HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Not another jihad!
Keywords: Disclosure
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:37:53 GMT
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


In article <kttc7cINN6jb@bovina.cs.utexas.edu>, varvel@cs.utexas.edu
(Donald A. Varvel) writes: 
> I think the argument against liberalization of bidding restrictions
> because of not wanting to prepare defenses is pretty sad.  I *enjoy*
> preparing defenses.

> I think there is a need for some sort of regulation.  I just think
> the ACBL has gone way overboard on the conservative side.

The problem is not so much that the regulations are conservative as
that they are irrational.  Nearly everybody agrees with the following
propositions: 

1) People play bridge to have fun.

2) Different people have different ideas of what is fun.  Some people
like to play - and play against - a wide variety of conventions.
Others don't.

3) At least some regulation is essential.  Even the most outspoken
proponents of open conventions accept limitations in novice games.
Fair competition requires advance notification of unusual methods
where partnership preparation is essential to defense, and when
advance notification is impossible, such methods have to be
prohibited.

Propositions 1 and 2 lead inexorably to the conclusion that different
games (or perhaps different tables within the same game) must have
different regulations.  The ACBL position, on the other hand, is that
basically all their games operate under a single set of permitted
conventions.  In theory, the old rules made more sense than the
current ones in that there were six categories of restrictiveness,
the most appropriate of which could be chosen for a particular game.
In practice, the old rules worked badly both because conventions were
badly categorized and because nearly all games were "class D."

What is needed is recognition of the real differences among the
desires of different bridge players and of real differences between
games at different levels and with different numbers of boards played
against each pair.  Since these differences exist, NO single set of
rules will be appropriate for all games.  

What should be debated is how many categories are really required and
which conventions should be in which category.  If these questions
are decided sensibly, it will probably be fairly obvious which
category will be appropriate for a given game.  Letting individual
tables use conventions from a higher category seems unobjectionable
as well, but this should not distract us from the real issues.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: A couple of hands.
From: bclaus@cs.wright.edu (Brian Clausing)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 01:53:31 GMT
Organization: Wright State University

From article <1992Apr16.132554.14658@pencom.com>, by eric@pencom.com:
> White-White You (South) hold :
> 
> x
> AKJxx
> Qx
> AJ109x
> 
> Bidding proceeds :
> E       S        W         N
> P       1H       P         3H(1)
> 4S      ???
> 
> (1) Normal limit raise with 4+
> 
> Is a pass forcing?
> 
> Given that it is, what is your proper action.

I'll admit that hypermodern methods confuse me, but how can a pass be
forcing if, without comptetition, South could pass the limit raise?
Has East played against these methods before and is trying to get
4S doubled?  I think that if I pass, North ought to play me for
2 1/2 quick tricks and perhaps 2 defensive tricks and that for
the limit raise he typically holds 2 quick tricks.  But why
can't North pass?  East may be diddling you.

> Given that it is not, what is your proper action.

Who knows?  But I bid 5 Clubs.  And if North holds, say,
Kxx  Kxxx  Axxx  xx, I'll be sorry.

> 
> Assume that you are playing with a trusted partner, but
> not an established partnership.
> 

I'd be more interested to know whether East's eyes are rolling.
If partner can't get a limit raise right we're shooting craps anyway.

Brian Clausing
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: jch@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (jeffrey.c.halle)
Subject: Re: Cheating?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 17:29:09 GMT

From article <davidm.703451163@rutabaga>, by davidm@rutabaga.Rational.COM (David Moore):
> This was at a sectional, too, where normally the directing
> is of a high standard.

I wish.  More often than not its as bad, or even worse, than a club game.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bid these hands
From: avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 03:37:20 GMT
Organization: Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

jschuler@dcs.simpact.com writes:
: In article <1992Apr8.215943.15126@linus.mitre.org>, bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
: > In article <1992Apr5.161858.2457@otago.ac.nz> murat@otago.ac.nz writes:
: >>In article <2300@accucx.cc.ruu.nl>, vlucht@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (vlucht) writes:
: >>> In <ktfehkINNiq0@bovina.cs.utexas.edu> varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) writes:
: >>>
: >>>>Both vulnerable, South dealer, matchpoints:
: >>>
: >>>>North:    S    H    D    C
: >>>>          ----------------
: >>>>          A    A    A    x
: >>>>          K    x    x    x
: >>>>          x    x         x
: >>>>          x    x
: >>>
: >>>>South:    x    K    x    A
: >>>>               Q    x    K
: >>>>               x         Q
: >>>>                         J
: >>>>                         T
: >>>>                         9
: >>>>                         x
: >>>
: > ROMAN.
: >
: > 1H (1)   1NT(2)
: > 3C (3)   7NT
: >
: > (1) Yes, the opening bid is 1H. Roman frequently opens with 3 card
: >     majors.
: >
: > (2) Showing 12-15 HCP and no 5 card suit and no singletons.
: >
: > (3) Showing at least 6 good clubs and **exactly** 4 losers.
: >     [canape]
: >
: > 7NT is now obvious.
: >
: > Can anyone else find a shorter auction to 7NT?? (2 bids apiece!!!)
: > --
:
: Sort of.
:
: BLUE TEAM CLUB:
:  1C (1)   2N (2)
:  7N (3)
:
: (1) Strong
:
: (2) 7 controls, A=2, K=1
:
: (3) Losing to singleton AH and a club void, but ideal
: for a Zip Board-a-Match :)
:
The correct opening in Blue Club with the  above hand is 3C. This bid also
leads to 7NT, but the auction is more convoluted.  I don't think any auction
is as efficient as ROMAN, but then Roman Club is probably the most efficient
bidding system there is. The trouble with RC is that it's 2 bids are not
very effective, and that it is a very difficult system to learn. Negative
inferences abound, and close partership understanding is a must.
Finally there are no good references to the system in English. Probably the
only source is a pamphlet published by Edgar Kaplan many years ago, which
is now out of print. If Bob has a better source, I'd appreciate if he will
publish it here.

Avi
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: jcwu@tigger.Colorado.EDU (Jeff C. Wu)
Subject: Anyone tried Omar Shariff's Computer bridge?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:22:01 GMT

I saw that there is a "new" computer bridge game out for the IBM PC
compatibles.  I'm wondering if anyone here tried it.  Specifically,
I'm wondering how well it bids and how well it plays (especially
compared to Grand Slam Bridge).

Any comments will be appreciated.  If I get interesting responses I'll
post a summary.

Jeff Wu
jcwu@cs.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: *My* Thoughts on the Jihad and ACBL
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:06:48 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.173629.20707@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> 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.

--
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: valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Sound openers style.  (Was: Re: What is going on?)
Keywords: No cue after strong jump shift?
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:47:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

bs@fatima.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>:
>: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.

The hand is a 13 count, and not all that shabby of one.  All the cards
are working (2 Aces and a K-Q)  I think all but the most hard core of
"sound opener" types would open it.  (Not that I'm not aware of the
things that can go wrong if you do)

But let's suppose you are playing a sound opening system.  I assume this
means you have to loosen up the requirements for 3rd & 4th hand openers
(or else, at matchpoints at least, you will pass out too many hands)

I am curious (honestly) as to how this works.  What are your thoughts on
the matter?

Is there any way to avoid having it be a crapshoot when a hand is passed out?
(I.e., you breathlessly await the opening of the traveler to find out
who [which side] blew 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)
From: tac6189@hertz.njit.edu (Tom Carmichael)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Can you beat 3 NT ?
Date: 7 Apr 92 02:14:39 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Apr4.010457.409@crc.ricoh.com> james@crc.ricoh.com (James Allen) writes:
>Can you defeat 3 No Trump?
>
>			(dummy)
>			K 9 7 6 5
>			J 8 4
>			A J 3
>			A 10
>
>	(you)
>	A J 10
>	Q 10 3
>	K 8 2
>	K 7 5 4
>
>	Auction (with your side silent):  1 Spade	1 NT (forcing)
>					  2 Diamonds	3 Diamonds
>					  3 No Trump
>
>	You lead club 4: ten, jack, queen.  Declare finesses Diamond
>Jack, cashes Club Ace (partner drops Eight), Diamond Ace, and leads
>a Diamond to your King (partner drops Ten).  What do you lead now and
>what is your plan?

Wasn't this hand posted before?  I think that I have responded twice 
already.  (One didn't seem to get through.)

Declarer must have 4C, 4D & both minor queens.  You also must figure him
for 9-11 ish HCP, probably closer to 11.  He will not have 3 spades.  Under
these assumptions, the only source of points left to declarer are the AK of
hearts and the Q of spades.  He cannot have more than seven (or 8) of these, 
but he needs at least 6.  If he only has 6 (the A of hearts and the Q of 
spades), partner must have the K of hearts.  He then has an entry to return
his last club through declarer.  (Boring)  If, however, declarer has both
the AK of hearts, then the hand is much more interesting and needs exact 
defense to beat it.  The full hands at this point would be something like this:

			K 9 7 6 5 
			J 8 4
			---
			---

	A J T				Q x x (x)
	Q T 3				x x (x)
	---				---
	K 7				x

			x (x)
			A K x (x)
			Q
			9 x

(Only one (x) in each hand, obviously in different suits.)

If at this point you lead the J or T of spades (whichever you think partner
is more likely to overtake), you can beat the contract.  If declarer ducks, 
partner can overtake & lead back a club.  A diamond, 2 spades & 2 clubs defeats
3NT.  If, however, declarer wins the king on dummy and crosses to hand with
a heart, he will try to squeeze west (you) out of your exit card to endplay
you.  Don't let him get away with it; throw the Ace of spades.  This will allow
you to get to partners hand with a spade when declarer throws you in with a 
heart (or club).  Partner wins and returns the other suit( the one declarer
hasn't thrown you in with. )  This defense comes to a spade, a heart, a diamond
and two clubs for a one trick set.

Tom



-- 
"Sleep is a poor substitute for caffine."|  Tom Carmichael
	- The Wizardry Compiled		 |  tac6189@hertz.njit.edu
-----------------------------------------|  tomc@shock.njit.edu
#include <stddisclamer.h>		 |  
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: campbell@Aero.org (Andrew Campbell)
Subject: Re: Ruling, Please
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 23:22:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.180914.28637@cfa203.harvard.edu>, willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Stevhave values in clubs, this seems rather unlikely.
|> 
|> As usual, if you cannot determine a likely result, the board is
|> thrown out.  If it has not been played at the other table, it is
|> redealt without additional penalty.  If it has already been played,
|> the non-offenders are given 3 IMPs.  (This is from memory, and
|> there's a better chance than usual that this paragraph is mistaken.)
|> 
From what I saw at a sectional committee that I chaired a few months
ago, the instructions to the director and to the committee as to what
is to be done with a `problem' board in a team game (toss, play subs,
dependence on board having been played at other table and presence/lack
of unusual result at the other table) seem to be entirely missing from
the current directors' guide. What (and where) is the current definitive
word?
-- 
 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|L. Andrew Campbell     internet: campbell@aerospace.aero.org   |
|M1-102 PO Box 92957    organization: The Aerospace Corp.       |
|Los Angeles CA 90009   telephone: (310) 336-8642               |
From: davidm@rutabaga.Rational.COM (David Moore)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Laws was Re: hesitating with a singleton
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:57:13 GMT
Distribution: usa

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

>In article <davidm.702936874@rutabaga> davidm@rutabaga.Rational.COM (David Moore) writes:
>>Apparently, here in the US, statements like "No clubs partner?" are not
>>frowned upon. When I played in Australia, making such a statement would have
>>caused the immediate calling of the director (and rightly so). Another practice
>>that is common here and which I find obnoxious is people alerting their partner
>>that they have made an insufficient bid.

>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:

1/  If each defender religously asks if partner is out of a suit every time
they fail to follow to the suit then;
  a) it slows the game down because around 6 such questions will be asked
     each round.
  b) it fails completely to help avoid a revoke since the response to
     the automatically asked question will also become automatic.

2/  If, on the other hand, you only ask when you think partner may have revoked then:
   a) if you ask, it suggests that your length in the suit is less than might
      be supposed from the bidding.
   b) if you fail to ask, it suggests that you are possibly short in the suit,
      or at the very least that declarer has as many cards as might be expected
      from the bidding.

The only away to avoid both these is to never ask. Variations from the
internationally accepted laws should only be adopted when there is a clear
benefit from doing so. This is certainly far from the case here.

As for the unsuuficient bid announcement, the result is invaraibly that the
maker of the insufficient bid rectifies the error. This gives the partner
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.
From: eric@pencom.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: A couple of hands.
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:47:30 GMT
Organization: Pencom Software

In article <davidm.703452851@rutabaga> davidm@rutabaga.Rational.COM (David  
Moore) writes:
> eric@pencom.com writes:
> 
> >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.

If I had a sack in mind, why would I allow the opponents to
exchange information at the 3 level?  When my partner preempts,
I bid to the level of the trump fit immediately.   I do not
wait around for the opponents to exchange information.
A double here is to indicate safety of a heart lead.

>           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. 

Fairly grotesque bidding, apparently she thought bidding hearts
would tell partner she really did have them :-)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Subject: Re: Pridding Boblem
Reply-To: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Distribution: rec.games.bridge
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 20:39:09 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.215207.22095@midway.uchicago.edu> valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty) writes:
>Can it be considered an infraction to do this (I.e., psyching a strong
>artifical opening is a no-no) ?  I had an LOL open 2C on a solid
>9-bagger and a 12 count.  We competed to 4S, but were understandably
>reluctant to go on to 5 when she bid 5H (Which was down 1) (Both Vul).
>
>We yelled at her; we should have yelled for the director.

Hmm, do you really think her intent was to misdescribe her hand?  Haha.


I'm sure yelling at her had the desired effect...
-- 
"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: kennykb@dssv01.crd.ge.com (Kevin B. Kenny)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Cheating?
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:44:35 GMT
Reply-To: kennykb@crd.ge.com
Organization: GE R&D, Information Architectures & Management Program


In article <1992Apr16.161416.12976@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu>,
ted@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu (Ted Ying) writes:
|> 	Oh, definitely so.  I agree that there is a world of difference
|> 	between "Director" and "*DIRECTOR!*".

Quite so.  The last time I used the latter call was in a Flight A
teams at a Regional:

RHLOL (Right Hand LOL): One Club.
Me: Pass.
LHLOL: One Heart.
Partner: Pass.
RHLOL: One Spade.
Me: Pass.
LHLOL: Three No Trump.
Partner: Pass.
RHLOL: Five Hearts.
LHLOL: *FIVE* Hearts?
RHLOL: Yes, five hearts! You said, `Four No Trump,' didn't you?
Me: *DIRECTOR!*

In retrospect, I should have let them flounder.... who knows where
they might have landed. 8-)

73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
From: desj@idacrd.UUCP (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Cheating?
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:35:23 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research

In article <matthew.703447286@pram.cs.ucla.edu> matthew@pram.cs.ucla.edu (Matthew Merzbacher) writes:
>"Negative Double".
>"It's a Negative Double."
>"It's a Standard Negative Double."
>"It's just a Standard Negative Double."
>"Enough to make a Negative Double."
>"It's a Negative Double."

>Having a sense of Deja Vu, I was convinced that the guy just had no 
>clue about what the double actually showed.

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.

					David desJardins


Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: altus@leland.Stanford.EDU (Steve Altus)
Subject: Re: *My* Thoughts on the Jihad and ACBL
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 04:43:34 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.011847.20272@linus.mitre.org> bs@fatima.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>
>This isn't even half of it. Perhaps the most frequent form of
>cheating is the "wire".  You are in a room with 200+ tables,
>all playing the same pairs event. If you listen carefully you
>can hear the conversations at the other table, e.g.
>
>"Making 4. Yes, I know a diamond lead beats it."
>
>You come upon that board [you know the boards from the table no.]
>and lo and behold you [or partner] leads a diamond!!
> 

this is VERY true. . . what's never ceased to amaze me, however,
is that people actually trust these things, with the level of
analysis the average tournament player has (read: completely
hopeless)


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???
From: baseggi1@husc8.harvard.edu (Franco Baseggio)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: 2 Problems (IMPS)
Date: 12 Apr 92 00:53:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.baseggi1.703040006

bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>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

>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.

If partner has solid spades, then 4S has excellent chances.  If you can't
engineer a club ruff, then you might finesse a red quack, ruff out a
red honor, squeeze-enplay LHO, or have 10 tricks anyway.  3N will always
be at least as good, but often only as good.  On the other hand,
without solid spades your chances in 3N are slim, so 4S is clearly better
(partner probably has a fitting red honor).  When 4S is wrong, it will often
make no difference.  When 3N is wrong, it will usually make a large difference.
Unless you think partner is a heavy favorite to hold solid spades,
4S must be the right bid.

>(2) This is a play problem. Both Vul.
Too many options for a quick answer.  	Interesting hand.

>Bob Silverman

Franco Baseggio
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge