HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: danil@owlnet.rice.edu (Danil Patrick Suits)
Subject: Declarer problem
Organization: Rice University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:11:15 GMT

A play problem, which may or may not have 
a solution....


West         East

Qx           KT87x
KT862        5
T9xx         AK
KJ           AQT32

(spots included where I remember them)

scoring is IMP pairs (from okbridge)
Vul is all red
(I think, can someone confirm?)
Defensive bidding, carding are standard.

W    N    E    S
P    P    1C   P
1H   P    1S   P
1NT  P    2S   P
3S   P    4S   X
P    P    P

South leads the club 5, and north follows with the 4.

Go to it.

Danil

-- 
--- danil@rice.edu ---
I called Pizza Hut to ask if they would deliver.
I got the Redsox bullpen. They didn't.

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: mie@faline.bellcore.com (Martin I. Eiger)
Subject: assign the blame
Reply-To: mie@faline.bellcore.com (Martin I. Eiger)
Organization: Bellcore MRE
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 14:00:36 GMT

Regular matchpoints game, NS vulnerable

            S-A98753
            H-3
            D-654
            C-T72                         W    N    E    S
S-KQ642                 S-T              ---  ---  ---  ---
H-J9742                 H-KQT86           P    P   1H    D
D-2                     D-T9             4H   4S   5H    D
C-86                    C-AKJ93           P   5S   P     P
            S-J                           D    P   P     P
            H-A5
            D-AKQJ873
            C-Q54

Down three for minus 800 was a cold bottom for north and south.  5H
doubled, going down 1, would have been better.

North and south play 8-15 points for a simple overcall.  South claims
that the first double, followed by a free bid in diamonds, was
intended to show a strong one-suiter.  Unfortunately, the bidding got
too high before south could bid the diamonds again.

North claims that south should have made a 2D overcall instead of
doubling.  North inferred that south had at least some tolerance for
spades because of the double.

South claims that north should have inferred from south's second
double that south was prepared to defend against 5H and not prepared
to play 5S, and that north therefore shouldn't have pulled the double
of 5H.

What's your opinion.  Who's to blame and why?

                                            Martin Eiger
                                            mie@thumper.bellcore.com
From: jschuler@dcs.simpact.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Precision Prophet
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:24:00 GMT
Organization: Simpact Associates, San Diego CA

In article <1992Sep4.100115.2@dcs.simpact.com>, ahollander@dcs.simpact.com writes:
> In article <1992Sep4.000802.28734@msc.cornell.edu>, ding@msc.cornell.edu (Gary Ding) writes:
>> In article <9209031540.aa11178@Paris.ics.uci.edu> kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler) writes:
>>>
>>> I'm considering switching from 2/1 to Precision, a system
>>>I've only read about. My attraction to Precision is
>>>the closer specification of non 1-club opening hands
>>>and what appears to be a fairly simple bidding structure.
>>>Would people with experience comment on the deficits
>>>of Precision?
>> 
>> 	I personally strongly prefer Precision to 2/1,  the non-1C
>> hands has a narrower range, as commented by many in the net earlier with
>> nearly universal understanding that it is a net gain.  
> 

[stuff deleted]

> 
> There are other areas that weren't discussed that have been known to cause 
> problems:  
> 
[stuff deleted]
> 
> 	Minor 2-suiters.  Good 55 minor suited hands aren't a problem 
> 	because you can open 1D and jump rebid 3C.  But you have to handle
> 	the 45 and 54 hands as well as mediocre 55s.  I've tried to sell 

What a prophet! 

Last night Al was dealt:
	 AK xx KQ9xx KTxx
and opened 1 diamond (big club, 1 diamond = 11-15hcp, 2+ diamonds)
and the auction continued:
	1D  P  1S  (2H)
	?

Al found a very creative "slution" to this problem hand -
YOU'LL have to ask him about it...

John Schuler
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Law problem
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:16:52 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

> In article <1992Sep7.063205.456@nntp.hut.fi>, m36150p@kaira.hut.fi (Janne Veikko Petteri Kallunki) writes: 

> |> ...
> |> West lead C3 and saw the board. Then he asked the tournament director
> |> to see the situation. He claimed that he wanted to lead hearts.
> 
> He can't change the lead, but the score may be corrected.

Law 47E2a:  A player may retract the card he has played after a mistaken
            explanation of an opponent's conventional call or play and
            before a corrected explanation, but only if no card was
            subsequently played to that trick.

- Tim
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: danil@owlnet.rice.edu (Danil Patrick Suits)
Subject: Notrump Runouts
Organization: Rice University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:28:41 GMT

Some questions on notrump runouts.

My partner and I are playing 15-17 1NT openings,
with stayman, 4 way xfers, and some other gizma.

Over 1NT-X- we have agreed to a natural style
of runouts (XX for business, suit bids natural).

Of course, that leaves looking at opener's runout
bids as well.

What is the net.opinion on the following style

1NT  X   P   P
??

P    to play (obviously)

XX   minimum notrump with a 5 bagger somewhere...
     responder bids 2C to find out where, or can
     bid his own suit.

2C   4 Clubs + another 4 card suit

2D   4 Diamonds + a major

2H   4-4 majors

2S   some particular (which ??) 5233 hand with 5 spades
     the others can be handled by bidding XX first...

All opinions sought, even if I must wear welding goggles
to read them.


Also, what kind of running style do people recommend
after

1NT-P-P-X
??

danil
-- 
--- danil@rice.edu ---
Tell me about... fast breeder reactors.


Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se (Lars.Andersson)
Subject: Salsolutions
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 08:20:53 GMT

A while ago I posted two problems from Salsomaggiore.

The first problem was to play 3N on the following layout, West (LHO)
leads the two of clubs indicating an odd number of cards in the suit.

Qxx
Tx
AJTxxx
Kx

ATx
KJ9x
Q9x
ATx

Solution:
If the king of diamonds is onside there is no problem. If it is
offside you have to get a ninth trick before the opponents establish
their three club tricks. A reasonable plan is to play West for the
length in clubs, win the second club, play a heart and guess correctly.

At the table Nilsland for Sweden ducked Easts jack of clubs, won the
second club in dummy and played a heart, East (XXXXX from the XXX) played
the ace so there were no more problems even though the king of
diamonds was off-side (East held three clubs).

XXXXXXX for the XXX played for an immediate diamond finesse and went down.
Unlucky!

The second problem was what to bid over RHO's 1H(9-13 3+H) with
AQ/A9x/xxx/AQJxx

At the table XXXXX bid 1N and his partner, XXXXXX, held
KT98xx/x/ATx/Kxx
(Rumour has it that he did not know if 2H would be forcing)
And bid 4S, a contract that made comfortably with three overtricks. At
the other table the player holding the 17 pt hand got to open the bidding
and they got to 7S, judging correctly that on a diamond lead not even
6S could be made (if trumps did not break).
(the bidding was 1C-1S(2D); 3C-3S; 4S-4N; 5C-7S where 1C was 11-13 BAL 
or any 17+)

And finally
A Swedish horror Story;
You hold: -/AQJx/Jxx/JT98xx

All are vulnerable and it goes three passes to your LHO who opens
1S (SA), RHO bids 2N (natural), do you act now (imps)?


The player, XXXXXXXX from Sweden, who held these cards doubled 2N,

LHO Redoubled and partner bid 3D, they played it there going
for 1100 when partner held JTxxx/xxx/KQx/xx
The opponents were cold for 2N.

--lars
From: jaffray@oreo.berkeley.edu (Alan Jaffray)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Defense against defense against Precision 1 club
Date: 9 Sep 1992 00:21:09 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Reply-To: jaffray@zippy.sonoma.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: oreo.berkeley.edu

In article <C85PERWE.92Sep8095453@odal23.IDA.LiU.SE> c85perwe@und.ida.liu.se writes:
>Due to the common interferences over strong 1 C, I play two-way 1 C
>instead.  Ie 1C is 10-12 balanced or 17+.  This forces the opponenets
>to be more constructive.

Nonvul I've had such nice results with a 10-12 or 10-13 NT that I'd 
prefer not to have to open 1C on such hands.  But this seems like an
excellent idea if one wishes to play a big club when vulnerable...

It seems absurd to play a one-way big club when vulnerable against not,
because of interference from opps and less gains from light openings,  
but I haven't seen any Precision pairs which drop their system at that
vulnerability.  Is this just disinclination to have to play two distinct
system, or do the big clubbers out there really think they still show
a gain when red on white?

>Anyway, you wanted to know about defences against strong 1 C.  Here's
>mine:
>
>  Pass = Weak or Strong
>  D = 5+ hearts, overcall strength
>  1D = 5+ spades, overcall strength
>  1H = 4 hearts, longer side suit (common with shorter hearts)
>  1S = similar to 1H, with 4 spades
>  1NT = constructive overcall with both minors
>  2X = preempt: That suit or a two-suiter with the suits above
>  2NT = preempt: two-suiter, H+C or S+D
>  Higher = preempt

Hmmm...  My current feeling is that the object of interference should
be to get to the 2S or higher level as often and quickly as possible,
without giving them much useful information in the bidding or play.
So, I'd prefer to either show both suits immediately (i.e. use all bids
at or below 2C for specific 2-suiters) and allow partner to raise often,
or be ambiguous about the suits and not allow them a cue-bid
(CRASH, for instance, uses X = C+S or D+H, 1D = C+D or H+S, 1NT = C+H or D+S,
the acronym is Color RAnk SHape).  Telling partner about exactly one
suit doesn't seem a useful compromise.

By the way, IMHO when holding a nice 5-5, one shouldn't use a 2-suited
overcall.  Showing such extreme shape is certain to help them out, but
if you don't show the extras and meekly pass thereafter, partner will
assume you have 4-4 or 5-4 and not preempt to maximum potential.
Instead, it's better to just jump-overcall in one suit and try to shut
them out immediately, running to the other suit if doubled.  With
1525, for instance, you might overcall 3C, holding hearts in reserve.

-- Alan
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sater@cs.vu.nl (Hans van Staveren)
Subject: Daily bulletins format explained
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 07:41:42 GMT

I had some questions about the format in which I posted the daily bulletins,
and in retrospect I shouldn't have assumed this to be a familiar format.

Here is how to make sense of them:
They are comressed uuencoded WP5.1 files. To get the WP5.1 files back
you must take all postings of one bulletin, and beginning with part 1 of n
take the line looking like 'begin 644 db01.tot.wp.Z' and all lines
beginning with M. Take all lines from all other parts beginning with M
upto the last part the line that has the word 'end'.

The resultant file as input to a program called 'uudecode' gives a file
called db01.tot.wp.Z. Run this through uncompress and the original WP file
is back.

If this sounds complicated, well in a sense it is. If you use the 'nn'
newsreader it is a breeze however. Look up the command ':decode' in the
manual.

The files are also available for anonymous ftp on ftp.cs.vu.nl in the
directory sater/bridge/olympiad/wpfiles.

This weekend Avi Roy Shapira from Israel converted some of the files to
PostScript, which is a more familiar format to most people in the UNIX world.
I still have to see the results, but he claims they look good.

If they also print fine on our printers I will post these too. I will do it
a bit more slowly than the previous bunch, because I had some complaints
about the volume of the last batch. Sometimes it is hard thinking back to
the old days where Usenet connections were through dialup lines.

Hope this helps some people,

	Hans van Staveren
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: danil@owlnet.rice.edu (Danil Patrick Suits)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Is ethics the problem ?
Date: 15 Sep 92 01:31:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: rice.BuLIx4.8uz
Organization: Rice University


More ranting about the heart-club hand which
was misbid....

personally, *I* am not ethical enough to go
before an committee and explain that I could
not tell the difference between spades
and clubs.  Let them think what they want about
why I bid 2H (if this shows majors, is it a legal
psyche?) I aint gonna tell them.

Sheesh, people think I'm a fish already. I'd never 
live it down.

Danil
-- 
--- danil@rice.edu ---
I called Pizza Hut to ask if they would deliver.
I got the Redsox bullpen. They didn't.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: hamilton@robin.rtp.dg.com (Eric Hamilton)
Subject: Ethics questions
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 18:21:08 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

Partner opens 1NT.  You have five hearts in a semi-balanced hand, values to
play either 4H or 3N.  You bid 3H to show that sort of hand, promising exactly
five hearts, and asking partner a choice of games (you want to know why you are
using this unlovely treatment?  Hush.  That's beside the point here).

Partner bids 3NT.

RHO asks partner how many hearts you've shown and what this sequence means.
Partner accurately answers the question.

You now look at your hand and realize that your ace-deuce doubleton of diamonds
is the ace of diamonds and the deuce of hearts, and therefore that your call
should have been 4H and that 3N is going to be a grossly inferior contract.

1) Can you ethically correct 3N to 4H after partner's explanation?
2) If you choose to correct, and it ends up in committee, should the result be
   allowed to stand?



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Professor WHO?
Subject: Re: A curious question.
Summary: Merry-go-rounds are NOT allowed!
Originator: boyiny@kovalevskaya
Keywords: ethics, laws, timing, system.
Reply-To: maboyiny@ccvax.as.edu.tw (Dr. Weird)
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
X-Subliminal-Message: Preempts are meant to be DOUBLED!
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 22:46:06 GMT

>[A very good question from someone....]

>...  One pair announces to the other that they make VERY undisciplined use
>of weak two's (...).  The other pair say, ok, in that case they will play
>the Fishbein convention, which allows the player over the weak two bidder
>to double for penalties with the right kind of hand.  Now the first pair
>look startled and say, well, they won't play those undisciplined weak
>two's after all.  Then the second pair says they won't use Fishbein after
>all.  Etcetera.  Of course I know this is silly.

In case someone hasn't jumped at the question, the WBF DOES have a rule to
cover this situation--- in esssence it is a Rule of Causality, or timing...

ONLY calls that have been made BEFORE the call in question may affect the
meaning of the call.  Any other agreement is deemed illegal.

This is only enforceable in long team matches in reality, but in the Far
East, I am told, it is enforced in important championships.

In the situation above, what this means is that the pair to call first MUST
decide -- in this instance the preemptors.  IF they announce that they will
open certain "aggressive" hands, then they MUST, else they can be assessed
procedural IMP penalties and adjusted boards.

[I.e. pair A plays McCallum-Shuman style, i.e. any hand with 5 card suits
must be opened, but they decide not to do so against a pair that plays
Fishbein, and did so MORE THAN ONCE.  Their opponents appealed, and on all
the hands they SHOULD have opened they were hit with 3 imps each.  This I
was told actually happened.]

Similarly, I overcall like there is no to-morrow, but I will do so even
against people who play penalty doubles unless I tell them beforehand, and
to do otherwise is unethical and against the rules.

ObAnti-American Rant: Of course Wolff and company got an exception inserted
that this does not apply to people playing Forcing pass systems.  Please
write the ACBL and register your protest if you agree with me that this is
From: janne@vehka.uta.fi. (Janne Kotiranta)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Oxford Bridge from Thinking Games - query
Keywords: software, computer, games
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:32:36 GMT
Reply-To: janne@vehka.uta.fi. (Janne Kotiranta)
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Tampere, Departement of Computer Science


Does anyone know anything about Oxford Bridge from Thinking Games?

The ad sounds very promising.  Especially The Bidding Design System.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    E-MAIL  : janne@vehka.cs.uta.fi                      !   Janne Kotiranta
 from U.S.A.: janne%vehka.cs.uta.fi@uunet.uu.net   !   Arkkitehdinkatu 38 c 39
        Tel : +358 31 184 246                                 !   33720 TAMPERE
       I Don't Eat My Friends!                                !   FINLAND
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: assign the blame
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:02:39 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Martin I. Eiger <mie@faline.bellcore.com> writes:
> S-A98753
> H-3
> D-654
> C-T72

> What's your opinion.  Who's to blame and why?

The 5S bid is awful.  No matter what South has, even if it is a
classical takeout double, North has no reason at all to believe that N-S
can take 11 tricks.

North already bid 4S under serious pressure, and while it certainly
could be right, North should feel out on a limb.  Now South makes a
double which doesn't particularly encourage North to bid more; indeed,
it suggests defense.  North's heart singleton is basically worthless, as
South also rates to have heart shortness.  Why would North ever bid on?

As for the previous bidding, the takeout double is a matter of style, I
suppose.  Personally I would just bid 2D.  (3NT is another bid some
would consider.)  I also would not have doubled 5H.  This hand certainly
doesn't look like a defensive wonder.  (I don't think pass should be
forcing.)  I also would have corrected 5S to 6D; that might have
salvaged a few matchpoints.  IMO (although BS disagrees) you shouldn't
double on these hands if you are not prepared to correct to your suit.

But none of these other actions seems like the clear-cut error that 5S
is.

                                        David desJardins
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Need some help
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:18:08 GMT
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: notrees.cs.utexas.edu

In article <SUMMERS.92Sep8104850@cascades.cs.utah.edu> summers%cascades.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jim Summers) writes:
>   Speaking as a novice bridge player, I agree that OKBridge is a great
>   ...
>   In addition to the weekly matches for the serious players, maybe there
>   should be some events for those of us who are less experienced?

>Maybe we should just put "newbie" in our full name.  Of course, then
>noone wants to play with you.

As someone who has occasionsally been less than polite to an
OKBridge partner, I must report on something that was a bit
of a revelation to me.

Ben Thompson of Melbourne may well be the best of the regulars
on OKBridge.  The other day (actually, wee hours here) we were
at the same "table" and Ben's partner was a beginner.  Ben
was unfailingly polite and helpful and made no effort to get
out of the situation.  He managed to get his partner to play
acceptable bridge, which was all he needed to win.  It was the
finest display of partner management I have ever seen.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: spike@cse.ucsc.edu (Daniel Helman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Vugraph session Saturday at the Santa Clara Regional
Date: 5 Sep 1992 15:07:07 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (CE/CIS Boards)
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: et.ucsc.edu

Everything is all arranged for the vugraph session today at 1:00pm
pacific time.  It turns out that version 1.7D lets you see all the
hands with out typing /spec when in vugraph mode.

I had a mistake in the earlier posting.  okbridge can be found in the
directory pub/clegg/okbridge on cs.ucsd.edu, not pub/mclegg/...

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: spencer@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: 1+1
Reply-To: spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun)
Organization: Live Organ Transplants
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 03:28:23 GMT

In article <17ja08INNn5s@overload.lbl.gov>, asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky) writes:
>
>First I say that the only thing you can do about posts you don't like is
>bitch and moan about them.  Then I bitch and moan about posts *I* don't
>like.

It seemed to me that you were suggesting that bitching and moaning won't
get you anywhere so you might as well give it up.  If not, I apologize
for misinterpreting what you said.


>>Besides, the only responses I've seen to non-expert-type questions are
>>flames.  Haven't seen anyone offer any book titles (although Bob gave me
>>one or two in e-mail which I'll look for)
>
>Well, then you haven't been reading very long.  There have been LOOOONNNGGG
>articles posted in the past citing various sources that people can use.

How far in the past?  Not in the last 6 months, to my recollection.  Not
in the useful past, anyway (i.e. recently enough not to have expired off
here)

>Maybe it should be reposted every week.

That might be too frequent, but once every 2-4 weeks would probably be
good.  If one person were designated to maintain the list, and posted it
with the same title every time, then people not wishing to see it could
easily put it in their kill files.

----------- The opinions expressed in this article are solely mine. -----------
<Insert lame attempt at disclaimer humor>
sss/PU'94 Dept of CS (spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu)/JvNCnet (spencer@jvnc.net)
Two For America -- Bill 'n' Opus '92 -- This time, why not the worst?