HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nstraguz@atl.ge.com (Nick Straguzzi)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: two missed slam
Date: 17 Dec 92 22:27:44 GMT
Organization: GE Aerospace, Advanced Technology Labs
NNTP-Posting-Host: dinsdale.atl.ge.com

In article <7t+rsj-@quantum.on.ca> dagibbs@quantum.on.ca (David Gibbs) writes:
>In article <1992Dec4.214826.8131@wuecl.wustl.edu> geppo@spot.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi) writes:
>>1) E/W vulnerable, declarer south, which opens 4H
>>
>>     Q3          AJ85
>>     A           73
>>     AKQT8732    6
>>     A2          KJT953
>>
>>     At the table West bid 5D, passed by East. Who is to blame?

West.  No guts, no glory.

>>2) N/S vuln. West dealer.
>>
>>     AKJT752     Q843
>>     52          AKQJ3
>>     K652        A8
>>     -           K9
>
>1S    - 2NT(1)
>3C(2) - 3D
>4C    - 4H
>5D    - 5NT(3)
>7S
>
>3. Grand slam force  (is this the standard meaning of 5NT in an
>auction like this?  Or does it recquire a jump to 5NT to make
>it GSF?  I know I would take this as GSF, but I may be wrong.)
>
>-David

It should be GSF, especially with an unfamiliar partner.  For
experienced partnerships, a good rule of thumb is: 5NT is GSF when
it's a jump bid, or when the final strain is more or less unambiguous
to both parties, as here.  Otherwise, it's pick-a-slam.

Nick
-- 
 Nick Straguzzi / GE Advanced Technology Labs / Moorestown NJ / (609) 866-6646
---------- nstraguz@atl.ge.com ----------- #include <stddisclaimer.h> ---------
                "Got no use for the tricks of modern times..."
							- Al Stewart
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: 16 Dec 92 06:25:16 GMT
Subject: Re: The multi horror
Organization: Princeton University
X-Subliminal-Message: You can quit reading news anytime you want.

In article <1992Dec15.212520.11308@rayssd.ssd.ray.com> sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Steven G. Myerson) writes:

|* I did 6 spades and my partner raised it to 7.
|* Which cards had she?
|
|Peeking ahead, I dare say not the right ones.
|
|* She had AQ8/AK/ATx/ATxxx so it was one down and we lost
|* 17 imps.
|* 
|* What should I have done?
|
|Berate partner for bidding 7? :-)
|
|* Don't tell me that 6 spades wasn't a good bid because I know that.
|
|Take control of the hand by asking for aces and (as it happens) kings.
|Once you know that there are 12 tricks off the top, you can bid 6N.
|
|Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)

See, the problem with this hand is that the strong bidder really needs
to be in control, not the weak one.  However, standard bidding doesn't
really let you do that.  Having the weak bidder simply ask for aces and
kings won't tell you about the grand -- if N has Axx Ax Axx AKQxx, then
7N is 100% cold, and you won't be able to find this out.  On the other
hand, NORTH can confidently bid it knowing that you have 8 spades to the
K.

Relay systems to the rescue ... :-)


--

"Can't we all just get along?"
From: doug@cm.deakin.OZ.AU (Douglas Newlands)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Place the Blame
Date: 17 Dec 1992 02:14:49 GMT
Organization: Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sauron.cm.deakin.oz.au

More of everyone's favourite activity.

1 Bidding : who gets blamed for this travesty?

Butler Teams        S A4
LA                  H 987654                   S     W     N     E
D-S                 D QJ106                    1S    2D    P     3C*
		    C 7                        P     3D    P     4D
                                               P     5D    X   all pass
	S J1032             S 96
	H A                 H Q32
	D K98543            D A7
	C J6                C AK10982         * 1 round force

		    S KQ875
		    H KJ10
		    D 2
		    C Q543

2 Play : 

Butler Teams        S AJ964                   N      E     S      W
EW                  H KJ74                    1C+    1N*   X~     2C
D-N                 D AK5                     2S     P     4S   all pass
		    C J
                                              + precision
	S KQ3               S 5               * minors
	H Q10962            H 3               ~ 5-8 any shape
	D 8                 D Q9763
	C AQ94              C 1086532

		    S 10872          Trick 1: 5C 7C QC JC
		    H A85            Trick 2: AC ruffed
		    D J1042          Trick 3: AS
		    C K7

Declarer could no longer avoid 4 losers;N was told he should have crossed to
AH and finessed trumps. Is this correct?

3 Defence: Here declarer makes a hopeless contract - who should have found the
defence?

Teams              S xxx
NS                 H AKQJ10
D-N                D xx                   N     E      S    W
		   C xxx                  P     P     1N    P
                                          2D    P     2H    P
	S 9xx2              S QJ10x       4H  all pass
	H xxx               H xx
	D A10x              D KJx
	C Qxx               C KJ10x

		   S AK
		   H xxx
		   D Qxxxx
		   C Axx

The play started T1 9S xS xS AS
		 T2 xD 10D xD xD
		 T3 2s xS 10S KS
		 T4 xD xD xD JD
		 T5 QS         and declarer is now home.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: rudy@netcom.com (Rudy)
Subject: Re: Help a beginner
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 21:35:39 GMT

In article <Bz5qDy.LKH@deshaw.com> baseggio@deshaw.com (Franco Baseggio) writes:
>>+> Please don't flame.  I truly am perplexed as to why a partnership must 
>>+> disclose their strategy for winning.  Maybe my poker mentality prevents
>>+> me from knowing the reason.
>>If you don't understand it now, stick to poker.
>
>No, don't do that.  What a crummy piece of advice.  Bridge is a better
>game than poker, you would be a fool not to find out why.
>
Ha!  If you go to the Bicycle Club in LA (big poker club) you can meet
several hundred thousands of masterpoints who may not agree with you.
From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Assign the blame
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:42:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: irvine.Bz3yMB.FvE
Organization: Irvine Compiler Corp., Irvine, California, USA

In article <1992Dec10.195529.12842@news.eng.convex.com> graham@convex.com (Marv Graham) writes:

>>>(Donald A. Varvel) writes:
>>>>   Hand 1: Unfavorable, South deals.
>>>>
>>>>   N:     S: A Q x x x         Opponents passing throughout:
>>>>          H: A Q
>>>>          D: x x x             1H    1S
>>>>          C: x x x             2D    3C
>>>>                               3S    4S
>>>>   S:     S: K x x             All pass
>>>>          H: K J T x x x
>>>>          D: A K x x           Making 7.
>>>>          C: --
>>
>>>Is 3C forcing to game?  If that's the case (and that's how I play),
>>>North did nothing wrong---he's shown his hand.  South has a beautiful
>
>At the risk of many flames for STUPID BID OF THE MONTH, I would prefer 3 
>diamonds to 3 clubs as the second bid for North.  Followed by 4 hearts over 
>the 3 spade bid.  It avoids implying club values: there anrn;t any.  It is 
>"nearly" forcing. Comments.

3D isn't forcing in Standard.  It shows better than a minimum
(otherwise you'd just pass 2D), but nowhere near game-forcing values.
Even "nearly" forcing isn't enough for me on this hand---North's hand
is certainly worth a game force.

                                -- Adam
From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Explain alerts
Date: 17 Dec 1992 18:40:59 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbootay.sw.stratus.com

In formal bridge games, when a player makes an unusual conventional call,
his partner immediately says "alert."  This is a warning to opponents that
they might want to ask what the bid means.

For a good explanation of this and other duplicate procedures, call the
American Contract Bridge League in Memphis, Tennessee, and ask them for a
copy of _Adventures in Duplicate Bridge_ by Edith McMullin.  While you're
at it, ask them for a list of duplicate bridge games in your area.
-- 
Tim Hill
Stratus Computer, Inc.                  tnh@vos.stratus.com
55 Fairbanks Boulevard                  508-460-2232
Marlborough, MA  01752                  fax 508-624-7488
From: wchen@beirut.berkeley.edu (William Chen)
Subject: Re: ethics
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:00:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.222310.29611@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> tim@theory.lcs.mit.edu (timothy m wright) writes:
>An ethics query for you folks:
>
>West is an LM who should know better, East is a relative novice and pickup
>partner.  At a sectional swiss, 7th round, you sit South and pick up and
>hear:  
>
>None vul; W deals
>N    E    S    W     Tx
>--   --   --   3H    AKQ9
>p    p               KQxx
>                     AKx
>
>You ask East about their agreements on preempts, and are told that they have
>none; their card is sparsely filled out (NT openings, limit raises, weak 2s,
>and leads, nothing else).  You bid 3NT, to play, and wind up in 5S after
>poartner poulls to 4s, and shows one ace after RKC blackwood.
>
>West overcalled on:
>
>---
>876xxx
>Axxx
>xxx

What was the final result?  Did you get a sub-par score?

Brave man (or foolish).

>
>1) is a system that allows first-seat 3-level preempts like this systemically
>too destructive for the ACBL?

>
>2) assuming that this sort of preempting style is tolerated, what recourse
>do I have when not informed about it?



I'm looking forward to responses about this also.  I have heard there is some 
sort of guideline (like the 5-5 rule) for preempts. 

Anyway, even if it is allowed, your opponents need to specify the type 
of preempt when describing their system.  
 


In any case, it seems that playing a standard defense to preempts you can
handle this problem.  You can just pass and wait to see what partner 
does.  This won't be passed out unless the 3H bid was a psychic or 
if the opponents are cheating.  You didn't state the vul or partner's hand,
but if partner doubles, a penalty pass is odds on to be profitable, and 
even after a 3S bid you can decide to bid 4S or 3nt or something
else depending on your system.  

William.
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: ethics
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:21:22 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Tim Hill <tnh@sw.stratus.com> writes:
>> ---
>> 876xxx
>> Axxx
>> xxx

> Either the opponents misinformed you or West psyched.  In either case, you're
> supposed to call the director as soon as you finish playing the hand.

Where did this come from?  They said they had no agreement.  Is this
hand somehow inconsistent with "no agreement"?

On what basis do you conclude misinformation?

> If the director decides that there was an agreement and you were
> damaged by the misinformation, then you should get an adjusted score.

As I pointed out to the poster by email, but perhaps is worth repeating
here, even if there had been misinformation, there doesn't seem to be
any damage from that misinformation, so no possibility of an adjustment.
South, looking at the AKQx, wasn't able to figure out that West had a
bad suit?  And, even if so, what exactly do you think that North-South
would have done differently with different information?

Your best case for getting an adjustment, I suppose, would be to assert
that the opponents had an undisclosed agreement to preempt on hands like
this, and therefore you should have had the opportunity to agree to play
penalty doubles against them.  Good luck convincing a committee of this.

Besides, you bought a large share of your bad score with the ill-advised
4NT bid, and so even if the committee adjusted they would likely only
change the opponents' score, not yours.

                                        David desJardins
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: henk@pdsf.ssc.gov (Henk Uijterwaal)
Subject: Percentages
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 20:44:58 GMT

Early this week, I wrote:

+> For example: 55% will be enough to win any long (200 boards), strong (national 
+> championships) pairs game, but will not often win an ordinary club game.

I got a few reactions saying that this number is too low.So I did a little 
research and found the following numbers for the world championship finals.

          Biarritz/1982/Open   Geneva/1990/Open   Geneva/1990/Women
Pair #1              55.28 %            59.44 %             56.13 %
     #2              54.59 %            55.87 %             56.06 %
     #3              54.50 %            55.08 %             54.98 %
     #4              54.37 %            54.38 %             54.40 %

Before anybody starts flaming: yes, I know that the statistics on this table 
are limited and much more analysis is needed. However, something like 56% or
57% percent to win any strong pairs championship seems to be the right number
and my guess of 55% was not that far off. If higher scores are needed (60+
was quoted for the Blue Ribbon Pairs), either the field is not that strong or
the match is too short.

Henk.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                                      Email: henk@pdsf.ssc.gov 
SSC-labs, MS 2005.                                          46082::henk
Building 4, room F-428
2550 Beckleymeade Av.                                Phone: 1-214-708-6192
Dallas, TX 75237                                     Home:  1-214-283-6687
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dagibbs@quantum.on.ca (David Gibbs)
Subject: Re: two missed slam
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 23:22:48 GMT
Organization: Quantum Software Systems

In article <1992Dec4.214826.8131@wuecl.wustl.edu> geppo@spot.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi) writes:
>1) E/W vulnerable, declarer south, which opens 4H
>
>     Q3          AJ85
>     A           73
>     AKQT8732    6
>     A2          KJT953
>
>     At the table West bid 5D, passed by East. Who is to blame?

South.

He shouldn't pre-empt when you have a slam, it might keep you
from finding it.

>2) N/S vuln. West dealer.
>
>     AKJT752     Q843
>     52          AKQJ3
>     K652        A8
>     -           K9
>
>     At the table west opened 4S followed by 4NT - 5H (RKCB) - 6S. 
>     7 spades is of course lay-down. A part from the *criminal* 4S opening
>     in first seat (does some net.expert opens 4S in first seat with 
>     that hand?) there is a way to bid 7 after the 4S? 
>     And how do you bid the hand without the 4S opening?

If you are playing NAMYATS, you can handle this.  (Maybe).  Open
4S showing a strong 4 level pre-empt, and open 4D showing a weak
4-level pre-empt in spades.  That is the only excuse I could find
for opening this hand 4S.

Without the 4S pre-empt:

1S    - 2NT(1)
3C(2) - 3D
4C    - 4H
5D    - 5NT(3)
7S

1. Jacoby 2 No Trump (forcing raise in spades)
2. Singleton or void
3D/4C/4H/5D - cue-bids (establishing club void)
3. Grand slam force  (is this the standard meaning of 5NT in an
auction like this?  Or does it recquire a jump to 5NT to make
it GSF?  I know I would take this as GSF, but I may be wrong.)

-David
(dagibbs@qnx.com)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: taylor@foraker.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Eric Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: What would you do?
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:38:11 GMT

In article <34023@olympus.wustl.edu>, geppo@dworkin.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec9.002035.17854@wuecl.wustl.edu> geppo@spot.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi) writes:
|> >In article <6775@tivoli.UUCP> taylor@tivoli.com (Eric Taylor) writes:
|> >>Matchpoints, You South, hold :
|> >>
|> >>xx
|> >>Axx
|> >>AKxxx
|> >>xxx
|> >>
|> >>The bidding has proceeded :
|> >>N	E	S	W
|> >>1S	2N	X(1)	3D
|> >>X(2)	3H	?
|> >>
|> >>(1)	Willingness to defend a minor
|> >>(2)	I want to defend this one.
|> >>
|> >>Your action?
|> >
|> > [...]
|> >
|> >my bid? 45% 3S, 55% pass (expecially if they are vulnerable), but at the
|> >table I'd throw a coin :-)
|> 
|> I'm looking forward for the full deal!
|> 
|> Giuseppe.

Partner did indeed show up with a fair hand and 5242 distribution.
I did not want to pass, but I did not want to go past 3NT.  4D in my
opinion was the call.  I chose 3S at the table which was raised to
4S by my partner.  This was doubled by West and taken out (Thank you God)
to 5C by East.  I found my double card by this time and received a good
score.  We had a 5-1 split in spades and was going down a bundle.
From: avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Lead Problem
Date: 13 Dec 92 14:23:59 GMT
Organization: Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

I post this hand as a prelude to a fascinating "How would you rule" problem
that caused a lot of uproar in the Israeli Bridge community.

The scenario is as follows: An extended match, IMP's opps are vul. Screens
are used with South and West on the same side of the screen. South deals.
NS are playing 5CM and weak (12-14)NT with gedgets.
You hold: Jxx, xxx, Ax, KJxxx

The bidding (E-W silent throughout)

S  1D(0)   1N(1)      2H         3C      4D      6D

N       1H     2D(2)      2N(3)      3N*      4H     pass

0) better minor
1) 15-17
2) transfer
3) shows 5H & 4D and requests opener to bid 3C, after which N should show
   a feature, usually a singleton
*  Not alerted

What do you lead?


--
Aviel Roy-Shapira, M.D.         Ben-Gurion University Medical School
Dept. of Surgery A.             POB 151, Beer Sheva, Israel
avir@chen.bgu.ac.il             AVIR@BGUVM.BITNET
From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Help my partner play this hand
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:06:34 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbootay.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec10.194741.15831@rayssd.ssd.ray.com>, sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Steven G. Myerson) writes:
> As the subject line indicates, my partner did not achieve the optimal
> matchpoint result on this hand. I do not disagree with the way he
> played the hand, but we would like comments from the net.experts,
> net.intermediates, and net.novices, or anyone else with a thought or two.
> 
> Matchpoints. None vul. North dealer.
> 
> North:  KJT,    A5,    K953,  AT76
> South:  AQ954,  QJT3,  4,     KQ8
> 
> The bidding was straightforward, with EW passing:
>   North   South
>   1N-1    2C        1. 13-16
>   2D      3S
>   4S      pass
> 
> West led the ace of diamonds. East played the 7 (high encourages).
> West continued with the ten of diamonds. Plan the play.

Well, if the HK is right and the club suit can be picked up, some will make
seven without this lead.  Nothing we can do about that.  Our mission is to
make five or six (depending on the heart finesse) without falling victim to
a ruff or a 5-0 trump break.

This lead is interesting.  Did West just want a look at the dummy (and hope
the lead wouldn't cost with most of the minor-suit strength on his left)?
Was West hoping for a diamond ruff?  If so, in which hand?  If West had
AT, wouldn't East have signaled with the 8 rather than the 7?  If West had
AQJT862, wouldn't he have bid?  And wouldn't he have continued with the
Q?  Why didn't West lead a trump?

All this indicates that 5-0 trumps is a more real concern than a diamond
ruff.  So we'll win the DK now, pitching a heart.  If the HK is onside,
we'll need to ruff one heart (it would do little good to pitch the heart on a
club, since if that worked those who didn't get the DA lead would be making
seven).

Now there are more ifs than I have time to spell out, but the main line is
SK, CK, HQ.  If that holds, SJ, HA, diamond ruff, heart ruff, reenter hand
with another diamond ruff or the CQ (depending on the trump break), SA, ....
If the HQ is covered, we have one more entry to hand, so life is a little
easier.  If the heart finesse loses, we ruff the diamond return high and pull
trump.

If trumps break 5-0 and the HQ isn't covered, then we'll have to ruff
one diamond high (either to return to hand after the heart ruff or to regain
the lead after losing the heart finesse) and not pull all the trumps.  We'll
still bring home the contract unless the hand with the trumps started with
one club, or with two hearts and two clubs.
-- 
Tim Hill
Stratus Computer, Inc.                  tnh@vos.stratus.com
55 Fairbanks Boulevard                  508-460-2232
Marlborough, MA  01752                  fax 508-624-7488
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Steven G. Myerson)
Subject: Re: problem over preempt
Organization: Raytheon Submarine Signal Division
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:19:24 GMT

In article <fbl2wbl@rpi.edu> Ron E Sperber writes:

* Playing on okbridge with someone who is a reasonable player,but in a 
* somewhat unfamiliar partnership you pick up the following hand red vs white
* at IMPs:
* 
* AJ
* KQJ8
* A86
* AJ98
* 
* RHO opens 4D. Your call.

I cross my fingers and double.
Hopefully partner does the right thing.

Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: henk@pdsf.ssc.gov (Henk Uijterwaal)
Subject: Re: Who should be on committees? was Re: How would you rule 
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:16:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.080039.12293@netcom.com>, rudy@netcom.com (Rudy) writes:
+> In article <1992Dec17.223645.20790@sunova.ssc.gov> henk@pdsf.ssc.gov (Henk Uijterwaal) writes:

+> >   In this case the committee member was also needed as a witness. Nobody would
+> >consider putting a witness in the jury of a trial, so why would you consider
+> >him as a committee member? 
+> It was neither clear if he was needed, nor known in advance.

Of course he didn't know this in advance but my point is that when it became clear
that the appeal involved a table where he was kibitzing, he should have asked somebody
to replace him. 

And mayby the director should have done this, at least that's what I do when directing:
I ask a few players for the committee, announce their names at the start of the match
but as soon as I suspect that they might be interested in the outcome of the appeal
themselves, I suggest a replacement. So far they have always agreed with me. 

+> >   Why did the committee meet at 3 in the morning? Why  didn't they wait until
+> >the next morning. Then they could have easily called the player in question,
+> >ask him what had happened and decide on the appeal based on the facts and not
+> >what a kibitzer, even if he is world champion, happens to remember.
+> Well, the match is over about 1am.  The losing team wants to appeal TWO
+> boards.  This is the second one.  That's how it got to be 3 am.  Some
+> people need to know before gametime whether they will be playing that
+> day and in which event.

I didn't realise this. But still, if this is really a major national championship,
I believe that the appeal should be handled in the best possible way, not the most
convinient way for the committee.

I guess we can argue forever whether you prefer to hear the result of an appeal at 
3.30am and then go to bed OR go to bed first and hear the result at 11am the next 
morning, so I won't start a discussion about that.

Henk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                                      Email: henk@pdsf.ssc.gov 
SSC-labs, MS 2005.                                          46082::henk
Building 4, room F-428
2550 Beckleymeade Av.                                Phone: 1-214-708-6192
Dallas, TX 75237                                     Home:  1-214-283-6687
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge