HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: Re: How would you rule?
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:01:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.043935.7118@midway.uchicago.edu>, pynq@quads.uchicago.edu (George Jetson) writes:
> Playing in a club game tonite, we were being kibitzed by one of the
> club's directors (not the one running this game), and we had one of our
> usual complex Precision auctions (I think it was 1NT - 3NT).  Anyway, I
> was about to become dummy when we all noticed Lefty fumbling among her
> cards, obviously looking for a lead.  At this point, the kibitzer
> pointed out to her that it was not her lead.
> 
> We felt that we were injured, since we lost the opportunity to benefit
> from a lead out of turn.  What do you think?

I don't know what the ACTUAL rules would be, and I agree that the 
kibitzer erred, but what I think, since you asked, is that if you 
can't win on your own merits, it is hardly worth winning at all. 
I mean, if you want to sit around and wait until someone makes a 
mistake, and then expect to profit from that mistake, then you are 
a bit of a sleveen. (Sleveen is Newfoundland dialect for a person
somewhat less of a scoundrel than a murderer or rapist, but somewhat 
more than, say, a litterer.) Actually, there is probably a case to 
be made that you were cheating, since you were letting your play
be affected by what an opponent was doing with her hand - like 
watching from where in the hand (of cards) she pulled a card to play.
Is there not a rule against this?

I think you were injured, at birth. I mean, would it have been such
a great concession to have told her yourself that it was not her lead?
Or has this great game turned into a pastime for sharks?

|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
| If we had an index file, we could    | "In fact, except for protecting  |
| look it up in the index file under   |  individual rights, no valid     |
| "Index File".                        |  reason for government exists."  |
|           -- Teegan in "Castrovalva" |       ... Dr. Frank Wallace      |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Bill Garland = bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca  | Commercial : Send me your money. |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
From: pollock@eggo.tmc.edu (Wayne Pollock)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Precision, anyone?
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:39:52 GMT
Organization: University of South Florida at Tampa

In article <l97pruINNhkp@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> zilch@planb.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>...
>A difficulty is in finding not only people with whom to play
>but also with whom to discuss it.  ...

There are many Precision fans out there, more all the time!  In fact, I
believe a new Precision book is due to be published shortly.  And as a teacher
of sorts, I have in the past taught both SA and Precision.  Students mostly
prefer Precision, since it has a far more natural flavor than, say, 2/1.
Anytime you want to dicuss Precision, write me!

>In recent years, many players open light (both suits and 1NT), 
>preempt early & often, overcall on bad hands or bad suits.  
>Against a strong club system, these tendencies are increased.
>The result is that Precision auctions rarely proceed with
>silent opponents, and thereby lose much of the extra value
>that they might otherwise claim.  

Not true.  The big win with Precision is just these sort of auctions, where
by opening a with a limit bid right away (most of the time), the effectiveness
of competitive bids are decreased.  For example, would you rather be playing
SA, 2/1, or Precision and hear the auction preceed 1-diamond, 2-spades, ???
The major weakness in Precision is the 1-club opening bid; now that opponents
don't pass out of fear anymore, players are working on methods to help in this
case.  (If you have any ideas, why not start a discussion here and post 'em?)

Wayne Pollock (The MAD Scientist)
Internet:	pollock@eggo.csee.usf.edu
From: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: bidding
Date: 27 Aug 92 03:29:15 GMT
Reply-To: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: ux5.lbl.gov

In article <1992Aug25.201830.17065@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> milord@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Brian Bankler) writes:
in response to article <16310@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> martel@spider.cs.ucdavis.edu (Chip Martel)

>	And, as a final note, all systems are going to have "problem hands"
>Yours, Mine, and Buddhas.  Really we just have to settle down and compare
>which losses least (or gains the most).  

Well, Brian, should we start comparing by seeing how many world championships
your system has won or loss as compared to Chip's?

I mean in one paragraph you lament how terrible it is not to differentiate
between a 5 and a 6 card major on your first rebid, and several paragraphs
later you advocate rebidding a three card suit on a 3-5-2-3 hand.  Hmmm...

-- 
"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: brl@kopasker.is (Bjorgvin Runar Leifsson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Reports on the World Championship?
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:16:56 GMT
Organization: Primary School of Kopasker, Iceland

smart@wanda.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU (Robert Smart) writes:

>Any hope of reports from the World Championship (Olympiad?) in Italy
>starting next week?

Yes, I would like to ask the same question.  All I know now is that after
today's first 2 matches, Iceland and USA are second in their group (is group
the right word here in English?) and Holland is first.  Don't know about
the other group.

Bjorgvin R. Leifsson
brl@kopasker.is

P.S. If there are not going to be any regular postings from Italy, would you
then like me to post briefing from the Icelandic broadcast and tv service?
It would be very Iceland-oriented, of course :-)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao)
Subject: Re: bidding
Reply-To: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:54:20 GMT

asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.201830.17065@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> milord@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Brian Bankler) writes:
>in response to article <16310@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> martel@spider.cs.ucdavis.edu (Chip Martel)
>>	And, as a final note, all systems are going to have "problem hands"
>>Yours, Mine, and Buddhas.  Really we just have to settle down and compare
>>which losses least (or gains the most).  

While I agree completely with Dr. Martel about his comments on 2/1
(that was the way I was taught 2/1 and thought it was "standard"), I
am going to risk the dreaded Kamsky curse by disagreeing with her:-)

>Well, Brian, should we start comparing by seeing how many world championships
>your system has won or loss as compared to Chip's?

Not a fair slam, IMO.  Dr. Martel's multiple world championships may
have a little something to do with his bridge ability, the same way
Brian's lack of any championships have to do with his (apologies
Brian, if you do have any that I am unaware of).  I don't think any
one here could state exactly how many championships Dr. Martel would
have won had he been playing something else:-).  He (Brian now) surely
is allowed to discuss, comment, and question the points raised in the
note that was posted.

>I mean in one paragraph you lament how terrible it is not to differentiate
>between a 5 and a 6 card major on your first rebid, and several paragraphs
>later you advocate rebidding a three card suit on a 3-5-2-3 hand.  Hmmm...

Now this I buy.  I agree completely with you that his criticisms don't
make any sense to me.  In my way of looking of things, the gains
achieved by bidding the way Brian advocates, are *very* *small*
compared to where it loses to the alternative...

>Asya Kamsky	      e-mail: asya@ux5.lbl.gov                   Go Red Sox

Insert smileys everywhere.....

Bharat
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: jpnicol@eng.auburn.edu (Jean-Paul N. Nicol)
Subject: Re: What would you bid?
Reply-To: jpnicol@eng.auburn.edu
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:05:59 GMT

In article 3645@tivoli.UUCP, taylor@foraker.tivoli.com (Eric Taylor) writes:
> Zip Swiss, You hold :
> xx
> KQx
> AKQxxxx
> A
> 
> Bidding continues :
> You        Partner
> 1D         1H
> ??
> 
> I would like to be in a heart game.
> 
> Would 4D normally promise a solid
> suit and 4 card support?  Would this be
> an acceptable lie?
> 
> 3D is non-forcing.

How about 3C* (* - splinter)? It saves some bidding room, the drawback is that it 
almost guarantees a spade lead.  I'm not sure 4D has a 'standard' meaning.
From: willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: New Suit over Preempt
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:46:45 GMT
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Aug31.151109.2109@head-cfa.harvard.edu> (subject
"Life Master ?= expert"), I asked the net whether a new suit in
response to a three-level preempt should be forcing.  Twenty people
responded.

First, what is standard?  All but one person agreed that forcing is
standard.  Many were quite vehement about it.  Bridge World Standard
has no explicit statement on the subject, but responses to problems
indicate that forcing is considered standard.  However, the fact that
one person disagreed, in addition to our friend the LM, is a reminder
that "standard" is not "universal."

Some mentioned that it would be normal to play new suit non-forcing
after a double.  I'm not so sure there is a "standard" in this
situation, though.  Something to discuss with your regular partner. 

What agreement is best?  Most people thought non-forcing makes no
sense, but five respondents (plus the one who thought non-forcing to
be standard) play non-forcing with certain partners.  And apparently
Al Roth, in an article in Bridge Today, advocates the non-forcing
treatment.  Perhaps someone who has seen the article could summarize
the reasons.  The best comment, though, was that the situation is so
infrequent that the treatment doesn't much matter.

Finally, how should the two hands (K5 96 T2 KQJT976 opposite QJ9872
A73 J843 -- ) be bid?  All who commented thought the spade hand
should pass a 3C opener even if 3S is a mandatory signoff; again many
were quite vehement.  Several people suggested that, over 3S, I
should have rebid 4S instead of 4C.  I agree, but I had already seen
enough of the LM not to trust him.  Maybe I should have bid 4S
anyway, though.  Nothing helps on this hand, but maybe 4S would
have had a positive effect on later boards.

I don't know if there is a great lesson in this, unless it is that
unfamiliar partners can be counted on to have strange ideas about
bidding.  (Where is Mr. Goren when we need him?)

Thanks to all who responded.
-- 
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: olle@astro.uu.se (Olof Morell)
Subject: Re: what went wrong?
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala, Sweden
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 09:42:45 GMT

In article <llnykpg@rpi.edu>, sperbr@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Ron E Sperber) writes:
|> Playing in the Flight B swiss in a regional you pick up the following
|> hand (white on red)
|> 
|> KQxxx
|> KQTx
|> x
|> xxx
|> 
|> Partner in first seat opens 1H and with the opponents silent the auction
|> proceeds:
|> 
|> 1H   1S(1)
|> 2N   3H
|> 3S   4H
|> P
|> 
|> (1) promises 5 spades

Curious system ! What is it ?

|> this proved to not be the optimal contract as we were +480 missing a 
|> nearly cold slam with partner holding:
|> AJ
|> Axxxx
|> KQJ
|> Axx
|> 
|> Where did the auction go wrong?

I could start yelling about showing your trump support, but then the
US people will put me in their kill files I guess :-)

4H seems timid, why not cuebid diamonds ? That is, if you play italian
cues (1st & 2nd controls mixed). Opener seems to already have shown his
values and can't really do much more, you must take some initiative.

I would bid:

1H - 2NT (support) - 3NT (18-19) - 4H (I've done enough) - 4NT (RKC)
- 5D - 6H


*** Olle ***
----------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail - Olle.Morell@astro.uu.se

Snail Mail - Astronomical Observatory, Box 515, 751 20 Uppsala, Sweden
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: A question of ethics
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:17:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.193357.28323@venus.ic.cmc.ca> antosz@scorpio.ic.cmc.ca writes:
:The game is matchpoints and your partner hasn't played in a month.  Over the
:course of the evening he's missed several calls (viz., he wasn't too sure of the
:meaning of a bid).  Playing 2/1 with weak jump shifts the auction goes
:	you	pard
:	 1h	 2s
:
:Here's the problem, you're sure that pard means 2s to be strong.  Should you
:alert the 2s as a weak jump shift or do you not alert and play it as strong?  I
:am aware of the need to stay within the system but what do you do in a situation
:when you **know** partner's forgotten the system?  
:
:More importantly, you alert as required but do you take a second bid?  What 
:are the ethics of both situations?
 
How can you be sure he intends it as strong? You are just guessing.
However, you must act as if partner is following your agreements. You
are not entitled to act as if it is strong because then you would be
acting upon private information between you and your partner that is
NOT available to the opponents. The information of course, is that you 
and he know that he has made several systemic mistakes and is LIKELY
to continue to make them.

On the other hand you can't simply alert and explain that you think
it is strong because then you would be passing unauthorized info to
PARTNER who *might* have remembered the agreement in the first time.

You must alert and explain your *agreement* [weak jump shift] and act
accordingly. Partner may not then take advantage of the fact that you
think it is weak by doing something strange 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
Subject: Re: how would you rule
From: bclaus@cs.wright.edu (Brian Clausing)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:48:15 GMT
Organization: Wright State University

From article <1992Aug28.160930.4757@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>, by rainbow@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rob Buchner):
> 
>>> Playing in a club game tonite, we were being kibitzed by one of the
>>> club's directors (not the one running this game), and we had one of our
>>> usual complex Precision auctions (I think it was 1NT - 3NT).  Anyway, I
>>> was about to become dummy when we all noticed Lefty fumbling among her
>>> cards, obviously looking for a lead.  At this point, the kibitzer
>>> pointed out to her that it was not her lead.
>>> 
>>> We felt that we were injured, since we lost the opportunity to benefit
>>> from a lead out of turn.  What do you think?
> 
>> You would think a director would know how to kibitz.
>> I would have said something to the effect that kibitzers
>> should not say anything, and if unable to do so, he should leave.
> 
> The director/kibitzer, obviously noticing your failure to make any
> effort to stop the impropriety before it happens, quickly acted on
> your behalf on the assumption you were mentally incapacitated.
> The director/kibitzer deserves a big thank you for his/her actions.
> After all, if you weren't "injured", you would have done so yourself.

I believe that this kibitzer, like all kibitzers everywhere, should
keep his mouth shut.

Brian Clausing
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sperbr@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Ron E Sperber)
Subject: Re: Michaels without a c(l)ue--assign the blame
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:52:17 GMT

hampton@ais.org (Kevin Podsiadlik) writes:

>Love all, West deals:

>West                East
>T 7                 A K Q J 8
>9 2                 K Q 8 7 5
>7 5 3               K
>A K 9 7 4 2         6 5

>Pass      (1D)      2D(1)
>3C                  Pass

>(1) Michaels--weak or strong.

>3C overcame a 4-1 trump break, but the zero was still quite frigid.
>The partnership is relatively new, if that is relevent.  Assess the blame.

I would give 100% blame to east for passing 3C. True partner claims
to not have a fit,but you made a michaels cue bid on a strong hand
so I think East is obligated to take one more call. the auction might
proceed:
P-(1D)-2D-P
3C-P-3D-P
4S-All pass
3D should tell partner that you have a GOOD 5-5 hand and now the AK of clubs
and the T of spades look to be very good cards. I don't really blame
west for 3C. after all East might have:
QJxxx
Kxxxx
-
xxx 
or even be 1-2 in the minors and 2 of a major is getting wrecked
while 3C has some safety. Note also that many people will bid
michaels with 5-4 in the majors and now a choice of the wrong
major will result in a total disaster.
It is not until partner cue-bids again that West will have any idea
what kind of hand East has.

>-- 
>Kevin J. Podsiadlik         | "A recent survey has revealed that, if the
>Vaporware Engineer          | election were to be held tomorrow, a whopping
>2nd class                   | 98% of those polled would be glad it came
>E-mail: hampton@ais.org     | early this year." -- Thomas Sowell (paraphrased)

	-Ron
-- 
    Ron Sperber  sperbr@rpi.edu Ron_Sperber@mts.rpi.edu Ron_sperber@rpitsmts
	"All the World's indeed a stage/And we are merely players"
	"Performers and Portrayers/Each anothers audience        "
	"Outside the gilded cage"                     	-Rush,"Limelight"
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Checkback after 2NT rebid
Date: 2 Sep 1992 12:54:48 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: notrees.cs.utexas.edu

A week or so ago, talking about 1X-1Y; 2NT I said I saw no reason
for using 3C as checkback, and know of no authority who recommended
it.  Asya Kamsky has pointed out that the Martel-Stansby system
notes have checkback after all such auctions but 1C-1D; 2NT.  So
I printed out the notes, and it's true.  Sort of a two-way checkback,
in that both 3C and 3D are used.

After 1X-1M; 2NT, 3M is to play.  3C is regular checkback, and 3D
is checkback but shows (or usually shows; I'm not sure) 4-card
support for opener's suit.  If I have this substantially wrong I
hope somebody will correct me.

This also seems reasonable.  (If it didn't I would assume I didn't
understand it, since who am I to argue with world champions?)  The
approach I was objecting to leaves all bids at the 3-level forcing
but uses 3C for checkback.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
From: mlg@siemens.com. (Michael Greenberg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: What to bid?
Date: 26 Aug 92 12:36:04 GMT

IMPs
don't recall vul.

You deal and hold

Kx,AJT87x,QJxx,A


1H-P-2D-2S-?

What do you bid?

--
Michael Greenberg                      email: mgreenberg@siemens.com
Siemens Corporate Research             phone: 609-734-3347
755 College Road East
Princeton, NJ 08540
From: olle@astro.uu.se (Olof Morell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Strong opening?
Date: 28 Aug 92 11:21:20 GMT
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala, Sweden

In article <eleitv.714915954@rw6.urc.tue.nl>, eleitv@rw6.urc.tue.nl (Thijs Veugen) writes:
|> KQ9xx
|> xxx
|> T
|> JTxx
|> 
|> Ax
|> J9
|> AKQJ9xxx
|> 8
|> 
|> The bidding went:
|> W     N     E     S
|> -     -     -     2D(1)
|> P     2H(2) 3C    3D(3)
|> 5C    D     P     6D
|> P     P     P
|> 
|> (1) Weak two in hearts or a semi/game force opening in diamonds
|> (2) Weak relay, 0-14 HCP
|> (3) Semi force in diamonds (8/9 tricks)
|> 
|> 6D went one down after a trumplead.

Spades were not three-three :-) ?

|> 1. Should South open his hand with a preempt because of his little
|>    defensive force?

No, Neither do I think you should open with a forcing bid. I would open
with 1D. Your high-card strength and defense is not up to a force.

|> 2. Is North's double ok?

I think so, he has a misfit with a reasonable control over trumps, and 
opener should have a little more defensive strength than he has.

|> 3. Is 6D a realistic try or just a stupid bid?

Just plain stupid, sorry. You need a hell-of-a-lot of cover cards...

 
*** Olle ***
----------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail - Olle.Morell@astro.uu.se

Snail Mail - Astronomical Observatory, Box 515, 751 20 Uppsala, Sweden
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: bidding problem
Date: 26 Aug 92 03:14:45 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Robert D. Silverman <bs@gauss.mitre.org> writes:
>(2) Pulling 4H to 5C is crazy, however. Partner's jump to 4H shows a good
>6 card suit.

I don't understand this at all.  What would you bid over 1S-X-P with
xxx/KTxxx/Ax/AQx ?  I can't imagine bidding anything but 4H.

It seems to me that if you double with a strong-overcall hand you have
to be prepared to bid on if partner has a big hand.  The example hand
doesn't seem to me quite strong enough to double-and-bid, but if I did
do so I would feel absolutely compelled to bid 5C over 4H.  There is no
reason at all for North to believe that 4H is a playable spot.

                                        David desJardins
From: dberman@cs.washington.edu (Deborah Berman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: bid this
Keywords: 2D preempt opposite void
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:04:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: beaver.1992Aug29.000440.17692
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

Well, I blundered on this one.  Thanks for the feedback I have gotten.
3nt with a void is a mess.  Pard could have much worse.  No way to
get to the diamonds.  I suppose f you had  a single diamond in your hand,
it isn't as bad a contract, though?  

Given all this, pass is probably best.  You never can get to 4h, I think.

Debbie

-- 
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend...
   Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.  (Groucho Marx)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: rainbow@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rob Buchner)
Subject: Re: of buttons and flames
Organization: St Barts
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 09:58:27 GMT
Keywords: open forum, net-life



> Well, if they are told where to look up the basics, since THIS
> isn't the appropriate place, and they don't, well they are wasting
> people's time then, deliberately, and I can see how that would
> push some people's buttons.

I could agree with that, ie people's buttons being pushed by
triviality that it drives them to condescending attitudes...
But who is to say that this isn't the appropriate place
for all levels of questions? Sure they could go elsewhere,
but this is an open forum, not a restrictive audience.
It clearly is not wasting some people's time. And there
will always be something that wastes somebody's time.
Nothing will be of interest to everyone everywhere.
How can we expect people to know what is trivial and 
what is not? We do not have a moderator per-se to
determine and judge what is appropriate to ask...

*****
On the other hand, net etiquette (sp?) as I have come
to know it means anyone can flame anyone for anything
they happen to post. It is a part of net-life. This
means poster beware. You are fair game. Matter-in-fact,
you can expect flames more likely than not because
somebody is sure to disagree and will make sure you
and everyone else knows it. Flames are a common style
of argumentation when words are the only tools at
ones disposal to help convince/sway your audience.
So don't even post if you can't handle the flames.
The flames are not personal, they are just a style
of writing. Complain if you will, nothing will change.
If you make a mistake/error in your posting, people
will be all over you, accept it and just move on.
If you aren't making mistakes, you aren't learning.
Don't let writing style hide what is being said.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge