my word...  :-)
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
nick straguzzi      gnstragu@mcs.drexel.edu      drexel university, phila. pa
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   "What do you open with AKQJ AKQ AKQ AKQ?"  "What's the vulnerability?"
From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Jihad and other things
Date: 12 Apr 92 21:55:15 GMT
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


In article <chen.702956782@wintermute>, chen@wintermute.wustl.edu
(The Chenster) writes: 
> argument of restricting conventions because it was difficult to play 
> against them is detrimental to the development of the game.

True.  The correct reason for restricting conventions is because it
takes _partnership agreement_ to defend against them.

> What if Easley Blackwood and John Gerber were banned from using their
> Ace asking bids? [well, actually this has its good points :-)] 

Use of the 4NT ace-asking convention was in fact considered at first.
So was the takeout double.  Nowadays the latter wasn't even mentioned
in the Naturalists-Scientists match, though it was allowed.

>   What about this suggestion?  First start out with a few local 
> "open" tournaments 

Many clubs allow open conventions.  We even had a pair play forcing
pass, though they soon ended their experiment.

Such experimentation is facilitated in clubs where a) all players are
friendly to each other, and b) cheating is strictly prohibited.  If
your club isn't like that, vote with your feet.

(I played in a "regular" club last week - first time in five years or
so.  This is one of the largest clubs in Boston.  Two - or was it
three - of eight pairs had partners abusing each other.  One or two
opponents were rude to us.  One opponent gave an instant pass after a
skip bid warning; she "had never heard of such a thing."  It will be
at least five years before I play in that club again.)

-- 
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
Subject: Re: Rules about psychs?
From: bclaus@cs.wright.edu (Brian Clausing)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 22:26:47 GMT
Organization: Wright State University

From article <ktnbhbINNsr9@cash.cs.utexas.edu>, by varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel):
> In article <chen.702242776@informatics> chen@informatics.wustl.edu (The Chenster) writes:
>>I am still unclear on why the
>>unusual notrump can be used to show a weak hand or a very strong hand 
>>if "dual range bids" are not allowed.  
> 
> I believe what I said was that the ACBL outlawed dual-range bids
> under most circumstances, or tried to.  It would be tough to
> enforce a rule that allowed a large continuous range for Michaels
> and Unusual (as Lawrence seems to advocate) but banned a split
> range.
> 
> There is no rule that specifically forbids "dual range bids".
> I thought I perceived a pattern, though.  Banning the *familiar*
> convention of a controlled lead-directing psyche, which had been
> around since the '40's, came at about the same time "Multi" was
> becoming popular everywhere in the world but here.  Banning both
> looked like a conscious decision against dual-range bids at the
> time.  I could easily be convinced there was no consciousness
> involved.
> 
> (There's another idea that Bo-Yin mentioned once as a part of
> K-S that I have never seen published.  I think it amounted to each
> bid at the 2-level showed either an ACOL 2-bid in the suit bid or
> a weak 2 in the next higher suit.  That may have been involved.)
> 
> -- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)

You may have in mind Ira Rubin's transfer two-bids.  2 D, for example,
is either strong with diamonds or a weak two in hearts.  Some years
ago the ACBL Bulletin ran an article on this method--and noted at
the end that it wasn't approved for use except at highest levels!

Annoyed at the rule against psyching a strong bid, in a Bridge World
editorial, Kaplan noted that one could (try to) circumvent the rule
by playing that 2C is either strong or, say, 6-7 in hearts and diamonds.

Rather than attempt to formulate systematic methods for regulating
conventions based on ease of description and difficulty of defending
against them, the ACBL seems to adopt "political" solutions that
pander to (what ACBL apparently conceives is) a lazy and bigoted
majority.  What a pity!

Brian Clausing
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bid this hand
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:18:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: linus.1992Apr9.151827.28481
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA

In article <1992Apr9.140018.6481@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> apearlma@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Andrew Pearlman) writes:
>In article <1992Apr9.122131.22605@linus.mitre.org> bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr7.163841.9125@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> apearlma@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Andrew Pearlman) writes:
>>:In article <1992Apr1.114022.9957@linus.mitre.org> bs@faron.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>>:>In article <1992Apr1.052156.17144@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> apearlma@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Andrew Pearlman) writes:
>>:>:
>>:>:You have this hand:
>>:>:S K10x
>>:>:H A2
>>:>:D AKQ1098
>>:>:C Ax
>>:>:
>>:>:Bidding goes
>>:>:2H(weak2)-?
>>Huh? Where do you get 8 tricks from?? You get a heart lead and your
>>stopper is knocked out. You cash diamonds and they DON'T BREAK. LHO
>>wins the J diamonds puts partner in with A spades and the 2H bidder
>>cashes a bunch of hearts. They take a diamond, 5 hearts and A spades.
>>Down 3.
>
>RHO opponent can not possibly have diamonds stopped.  So he is relying on
>partner to have A) 4+ diamonds and B) the J of diamonds.  Assuming a void
>in RHO, there is roughly a 50% of A and a 50% of B.  i.e. there is only
>a 25% chance that this is happening and RHO opponent doesn't know whether
>it did or not.  There is 10 points remaining.  There is also a 50% chance
>that the A of spades, K of clubs, or K of hearts is in partner's hand.
>If partner has A of spades & 3 hearts, I can stop the Jxxx of diamonds
>from working.  If K of clubs, I can probably run 3-4 club tricks, especially
>if 4 diamonds are in the other hand.  K of hearts, well, that's obvious.
>
>While the odds are not entirely cumulative, they are heavily in my favor.
>I feel that while your point is valid(and thought of), it is too conservative
>for me.
>
>Andy Pearlman


--
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: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Myerson)
Subject: Re: 2 Problems (IMPS)
Organization: Raytheon Company
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:09:15 GMT

ECL4JN2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (Jack Newsbaum) writes:

JN: >(2) This is a play problem. Both Vul.
JN: >
JN: >        Ax AK9, KJ98, J9xx,
JN: >
JN: >        Q10, Q10xxx, 10x, AK10x
JN: >
JN: >1NT 2S 3H P
JN: >4H  all pass.
JN: >
JN: >8 spades led.  Plan the play. Both Vul.
JN: >

JN: Duck the spade expecting the SQ to win in your hand (LHO did overcall
JN: vulnerable). Over to dummy to play the A and K of trump. If they split

Um, the 3 heart bidder is playing the hand. 
It was Opener's LHO that made the overcall.

JN: [rest of article deleted for obvious reasons]

Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)