HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hamilton@robin.rtp.dg.com (Eric Hamilton)
Subject: Re: It's so fun to be a novice! (Magic 3NT opening)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 20:55:07 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <1992Sep25.200741.22359@midway.uchicago.edu>, pynq@quads.uchicago.edu (George Jetson) writes:

|> [Suggestion that a 19-21 HCP 3NT range should be forbidden because it
|>  lends itself to collusive cheating, to which I replied:]
|> >>
|> >>Are you suggesting that opener will
|> >>open 3NT only when partner has illicitly conveyed the information that he is
|> >>not broke?  I've expressed skepticism in the past about whether technical
|> >>evidence can conclusively prove the presence or absence of subtle
|> >>high-level cheating, but this wouldn't be subtle or high-level.
|> >>No partnership that consistently opens a 19-21 NT only when partner has the
|> >>values to avoid debacle could go undetected for long.
|> 
|> Previously, I said you were fooling yourself.  Well, to be fair, what
|> you say may be true at the highest levels, say, at the World Championships,
|> but it sure ain't true where I play, down in the trenches...
|> 
|> But, no, I'm not suggesting opening 3N on 19-21; I am saying that these
|> opps do it on 17-19, in 3rd or 4th chair.

Well, it sounds to me like you've detected the offensive behavior, so it isn't
going undetected.  The real question is, now that you've detected it, what do
you do about it?  Somehow, it strikes me as somewhat of a non sequitur to
handle a cheating problem by banning the NT range used by the cheaters.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Hamilton				+1 919 248 6172
Data General Corporation		hamilton@dg-rtp.rtp.dg.com
62 Alexander Drive			...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!hamilton
Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: jpnicol@eng.auburn.edu (Jean-Paul N. Nicol)
Subject: Re: Law questions
Reply-To: jpnicol@eng.auburn.edu
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:50:54 GMT

In article 1a7tnsINNlqr@agate.berkeley.edu, fogel@wish-bone.berkeley.edu (Micah E. Fogel) writes:
>
>
stuff deleted
>
>	Secondly, I know that when the opponents make a mistake that gives
>you several options under the law that you should take the one that you think
>will give your side the greatest advantage.  But is it allowable to have a
>set of understandings/conventions that takes advantage of the situation?  For
>example, the auction goes
>
>You   LHO   Pard  RHO
> 1H    1S    3H    2S
> ??
>
>are you allowed to have a set of agreements about what it would mean to accept
>the insufficient bid vs. what bids might mean if you require RHO to correct
>the bid?  Similar situations would be calls out of rotation and untimely or
>incorrect alerts, where you might be allowed to change your call.
>
>MIcah Fogel
>fogel@math.berkeley.edu

I posed this very question to an ACBL director several months ago at a sectional and was informed in no uncertain terms that such agreements were ILLEGAL and I had better not be caught using them.

A related question:

For what kind of hands would it be considered good bridge judgement to accept insufficient and/or out of rotation calls?  In a long standing partnership, does partners awareness of your usual action (good bridge judgement) in these situations constitute an 'agreement', and if so, are you now barred from exercising the aforementioned 'good judgement'?

JP
From: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Novato corrections
Date: 28 Sep 1992 21:28:56 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Reply-To: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ux5.lbl.gov

In Novato scoring method was average IMPs.  It's similar to cross IMPs,
or total IMPs, but after comparing your score to each other score, the
result is devided by the number of comparisons.

One of the hands that Mark Singer mentioned -- a limit raise with 3-5-2-3
shape over 1H was in fact handled correctly by Kay Schulle at the 5th table,
she bid 2C and rebid 3H showing exactly limit raise.

On the hand that Steve Willner mentioned, the result was NS off 4 tricks,
so down one.
-- 
"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: Professor WHO?
Subject: Re: Painlessly obtaining OKbridge
Summary: Just want to  download!
Originator: boyiny@kovalevskaya
Keywords: okbridge
Reply-To: yangboy@math.ntu.edu.tw (Professor WHO?)
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 23:33:43 GMT

Someone either tell me about or send me the location where I can obtain a
copy of okbridge EXECUTABLE code for SUN ... for wahtver reasons what the
original poster said did not work for me.


Thank you!
From: Professor WHO?
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Passed-hand NT system
Summary: You should if you don't...
Date: 27 Sep 92 23:27:09 GMT
Reply-To: maboyiny@ccvax.as.edu.tw (Dr. Weird)
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
Originator: boyiny@kovalevskaya
X-Subliminal-Message: Speak Softly and carry a Big Club!


How many people actually use a different structure over their no-trumps by
a passed hand?  How many people acually CHANGE their no-trump ranges in
third and fourth chair?

Some food for thought:  If you use 14-16 no-trumps, it is probably right to
switch to a completely different range (like 16-18) or a completely
different SYSTEM (with no game-forces!).  Especially since 14-16
no-trumpers usually open all 11's.

Playing 15-17, the same applies-- WHY use such a range?  If you open
lightish (most 11's) there is only a very few hands that is worth a
game-force. Switch to a different range so that you either have plenty of
GF possibilities OR NONE!

For a good structure with NO GF sequences, see my earlier post on the big
club.  The important things in such a structure is to have INVITATIONAL
hands being able to play TWO of a major and not THREE!  Yes, the number of
hands on which you make exactly two is not overwhelming, but it exists, and
sometimes it is nice to able to play two without the pressure...
From: geppo@dworkin.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Play this slam
Date: 27 Sep 92 22:01:06 GMT
Organization: Washington University,  St Louis MO

In a IMP match we bid the following criminal slam:

    KQxxxx
    Axx
    x
    Axx

    xx
    KQJxx
    AQJxx
    x

With the following criminal bidding ....

all vulnerable, dealer W:
    I       part
    1S      2H(1)
    4D(2)   4NT
    5H      6H

(1) game forcing
(2) splinter

I know that my splinter is really awful ... but this is what happened
at the table! (BTW: what you suggest is the best bidding, and the final
contract?)

Anyway, the slam is reasonable. Which is, in the opinion of the 
netter analysts, the best line of play with the lead of small club (the 
opponents are strong players)?

thanx

Giuseppe


PS: the x cards are really small!
From: taylor@logan.tivoli.com (Eric Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Precision Club: What would you do with this?
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:56:51 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: TIVOLI Systems, Inc.

In article <CARNEY.92Sep22162256@rocky.rational>, carney@rocky.rational (Mike Carney) writes:
|> 
|> I've run into this a couple of times, and don't know how to handle the
|> situation. Your hold a hand with 20 or so HCP with a 4441
|> distribution, so you open 1C indicating your point count, which is a
|> forcing bid. Your partner responds 1D indicating 0-7 HCP, a forcing
|> bid also. Now, any bid you make says something about the distribution
|> of your hand: A suit bid guarantees 5 of that suit, and a NT bid
|> indicates a worst case distribution of 5332. So now what?

Move your club into your spades and bid as if you were 544.
Lying about the length of a particular suit tends to be less heinous
than lying about whether your hands is balanced or not.
If partner supports your suit, you have another rebid.

You might be playing in your 4-3, but it can very often be the right
place to play.
From: martel@spider.cs.ucdavis.edu (Chip Martel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: bidding problem after support redouble
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:55:26 GMT
Reply-To: martel@spider.cs.ucdavis.edu (Chip Martel)

In article <29287@olympus.wustl.edu>, geppo@dworkin.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi) writes:
|> A friend gave me the following problem:
|> 
|>   You hold AJx, xx, AKQxxx, Ax unfavorable at IMPs
|> 
|>              1D   P  1S  X
|>              XX   3H  P  P
|>              ?
|> 
|>   What do you do if 
|>      a) redouble was a support redouble
|>      b) redouble showed general strength
|> 

|> 
|> Giuseppe.


a) Bid 3NT. How else to get there if partner has say: Kxxx, xxx, Jxx, Qxx
(with hearts surely 4-4). If partner has 5S and 2 hearts he can correct
(with KQxx, xx, Jxx, xxxx we will probably miss our better 4S but the
odds favor giving the option of 3NT).

b) Since you haven't shown your support the odds now favor 3S. Note this
should show 3 card support, since with 4 cards you should raise directly
to 3S (If you have 4 card support and too much for a 3S bid, you should
not bid 3S now).

Chip Martel
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: davidm@voltaire.Rational.COM (David Moore)
Subject: Re: My fault ?
Organization: Rational
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:43:42 GMT

martel@spider.cs.ucdavis.edu (Chip Martel) writes:


>However, I should say that I am not a total tricks fanatic like some. However,
>it is rarely right to make a bid which is likely to be off by two and could
>easily be off the total trick count by 3.

I have seen a lot of stuff on the "Law" of total tricks lately, some of it even
by quite senior players. Still, I cannot help feeling it is bogus.

The usual definition is something like:

When each side holds about equal strength, the number of tricks either side
can expect to take is equal to the number of trumps held.

Has anyone done a statistical analysis of the "Law" of total tricks? Has the 
law any validity (which i would put at (perhaps) 
variance(expected tricks-total_trumps)<0.5)? 



Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: Professor WHO?
Subject: Preempting
Summary: Preempting works on 2C too, just requires more thought.
Originator: boyiny@kovalevskaya
Keywords: double, preempt, opening bid.
Reply-To: maboyiny@ccvax.as.edu.tw (Dr. Weird)
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
X-Subliminal-Message: Doubles are meant to draw Blood!
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 03:31:39 GMT
Old_subject: Re: Forcing Pass (was "Bid these hands" and "Competitive Decision")

[Steve Myerson, about preemption over 1C (strong) and 2C (strong)]
>The 1C opening only shows a strong hand, not a rock-crusher.
>Therefore, the opponents won't be as tempted to bid quite so high.

Wait, wait.  By definition preempting over 1C and 2C are different.  TWO
clubs is FIVE steps higher than ONE club.  To compare the preemption
effectively you need to compare (1C*)-2S with (2C*)-3S, for example.

I am a big clubber myself (funny enough, so is some of the most obstructive
minded experts around, Rodwell, Bergen, Cohen, and Marston) but I harbour no
illusions as to the efficacy of preemption over 1C and 2C.  The latter is
much less likely to be preempted effectively.  Very infrequently does one
pick up the 7-card suit that will provide security for a 3-level venture
against 2C, as opposed to the 6-carder over 1C (no, I don't think that 5
card preemption against a big club is sound either), especially if the
opponents are playing the "right" way, i.e. using 2C-2D-2N as WEAKER than a
direct 2N....

I have discovered also that preempting over a "NATURAL" club, which is
really anything but (partner can never raise on three card support without
being very afraid, seldom raises on FOUR card support in practice, and dare
not count on anything in the suit--weak no-trumpers out there, stop
giggling, I am not talking to you), is so much more effective.

To summarise my personal experience, whoch is in accordance with my theory:
the more information previously passed, the less effective the preempt--
ergo, one should preempt a lot more freely in first seat than over a
"standard" club, than over a big club, than over a strong two clubs, et
cetera.  of course, I realise that many players, some of them better than I
am, disagree.  To each his(her) own.
From: taylor@logan.tivoli.com (Eric Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: My fault ?
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:34:24 GMT
Organization: TIVOLI Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep25.134519.21403@e2big.mko.dec.com>, barth@bcse.enet.dec.com (Karl Barth) writes:
|> In article <gmhPr.asai@etl.go.jp>, asai@etl.go.jp (Kiyoshi Asai) writes:
|> |>
|> |> |>  When I was playing in Prince Takamatsu's Cup (one of the biggest
|> |> |>  national tournament in Japan, DKO), I (North) had this hand of the
|> |> |>  last boad of the 3rd round.
|> |>
|> |>  Neither Vul, the full hand was:
|> |>	S AJ109x		E       S       W       N
|> |>	H A9x			1H	pass	2H	2S
|> |>	D Qxx			3H	3S	pass	pass
|> |>	C 7x			4H	pass	pass	pass
|> |>S Qx		S xxxx
|> |>H KQ8xx		H J10x
|> |>D AJxx		D Kx
|> |>C QJ		C Kxxx
|> |>	S Kx
|> |>	H xx
|> |>	D xxxx
|> |>	C A10xxx
|> |>
|> |>  My partner's opening lead was King of spade.
|> |>
|> |> |>  I overtook the SK by SA, and led the Cx. I expected my partner
|> |> |>  to have CA and to hold up once. My hope was, of cource, to ruff the
|> |> |>  3rd round clubs. However, my partner went up with CA at once and
|> |> |>  led back the club. 
|> 
|> Sorry, but I disagree with John - I believe you should let partner's King hold
|> the first trick and I believe the decision clear.  Here is why:
|>    You can see 3 tricks for the defense, 2 spades and the HA.  You are
|>    going to play partner for the CK or CA, so you are beating the 
|>    hand if you just stay in your chair and take all your tricks.

I think the poster believed his partner had K?? of spades.  IF this
is the case, there is no second spade winner.  He had to make a
crucial decision on the first trick.

I think he was wondering if his partner should have supported him
with just 2 spade cards.  IMHO I say South's raise was a good one.
North's bid of 2 spades was on the shaky side.  North's hand is going
nowhere.  8 losers opposite a hand that could not take a bid with a maximum
of 2 hearts??   3S should have been soundly doubled.
From: bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: 29 Sep 92 07:11:04 GMT
Subject: Re: Play this slam
Organization: Princeton University
X-Subliminal-Message: You can quit reading news anytime you want.

In article <1664@idacrd.UUCP> desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
|Giuseppe Bianchi <geppo@dworkin.wustl.edu> writes:
|>    KQxxxx
|>    Axx
|>    x
|>    Axx
|
|>    xx
|>    KQJxx
|>    AQJxx
|>    x
|

[suggests trying to set up spades or finesse diamonds]

Another possibility would be to play for a 3-2 heart break and for either
player to have Kx or Kxx of diamonds.  My odds calculations don't come as
fluidly as David's -- let's see ...

20/32 for 3-2 heart break, (70/128)*(3/7) for 3-4 diamond break,
(42/128)*(2/7) for 2-5 diamond break.  That's ... 20.5%.  Not so good.

ben

|Against strong players you only rate to set up the spades if the ace is
|onside.  If East has the ace, East can duck the first round and win the
|second.  Now you don't have the dummy entries you need to ruff out the
|spades and enjoy them.  You are also going to need 3-2 hearts.
|
|If you take the diamond finesse, of course you need East to hold the
|king.  If East has three diamonds, that's all you need.  If East has
|four diamonds, you also need 3-2 hearts.  If East has five diamonds, you
|don't have much chance, assuming that dummy's heart spots really are
|A32.  (I wish people would post the actual spot cards.)  If East has two
|diamonds, I would go down, playing East to have falsecarded from Kxx.
|(There weren't great chances in any case.)
|
|East's Kxx of diamonds, or Kxxx of diamonds together with two or three
|hearts, is 35.0%.  West's two or three spades to the ace, with two or
|three hearts, is a priori 23.4%, and if we assume that West would have
|led a small singleton spade, 26.4%.  In either case, significantly less.
|
|So I think I would play club ace, diamond finesse, ace of diamonds,
|diamond ruff.  If diamonds are 4-3 and the king falls, draw trump in
|four rounds.  If diamonds are 4-3 but the king doesn't fall, ruff a
|club, ruff a diamond high, draw trump in three rounds.
|
|If your opponents are not extremely strong, leading a spade becomes a
|more attractive alternative, because the chance that the opponents will
|either win the ace on the first round or give away its position is very
|high.
|
|                                        David desJardins


--

Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: henk@pdsf.ssc.gov (Henk Uijterwaal)
Subject: Re: Scoring program.
Followup-To: rec.games.bridge
Reply-To: henk@pdsf.ssc.gov (Henk Uijterwaal)
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:24:51 GMT


Tim Hill writes:
>Peter Gober writes:
>> Does there exist a public domain or cheap program for scoring Mitchell and
>> Howell tournaments? A friend of mine is president of a bridge club, they
>> have bought a computer and a commercial program, but have many problems 
>> with it.
>
>The American Contract Bridge League had a program developed to their
>specifications.  It's called ACBL Score, runs under MS-DOS, handles a wide
>variety of movments and scoring methods, and the price is cheap.  The ACBL
>uses it to score tournaments and encourages member clubs to use it to score
>club games and to report master points electronically.

Before you buy this program, check whether it can handle score sheets in 
the European way, e.g. 0, 2, 4,... with odd numbered points for tied 
results and Neuberger's formula for artificial scores. The Americans use
0,1,2.. with half points for tied scores (and don't seem to use Neuberger).

I have seen several good programs in Holland.  The tournament committee
of the NBB (Dutch Bridge League) made a list of requirements for scoring 
programs. If a program meets all requirements, it can be used for almost
every tournament you might think of. 

The problem with the Dutch programmes, is of course, the language. But you
might call or write to the NBB and ask whether they have programs that uses
English or German and/or the addresses of the authors. Translating a 
program into another language doesn't sound like a problem to me and they
might willing to do that for you.

The prices of these programs are of the order of a few hunderd DM. The
address of the NBB is W.Dreeslaan 55, Utrecht and their phone number is
31.30.712644. 

Henk.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                                      Email: henk@pdsf.ssc.gov 
SSC-labs, MS 2005.                                          46082::henk
Building 4, room F-428
2550 Beckleymeade Av.
Dallas, TX 75237                                     Phone: 1-214-708-6192
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Law questions
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:28:06 GMT
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: levelland.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Sep29.185517.13957@umr.edu> ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy) writes:
>In article <1a7tnsINNlqr@agate.berkeley.edu> fogel@wish-bone.berkeley.edu (Micah E. Fogel) writes:

>>	I have two questions about law that hopefully someone can clear up
>>for me...

>>	The first one is about the rule that a revoke at trick twelve must
>>be corrected, and revoker's partner can be required to play either of his
>>two cards if both are legal.  So if spades are trumps in this diagram

>>        --
>>        --
>>        23
>>--      --      A2
>>2               --
>>--              --
>>2       3       --
>>        3
>>        --
>>        --

>>and South leads the heart and west plays the club instead of following,
>>can South require East to ruff with the ace, and magically win a trick in
>>a no-win situation?  Seems a little unfair to me...

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

All very nice, but there *is* another view on the matter.

Lawrence in his _Play Bridge With..._ book gives a situation where there
is a series of exposed cards which he cleverly uses to make an unmakable
contract.  His rationale: when *he* makes a mistake he takes his penalty
without complaint.  He doesn't want to be in a position of deciding
whether to enforce the rules against friends and strangers and irritants,
and in any case it is *unfair* to enforce them in some cases and not
others.  He therefore enforces them against everyone.

I had a situation the other day where the DK was in the dummy and I had
reason to believe from the bidding that the DA was over it.  RHO failed
to follow to the second round of trumps by playing a diamond, but
immediately corrected to a trump.  The diamond was left out as an
exposed card.  I led the DK from the dummy and it held.  LHO had the
information that the play of that diamond would have given, and in
any case knew RHO *held* that diamond, so I saw no reason not to take
advantage of the situation.

Probably late rounds of consolation sections and club games can be dealt
with differently, but I'm in favor of consistent enforcement of rules.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
From: jose@math.duke.edu (Greg Lawler)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: play problem
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:34:22 GMT

Here is a hand I played last night.  I am interested in
other opinions on the play (I guessed wrong!)


A Q J 8 x
x
J 4
A K Q x x



9 x
A K x x x
A 8 5 3
x x

(The club and heart spots are very small.)  At matchpoints, you get
to the unfortunate contract of 4NT by the following auction:


1H      1S  (showing five)
1N      2C  (forcing)
2D      3C
3N*     4N  (extra values, invitational)
P

(*I probably should have bid 3S here but this is not the question.)

The opponents remained silent through the entire auction.  The lead is
the two of diamonds.  The opponents are playing attitude leads (the lower
the spot the more the leader likes the suit).  

Plan the play.

On the first two diamond leads (if you duck the first round), 
RHO will play the ten and the queen (in
which order depends on your play from dummy at trick one).

In this case defenders are not particularly strong players.  Would that
affect your decision?

Suppose you were playing 3N instead of 4N.  Would that change your
decision?



Greg Lawler