HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fisher@sc2a.unige.ch
Subject: Re: Etiquette question
Followup-To: rec.games.go
Organization: University of Geneva, Switzerland
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 09:26:04 GMT

In article <golub-190193083439@elvex33.acns.nwu.edu>, golub@nwu.edu (Robert Golub) writes:
> When players are presumed to be of equal rank, is there a customary way of
> deciding who plays black or white?

In Geneva, it happens sometimes that the two players involved don't have
a common language to communicate (a Swiss speaking french and german against
a japanese who speaks english at work), so the method we use is as follows:

One player grabs a handfull of black stones and lies his closed fist on
the board.  The other player lies one or two white stones on the board,
meaning he chooses respectively odd or even.  The first player then opens
his hand, and keeps the black stones if the other guessed wrong.

The situation arises when you give the white stones to your opponent
- meaning you make him the stronger player - and he refuses.  At that
point you still have the black stones handy, and you simply grab a
handfull of stones.  I have seen so many people understanding the bet
at once that I thought it must be an international practice.

Of course, when playing regularily against the same person, the colors
are switched for every new match.

Cheers,

Markus
From: d90eridy@odalix.ida.liu.se (Erik Dyrelius)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: Help needed with go terms.
Date: 24 Jan 93 18:35:38 GMT
Organization: CIS Dept, Univ of Linkoping, Sweden

jansteen@cwi.nl (Jan van der Steen) writes:

>In Go things rarely happen in a cause-effect stream of events the
>way they usually do in chess. A local fight in Go would come
>closest and then a "zwichenzug" could be a "kikashi" (forcing move)
>played in a different area of the board but having some effect on
>the local fight (outcome of a ladder for example).
>But, Go players are aware of the presence of kikashi moves and
>(should) take them into consideration while reading variations.
                                        _
Well chess-players are aware of zwichenzuge and should take them into
consideration too. :-)

--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| dyrelius@robin.lysator.liu.se            (d90eridy@und.ida.liu.se) |
|                                                                    |
|   Listen to me just hear me out, if I could have your attention;   |
|            just quieten down for a voice in the crowd.             |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand)
Subject: Re: Go rules for Beginners
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 10:27:14 GMT

In article <1k3u2dINNksv@morrow.stanford.edu> gennari@mcs-next-3 (John H. Gennari) writes:
>	What a good idea! This type of play would probably even help my
>playing ability. I have a bad habit of trying to kill big groups and 
>then losing when I fail..... and I definitely need work in approximating
>the score during the middle game. 

Well, as "Attack and Defense" put it, trying to kill and failing has the
same effect as trying to capture with an unfavourable schizo (ladder).
In general, you should never try to kill a group unless

1. you're 100% sure of success (that's 100, not 99)
2. it's your _only_ chance to win.

(BTW, if it's your only chance to win, but you're sure of failure, just
resign. Continuing is somewhat impolite.)

	Tero Sand, 2 kyu
-- 
	EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi   or   custts@cc.helsinki.fi
   "I feel most ministers who claim they've heard God's voice are eating
too much pizza before they go to bed at night, and it's really an 
intestinal disorder, not a revelation." - Reverend Jerry Falwell
From: smidt@fy.chalmers.se (Peter Smidt)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: FWD: GO RULES FOR BEGINNERS (rec.games.go)
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:53:15 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology

In article <1993Jan26.004136.28008@news.acns.nwu.edu> jzy@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jim Yu) writes:
>
>Imagine a general leading his troops going to a war.  In the war, he
>sacrificed many of his soilders for some important positions on the battle
>field.  At the end, despite losing more lives, he gained more land.  Was he
>a loser or a winner?

In war THERE IS no winner. You Alpha Centari minions should know that
with your long and merciless regime!!!!!!!!$@%$#%^$#^^!!!!!!!!!

-- 
+=======================================+
"The whole valley is like a smorgasbord."
					-- TREMORS
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: Go rules for Beginners
Date: 28 Jan 1993 08:48:18 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
NNTP-Posting-Host: carina.unm.edu

In article <1k3u2dINNksv@morrow.stanford.edu> gennari@mcs-next-3 (John H. Gennari) writes:
>	What a good idea! This type of play would probably even help my
>playing ability. I have a bad habit of trying to kill big groups and 
>then losing when I fail..... and I definitely need work in approximating
>the score during the middle game. 

A guy at our local club has recently improved by at least a stone or so,
merely by following the 'proverb' "You only have to win by 1 point" :)
r.
From: rjs@citi.umich.edu (Robert J. Skrobola)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: Internet Go Server Status.
Date: 21 Jan 1993 23:49:50 GMT
Organization: Center for Information Technology Intergration, University of Michigan
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: bodwin.citi.umich.edu

In article <1993Jan21.152030.15620@fy.chalmers.se>, smidt@fy.chalmers.se (Peter Smidt) writes:
|> In article <4fKMaTm00gpm5B5ep0@cs.cmu.edu> Wilfred.Hansen@cs.cmu.edu writes:
|> >jonathan@cats.ucsc.edu (Jonathan Cano) writes:
|> 
|> My theory is that the algoritm on IGS is wrong in some sense. I have
|> got some very odd results when playing/loosing against other
|> players. I'm almost certain that the algoritm must have some fault,
|> because I've heard of player that have won a lot but NOT got 
|> a positive rating and vice versa.

I think most of the problems that you may see are due to insufficient 
results. IE, not enough games. As I've played more games under the 
rating thing, the reaction of the numbers has become quite predictable
based on the outcome. My only question would be this: I am 19k. Say 
I play a 23k even (he does not want h-cap). I am beating 23k by 40+,
and he resigns (as he should). After such a game, I've had my rating become
more :) negative. I'm not sure what the resolution might be, but
a resign win over someone 4 stones weaker (even game), should not be
the same as a 5 pt win over someone 4 stones weaker (even game). The second
case is something that should affect your rating negatively, and the 
opponents positively. The first, it isn't clear (to me)..

|> 
|> I'm also very suspicious to the fact that the rating is update
|> after approx 1 day. I've played matches and my rating have NOT
|> change or change in a very strange way in relations to my match
|> results. I think that the 1 day delay is made to hide that the
|> algoritm is wrong. I've mailed and asked why the delay is present
|> and got no answer...

*tiny flame coming*

Look, I can understand if you have questions about the algorithm, and
its fine that you bring them up. But, in using words like "suspicious",
and phrases like 'hide that the algorithm is wrong' it sounds like you
are accusing the IGS administrators of something. What POSSIBLE reason
would any of these fine people have to hide anything or to do you wrong?

They are providing a service at great expense (of time and effort at least)
which it seems folks should be grateful for, or at least not accuse them 
of "hiding" things or acting "suspiciously". 

I will say that if I've misinterpreted your post, I apologize.

*not so tiny flame off*

			Rob

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------
Rob Skrobola      Institutional File Server Project
Normal Disclaimer: I speak only for myself
-----------------------------------------------------
From: cp02@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (CHANKOOK PAK)
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Questions about "Many faces of GO" in HP Wks version
Date: 22 Jan 93 18:40:57 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University


I am beginner for GO. Recently I got the computer program for GO,
which is located in some FTP site.(Refer to FAQ List.)

The Go program is " Many Faces of GO" and for Helewtte-Packard
HP9000 or HP6000 workstation.

My question: Is it possible to run that program in IBM Workstation
             (RISK 6000)?
             If so, HOW?


             Thanx in Advance.  C. Park
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:24:23 GMT
Subject: Re: Assess the blame
Organization: Princeton University
X-Subliminal-Message: You can quit reading news anytime you want.

In article <1993Jan25.215252.11442@leland.Stanford.EDU> altus@leland.Stanford.EDU (Steve Altus) writes:
|
|Bob:
|>East isn't "bidding freely". He is showing playing strength in 
|>support of partner.  I remember a quote about this from S.J. Simon
|>on a similar situation. One partner said something like
|>"How am I to bid on only blah blah at the 4 level" and the answer
|>was:
|>"You're not damn it! You're supporting me. The only difference is that
|>you are going to play the hand"
|>
|
|i agree with Bob 100% here... but that's my STYLE, and one of the
|few things i actually like to discuss with people i'm about to play
|with for the first time.  i like to play that freebids after a takeout
|double promise NOTHING, and that takeout doubles carry the following 
|message:  "partner, i invite you to compete in any suit, please jump
|right in with anything."  as you might guess, playing this style does
|not work well with off-shape doubles, and i don't make offshape doubles,
|unless of course i need to show a hand too strong to overcall, which is
|for me 20+ balanced or a REALLY good 18 count or so WITH a GOOD 6+ card
|suit...  
|
|playing takeout doubles which guarantee either support or a very strong
|hand, East's bid is MANDITORY.  (s)he has a potentially very strong hand.
|

I think the point here is that different people have different styles, and
things all go together ...  if you play that free bids after a takeout
double promise nothing, then you have to play that takeout doubles really
do promise the unbid suits or a terrifically strong hand; but playing this
way, you also have to play reasonably sound overcalls.  My style is to play
quite weak overcalls; with such a style it's hard to also allow overcalls
on decent 17-count hands.  (now some people might play that overcalls can
have an extremely wide range, and if someone, e.g. Bob, can convince me
that such a style is reasonable and gets you good results, then I'll change
my position.)

So rather than saying "this or that style is WRONG," people should instead
argue the strengths and weaknesses of different styles in a non-judgmental
fashion.

ben

--

"Can't we all just get along?"
From: paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: bidding after a t/o double
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:06:58 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <1993Jan24.191124.5033@netcom.com> rudy@netcom.com (Rudy) writes:
>You hold:   AQ  AKTx  x  AQJT7x
>Matchpoints
>RHO  You  LHO  Pard
>1S    X    P    2H
>P     ?
>
>Your plan?  I don't want to hear if you didn't double the first time,
>because then you are playing in 2C and it's not even a play problem.

Given that as little as QJxx in hearts is sufficient to give me a reasonable
play for 6H I'm driving to at least game. I'm not at all sure that at the
table I'd have the discipline to stop short of slam (I KNOW that he could be
4-3-3-3, I don't think that I can cater to that hand).

So, I'll bid 2S now and if partner rebids 3H I'll raise to 5H. This should
be enough to cause partner to go on to slam with as little as Jxxxxx of
hearts.

>
>So, if you bid 3C you play it there, but if you bid 2S, partner bids 3H

3C is a gross underbid on this hand
>
>Now what?
>
>If you bid 4C, partner wil bid 4H.  Do you take another call?  What?
>

Unless agreed to be forcing (I do NOT play it as absolutely forcing in this
sequence, partner would be allowed to pass with no clubs and no points) 4C
is still an underbid. Over 4H I'd bid 5H.

But, now that we have the heart fit, why am I bothering to mention my clubs?
From: willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Alerts in real time (Was: Computer Bridge and the Law)
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:38:14 GMT
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


In article <dej.0043@qpoint.ocunix.on.ca>, dej@qpoint.ocunix.on.ca
(David Jones) writes: 
> Question: what happens if RHO bids before you can utter the word "Alert"?
> (It has happened to me.)
> 
> What laws apply in this situation given that if RHO wants to change his
> call, then there has been unauthorized information.

Law 21B1 gives RHO the right to change his call without penalty if
the alert was not prompt.  I suppose that if RHO's call was made in
such haste as to preclude a timely alert, no change would be allowed.
The director would have to try to determine the facts.

Law 16C1 provides that all information from the change of call is
authorized for the non-offending side.  Law 16C2 says that for the
offending side (the side that failed to alert), information from the
withdrawn call is unauthorized.
-- 
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: paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: What's the best bid?
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:55:45 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <C1DAJw.8s6@cs.uiuc.edu> bharat@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>This is the crucial factor in your decision -- your slower auction
>just gave the opponents a lot more information and they are *much*
>likely to find a better lead.  Some of the time you will do the same
>as the rest of the field for an average, and some of the time you will
>get a zero (occasionally you will do well, but it is fair to say that
>your expectation is well below average if you play the field
>contract).  In this situation, you may as well shoot out 6C,
>especially when (a) there are a LOT of hands partner could have where
>7C is cold and (b) if you make it, it will be a cold top -- even a 45%
>slam would be better than playing in the field 3NT

While I agree with this analysis in general (ie, bidding a 45% slam would be
a good idea) I still claim that on this particular hand the slam is much
better than a 50% proposition and so should be bid anyway.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: boyiny@polya.mit.edu (Professor Who?)
Subject: Offshape doubles
Summary: A Matter of Style
Keywords: double, free bid.
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 17:17:57 GMT
Old_subject: Re: Assess the blame

hampton@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik) writes:

>[Matchpts. South dlr., E-W game]
>          West               East
>          AQ94               3
>          AQT9               62
>          K                  QT9865
>          A642               9853
> 
>                   (P)       P
> (1H)     X        (2H)      3D
>          3NT                4D
>          4S                 5C
>          P        (X)*

IMNSHO, East shoulders most of the blame for 3D.

As a confirmed offshape doubler I always have values when I make a free bid
in competition just so that partner can convert in comfort-- and I use
Rubensohl to give myself more room.

And even if you don't double offshape (which I happen to think as clearly
wrong) what is East trying to accomplish here with 3D?  

Can East see partner (with the probably strong hand) passing when 3D makes
(and, therefore, heart contracts DO NOT make)?  Can East see partner
selling out to the appropriate level?  Can East see hirself sit for a double?

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: Some questions about 2 over 1.
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:30:08 GMT

In article <1juues$pt9@agate.berkeley.edu> grove@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Eddie Grove) writes:
>In article <1993Jan24.014140.13052@linus.mitre.org> bs@fatima.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>
>[Talking about responder's rebid after 1S - 2C; 2D/2H - ?]
>
>>:Another way to play it is that 3s shows 3 card support with extras.  If you had
>>:4 card support with extras, you would have bid Jacoby NT, Inverted Trump Swiss,
>  
>>Jacoby with a good biddable 5 card suit? Never. e.g.
> 
>>Kxxx
>>Ax
>>xx
>>AKQxx
>>
>>Should ALWAYS bid 2C to show the suit, then support spades. This is much
>>more descriptive of the hand.
>They are also not Hugh Kelsey's opinions, nor Marty Bergen's.
 
Kelsey? He is not a 2/1 GF guru and while Bergen might be considered to
be, his bidding is not considered mainstream by many U.S. experts.
Many of his ideas are SUPERB, and I have adopted many of them. Many
of them I totally dislike. [Sort of like A. Roth, come to think of it!]

The trick taking potential of a good 5 card side suit is enormous.
Furthermore, 2NT takes up a lot of room, so I believe the more sharply
you narrow its definition, the more useful I believe it will be.
I believe it is best used as a balanced, forcing raise, always with
4 card support AND it denies a good biddable 5-card side suit. Otherwise,
you simply start with a 2/1 in that suit and support spades later.

--
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: boyiny@minkowski.mit.edu (Professor Who?)
Subject: Re: Offshape doubles
Summary: Yeah right.
Keywords: double, free bid.
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 17:58:33 GMT

 davidm@questor.Rational.COM (David Moore) writes:
>boyiny@polya.mit.edu (Professor Who?) writes:

>>>[Matchpts. South dlr., E-W game]
>>>          West               East
>>>          AQ94               3
>>>          AQT9               62
>>>          K                  QT9865
>>>          A642               9853
>>> 
>>>                   (P)       P
>>> (1H)     X        (2H)      3D
>>>          3NT                4D
>>>          4S                 5C
>>>          P        (X)*
>
>>IMNSHO, East shoulders most of the blame for 3D.
>NOT! ...[3D]  good practical effort. 
>If partner has his double, this hand is worth 4 or 5 tricks.

The question is not how many tricks this had is worth (even if partner is
doubling offshape this hand is probably worth 4 tricks or so) but what 3D
is expected to accomplish and what benefits 3D is expected to bring.

>You expect 3D to be away 1, but you do not expect to be doubled 
>(especially as double by LHO is probably a game try)

And I do not expect to play in 3D at all.

>Once partner has doubled, he cannot come back in without 
>extras. Hence, your bid here is really a re-opening bid. If the
>bidding went 1H - -, I think you would bid 2D on this hand. 

Unless your partner traps 22 counts, I'd hate to think why you'd do that.
Re-opening bid or not, there are still requirements for bids.  If you can
make _ANYTHING_ I'd bet a large sum that partner can reopen for him(her)self.

>... West failed to consider ... rebid ... violated the principle of
>preparedness.

I always wondered why people are so much into that "preparedness" stuff.
Bad things don't _ALWAYS_ happen, and provided you have a good enough
expectation  nothing 

> Pass would be  better ... I think 1S is the correct bid ...

Of course, as an offshape doubler my philosophy is the antithesis of the
unlimited overcall, but I think that even Eric Kokish would have trouble
overcalling the hand with 1S.....

>I wonder what West would have done if 2H had come round to him?
>Is this hand going to acquiesce to 2H (undoubled).  

It was the plan, I would assume.  If partner can't act, there is probably
no game, so take the money.

>If he starts with 1S or 1NT, he gets to double 2H for penalties.

If you start with 1S you do _NOT_ get to double for penalties.  I will be
charitable and assume that you made a typo here.  In any event, it is
highly unlikely that the responder would have bid 2H over 1NT (this was a
2-card raise, obviously).  So if you start with 1NT you get to play 3D.....
Down one, I think.  

>Even if you play 1NT as 15-18, this is not an underbid
>with this miserable 19 count. ...

With AQT9 of hearts, I'd say that this is more than 18 hcp.



Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bclaus@cs.wright.edu (Brian Clausing)
Subject: Re: What to do when the rules conflict?
Organization: Wright State University
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:01:50 GMT

From article <1993Jan22.200014.5640@leland.Stanford.EDU>, by altus@leland.Stanford.EDU (Steve Altus):
> In article <1jml68INNdr7@transfer.stratus.com> tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan21.140619.19502@midway.uchicago.edu>, pynq@quads.uchicago.edu (Jeremy Mathers) writes:
>>> Playing at the club last nite, we came to the table of a pair who was
>>> already plenty annoyed at us, because we had made a ruckus during the
>>> previous round, thereby disturbing their tranquility.
>>> 
>>> On the first board of the round, I dealt and opened 1C (alerted
>>> as Precision).  Next hand bid 2C (not alerted).  Now, experience has
>>> shown that on this auction, 75% of the time RHO doesn't know what the 2C
>>> bid is.  That is, either its Michaels and RHO thinks it is Natural, or
>>> vice versa.  In any case, they never alert it
>>
>>They're not suppossed to alert it, whatever it means.  Several years ago,
>>the ACBL tried to end confusion over which bids in suits first bid by the
>>opponents should be alerted by declaring that none of them should be.  In
>>effect, "a cuebid carries its own alert."
>>
> 
> am i missing something here?  doesn't the "don't alert cuebids" rule apply
> only to bidding a suit that an opponent has bid NATURALLY?
> 
> certainly the auction 1NT-p-2C-3C where 2C is Stayman sounds like clubs!
> 
> similarly 1C (artificial, saying NOTHING about clubs) - 2C should be clubs
> unless there's an alert;  so the "a cuebid carries its own alert" shouldn't
> apply here.
> 
> 
> --steve altus

Steve Altus is correct, but there's a little more.  According to
guidelines posted by Asya Kamsky, the ACBL Board of Directors (Fall
1989) defined a cue bid as

A.  A bid in a suit that the bidder cannot want to suggest as trump
    because
    1.  some other suit has been agreed as trump; or
    2.  an opponent has shown length in the suit whether or not the
        opponent has actually bid that suit; or
B. [notrump bids that cannot be to play].

It would seem that those who denote a 2C overcall after a big club
opening a cue bid are confusing syntax and semantics.

Brian Clausing
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge