HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao)
Subject: Another swing involving a multi
Originator: daveshao@leland.Stanford.EDU
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 15:44:51 GMT

Just to correct a previous posting, NS Baldursson and Jorgensen
collected 800 by doubling the following 4S contract.

1991 NEC World Championships--Quarterfinals 
Board 6 of the first of six 16 board segments.
(Source: World Championship Book 1991)

Vul:EW     J8
Dlr:E      JT9764
           KJ6
           Q9
97                  AQT432
K83                 5
AQT94               75
653                 K742
           K65
           AQ2
           832
           AJT8

Bermuda Bowl quarterfinals: Iceland v USA II
Open Room
West        North        East      South
Feldman     Baldursson   Bramley   Jorgensen
-           -            2S        x
3D*         4H           4S        x
P           P            P
Result: EW -800

Closed Room
West        North        East      South
Arnarson    Weinstein    Jonsson   Stewart 
-           -            2D*       P
2S          P            P         x
P           3H           P         P
P
Result: NS +170, 12 IMPs to Iceland. 

Venice Cup quarterfinals: Japan v USA I
Open Room
West        North        East      South
Meyers      Hayashi      Schulle   Aoki
-           -            2D*       P
2S          P            P         P
Result: EW -100

Closed Room
West        North        East      South
Tan         Chambers     Shimamura Bjerkan 
-           -            2S        x
P           4H           P         P
P
Result: NS +420, 8 IMPs to USA I
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Meaning of bids when rho reopens with a X
Date: 15 Sep 1992 15:12:46 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: notrees.cs.utexas.edu

In article <mlg.716565831@volvo> mlg@siemens.com. (Michael Greenberg) writes:
>Suppose you open 1D and the bidding goes

>1D-p-p-X

>What do the different bids mean? In particular, what's the meaning 
>of XX, 1NT, 2D, 3D, new-suit, jump-shift?

When the opening is 1 of a minor, typically a new suit at the
1-level (almost always 1H) is a self-rescue.  Redouble is strong,
probably balanced but possibly somewhat distributional.  1NT is
18-20, but with 18 I would want a good diamond suit as a source
of tricks.  Other bids are natural.  (I would think that 2NT here
should show a big minor 2-suiter, though.  While conceivable, a
natural 2NT seems a bit far-fetched.)  For most I would expect
substantial distribution.

There's an interesting hand in McNeill's _Match Your Bidding
Against the Experts_ where a minimum 4-4-2-3 was opened 1C and
RHO reopened with a double.  The concensus, including Alvin
Roth, was that 1H was a self-rescue and redouble was strong.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
From: taddiken@ms.uky.edu (scott taddiken)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Apology to Rubens
Summary: As if he reads this.
Keywords: matchpoints, theory
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:46:38 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

Joel has set me straight, and I retract what I said about
Rubens' analysis being incorrect.  The truth is (and Joel
seems to agree with me about this) that Rubens' analysis
was not particularly user-friendly.  The rule is that the
chance of gain against the slam bidders must be in a two
to one ratio with the chance of loss against the game
bidders.  By "chance of gain" he apparently means the probablity
of gain minus the probability of loss.

For an algebraic demonstration of the correctness of Rubens'
method, write to me, and I'll send you a synopsis of the
proof Joel sent to me.

I hang my head in shame.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Taddiken          University of Kentucky 
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sater@cs.vu.nl (Hans van Staveren)
Subject: Daily bulletins Salsomaggiore
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 13:31:34 GMT

I just spoke on the phone to one of the editors of the daily bulletin.
They had no chance to transmit the bulletins from Salsomaggiore, but he
has them all on floppy, and I will get them from him next Wednesday.

This means that on Thursday I will start posting all the bulletins,
perhaps with a bit of delay between them if they are big. I will
eventually post three versions of each bulletin:

1) The original WP5.1 file
2) A PostScript version
3) An 8 bit ASCII version for IBM type printers.
   A program to convert this to 7bit ASCII, loosing some data
   will be supplied.

The files will also be available for anon-ftp from ftp.cs.vu.nl
in the directory sater/bridge/olympiad.

Better late than never.

	Hans van Staveren
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Law problem
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:05:00 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

pynq@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> Can these problems be solved by asking your partner to leave the table?

No.  What makes you think that you can ask your partner to leave the
table in the middle of the hand or auction?  Drawing your partner's
attention to the fact that there has been a misunderstanding is
obviously highly improper.

> Of course, this is really equivalent to saying "Well, we can eliminate
> that hand, because in that case he would have all the rest of tricks -
> or, equivalently, there is no hope anyway...", but, as a matter of
> fact, I had a partner tell me during a game last week that you should
> never claim, because it allows the opps to draw these inferences.

To be blunt, I think this means that your partner is not very bright.

                                        David desJardins
From: tac6189@hertz.njit.edu (Tom Carmichael                                                  )
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Defense against defense against Precision 1 club
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:53:18 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.


	I also play Precision, but my defensive system is not something
I'd like to get into.

	What I play against 1C's against me (partner permitting) is
something called TWERB.  (I've also heard it called suction or exclusionary).

Basically, if you bid a suit, you can't have that suit.  You either have
a one suiter in the one above (the transfer suit) or the other two remaining 
suits.  Ex:  (1C) - 1S shows Clubs or the reds.   1NT shows 2-suiter 
untouching.  (1C) - X said you wanted to bid clubs (Dia. or Maj)
(1C) - P - (1D) - X said you wanted to bid dia.  (Hearts or blacks)

I also use this system vs 1NT openings.


Just my $.02

Tom
-- 
"Sleep is a poor substitute for caffine."|  Tom Carmichael
	- The Wizardry Compiled		 |  tac6189@hertz.njit.edu
-----------------------------------------|  tomc@shock.njit.edu
#include <stddisclamer.h>		 |
From: hauke@sol.ral.rpi.edu (Hauke Jungnitz)
Subject: Software for Bridge Tornaments wanted
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 01:24:44 GMT

I am looking for a program that organizes and does the scoring 
for bridge tournaments (preferably on a PC).  I am not a bridge
player myself, but my mother has taken up the habbit.

I will summarize all responses I get and post it to the group.  
Please respond by e-mail to hauke@ral.rpi.edu
------------------------------------------------------
Hauke Jungnitz
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
CII Building, Suite 8123
Troy, NY 12180-3590
Tel (518) 276-8210
Fax (518) 276-8715
E-mail hauke@ral.rpi.edu
From: ted@heawk1.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Ethics questions
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:12:56 GMT
Organization: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center

tac6189@hertz.njit.edu (Tom Carmichael) writes:

[ I wrote: ]

>>So, back to the original hand.  Partner opens 1NT, and you bid 2H showing
>>the majors.  This is your systemic agreement and partner alerts it and
>>explains as such when asked.  After partners 2S call, however, you now note
>>that all your spades are in fact clubs and you have clubs and hearts.  Note,
>>due to your correctly filled out convention card, the Director and
>>committee must now believe that you made a mistaken BID.  Therefore, you
>>could have thought that 2H showed hearts and a minor or hearts and clubs.  
 [...rest of included text omitted...]

>	Not to argue your point, but I think there is a point that 
>you didn't bring out.  You said that "you could have thought that 2H showed
>.... etc, etc."  The point that stands out from the original article is 
>that you _know_ that you made a mistake.  You are not under any notion 
>that 2H shows Hearts and a minor.  You are aware of the meaning.  (maybe 
>you'll have a hard time proving it.....)
>
	Sorry...I meant that from the committee's point of view, you have
	no way to prove it...you could have thought, etc...  Remember, the
	committee needs to be able to rule the same way in every occurrence
	of this situation and shouldn't be basing their ruling on "well, he
	*did* think that it meant..."  What you think at the time cannot be
	used as admissible evidence.

>This is different from misbidding
>and realizing after the alert that you misbid.  This is misbidding, realizing
>it, and then hearing the alert.  (At least that is the impression I got.)

	It may be different, but not to the committee.  The appeals committee
	shouldn't be relying on that.  Unfortunately, this would not be
	fair if anyone could cover up these problems, by saying, "Oh, well,
	I thought..."

	Ted Ying			ted@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov
	Hughes/STX			Goddard Space Flight Center
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Notrump Runouts
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:21:26 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <Bu9Mzz.Kt2@rice.edu> danil@owlnet.rice.edu (Danil Patrick Suits) writes:
>Some questions on notrump runouts.
>What is the net.opinion on the following style
>1NT  X   P   P
>??
>P    to play (obviously)

You have to pass with all 4-3-3-3 hands with your system. This is probably
NOT a good idea (I've had a lot of sucess in scrambling, quite often you'll
find SOME suit that the opponents can't double or, if they're doubling
everything on general principles, you'll often find a 4-4 4-3 or 5-3 fit
which actually makes)

What I dislike about your system is that the wrong person (the much more
limited partner) is making the running. I prefer where the responder starts
things rolling (I play that pass almost forces a redouble which responder
may or may not leave in. This means that one cannot play in 1NT doubled down
one, in the several years and the several times this has come up I believe
that I've lost exactly 1 matchpoint because of this, and gained LOTS when the
opponents panic/rescue us because they have no idea what to do).
>
>Also, what kind of running style do people recommend
>after
>
>1NT-P-P-X
>??

You cannot run here, partner may have a decent 7 or a bad 8 count. At best,
you can use XX and P to differentiate between some sorts of hands.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: zilch@apples.Eng.Sun.COM (John Hoffman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Bridge-O-Matic moves West
Date: 9 Sep 1992 01:25:49 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: zilch@apples.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: apples

My friend Karl Barth has a handy device called Bridge-O-Matic
that (when properly used) unfailingly arranges for perfect results
in improbable circumstances.  I finally got to try it out yesterday
in the Board-A-Match event at the Santa Clara CA Regional.

Board 22  East deals EW vul
Our bidding was brief, with the opponents passing:
1N (10-12), 4C (Gerber), 4S, 6N

West led the Jack of Spades.  Sitting South, I quickly saw that 
partner had guessed wrong in the bidding:

        North
        S- K73
        H- AKT7
        D- AKT4
        C- KQ

        South
        S- A52
        H- QJ83
        D- 63
        C- A753

Thanks to Dan Helman and OK-bridge, some of you "watched" Hugh Ross and Jeff Ferro
at the next table easily bring in 7H (at least that's what I heard afterward).
My problem was in trying to beat the pair at our teammates' table if they
were in only 6H.  Hmmm...

So I took the spade in dummy and cashed 2 hearts just to make sure that 13 tricks
were a cakewalk in that OTHER contract.  Then I led a diamond to the 10...
and it won!  RHO showed out on the 3rd round of clubs, and LHO threw in her
cards at trick 10.  Making 7.  What could be simpler?

At the other table, they got to...
6N by South.  Ducked the first spade (rectifying the count??)
and somehow didn't get it after that.  Down 1.

Another point for us (we finished with 26.5 out of 51 in the event)
and another testimonial for Bridge-O-Matic.

John Hoffman
From: olle@astro.uu.se (Olof Morell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Competitive Decision
Date: 15 Sep 1992 08:16:54 GMT
Organization: Uppsala University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solaris.astro.uu.se

In article <1992Sep14.151801.4266@linus.mitre.org>, bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
|> It's the first board in a 7-board regional Flight A swiss match. 
|> You and your opponent have 70+ VP out of 80 after 4 rounds.
|> [i.e. you may assume competent opponents]
|> 
|> You hold:
|> 
|> K98xx
|> -
|> Qxxx
|> Jxxx
|> 
|> All red.  Partner bids 2C in first seat and RHO jumps to 6H.
|> 
|> Your call? [I'll express my opinion; I think a forcing pass is best].

Yes, I pass, if partner doubles I pull to 6S, thus indicating that I'm
not sure of where to play... If partner bids 6S ? Well, truly I don't
know. I have such bad experience with bidding grands when guessing,
that I'll probably chose pass at the table...

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

Snail Mail - Astronomical Observatory, Box 515, 751 20 Uppsala, Sweden
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: mike@cd.com (Mike Heins)
Subject: Re: Least of evils
Keywords: Your guess is as good as mine.
Organization: Central Data Corp., Champaign, IL
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:21:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.92329.13024@ms.uky.edu> jhaywood@ms.uky.edu (Joel D Haywood) writes:
>Favorable at pairs, you have
>
>xxx xxx xxx AKQx.
>
>The auction has gone
>
>You   LHO   Part   RHO
>Pass  Pass  1C     1H
>
>What is your call?

As they say in the MSC panel:

"2C.  What's the problem?"

Mike Heins		mike@cd.com
From: tac6189@hertz.njit.edu (Tom Carmichael                                                  )
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Ethics questions
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:43:54 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.


>So, back to the original hand.  Partner opens 1NT, and you bid 2H showing
>the majors.  This is your systemic agreement and partner alerts it and
>explains as such when asked.  After partners 2S call, however, you now note
>that all your spades are in fact clubs and you have clubs and hearts.  Note,
>due to your correctly filled out convention card, the Director and
>committee must now believe that you made a mistaken BID.  Therefore, you
>could have thought that 2H showed hearts and a minor or hearts and clubs.  
>Now, when you are under the assumption that you've already shown clubs and
>hearts or hearts and a minor, partner's spade bid would probably be natural
>(perhaps opened one notrump on a max with 5 spades and has no tolerance
>for hearts and no interest in minors unless you have a game going hand).
>Unless you have extra values, extra shape, or no tolerance for partner's
>spades, you should pass.  If you happen to be 0-5-2-6 then it would be
>alright to bid 3C, but I doubt you ever have any recourse with 2 spades
>and less than a game going hand (with game going values, I would expect
>you would have to bid 3S).

	Not to argue your point, but I think there is a point that 
you didn't bring out.  You said that "you could have thought that 2H showed
.... etc, etc."  The point that stands out from the original article is 
that you _know_ that you made a mistake.  You are not under any notion 
that 2H shows Hearts and a minor.  You are aware of the meaning.  (maybe 
you'll have a hard time proving it.....)  This is different from misbidding
and realizing after the alert that you misbid.  This is misbidding, realizing
it, and then hearing the alert.  (At least that is the impression I got.)

I don't know how you could possibly prove that, but it is something to
consider at least.

Tom
From: mojo@Caere.COM (Morris Jones)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bridge Games for IBM PC
Date: 5 Sep 92 00:27:28 GMT
Organization: Caere Corp.

GUF@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>As a new bridge player, I am considering purchasing either "Grand
>Slam Bridge" from Electronic Arts, or "Omar Sharif on Bridge" from
>Interplay.

Omar Sharif on Bridge is a joke ... it plays four-card majors and strong
twos for instance, and none of that is configurable.

Grand Slam Bridge is getting old, but it's still pretty reliable.  It's
not bad for starting out, and my wife and I occasionally use it to play
opposite each other with computer opponents and practice new systems.
It will print your hand if you like, instead of showing it on the screen.

OSoB includes Soundblaster support, with lots of comments from Omar on
every hand:

"The contract is, Two, Spades, by, North.  East, commences play."

You lose a trick and it says, "Odd luck, try again."

You win a trick and it says, "That was GOOD play."  Oh god, spare me.

Fortunately you can turn that stuff off.

Mojo
-- 
Morris Jones
Caere Corp.
mojo@caere.com
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: "Reese&Bird on Naturals&Scientists"
Date: 11 Sep 1992 14:46:31 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu
Keywords: Review

I recently borrowed a copy of Reese and Bird's _Naturals v Scientists:
The Great Match_.  I'm glad I didn't buy it myself.

Frankly, there was very little in the book that I could not have
written myself.  The format is a one-page introduction called
"Terrence Reese on the Prospects", pictures of the participants,
and a chapter for each 16-board segment.  The chapters consist of
two pages per board.  The set of hands is laid out at the beginning
followed by the bidding and a short wrapup of what happened at one
table, then the bidding and what happened at the other table.
Usually at least half of the second page is blank.  Note that I
said "wrapup" and not "analysis".  On only two occasions do the
authors have much to say about a board.  At the end of the session
there's a one-page review that also says very little.

The authors are happy to point out lapses in judgment on the part
of the naturals and Reese, the inventor of the Little Major, says
"I am no great admirer of conventions".  Hardly any attention is
paid to the bidding of the scientists, leaving me with the impression
that the authors didn't bother to learn anything about it.

There follow two pages of "Looking Back at the Match", the high
point of which was Reese's complaint about the format of the vugraph.

My impression is that the naturals made several more errors in
judgment than the scientists, mostly in hand evaluation.  Robson
and Forrester were not in form.  Rodwell and Meckstroth bid well
and Hamman and Wolff defended well.

See if the book is in your library, or borrow it from a friend.
If neither of these is possible, don't buy the book but save up
your money for one of the excellent series of world championship
books.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao)
Subject: Another swing involving a Multi
Originator: daveshao@leland.Stanford.EDU
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 22:31:51 GMT

1991 NEC World Championships--Quarterfinals 
Board 6 of the first of six 16 board segments.
(Source: World Championship Book 1991)

Vul:EW     J8
Dlr:E      JT9764
           KJ6
           Q9
97                  AQT432
K83                 5
AQT94               75
653                 K742
           K65
           AQ2
           832
           AJT8

Bermuda Bowl quarterfinals: Iceland v USA II
Open Room
West        North        East      South
Feldman     Baldursson   Bramley   Jorgensen
-           -            2S        x
3D*         4H           4S        x
P           P            P
Result: NS -800

Closed Room
West        North        East      South
Arnarson    Weinstein    Jonsson   Stewart 
-           -            2D*       P
2S          P            P         x
P           3H           P         P
P
Result: NS +170, 12 IMPs to Iceland. 

Venice Cup quarterfinals: Japan v USA I
Open Room
West        North        East      South
Meyers      Hayashi      Schulle   Aoki
-           -            2D*       P
2S          P            P         P
Result: NS -100

Closed Room
West        North        East      South
Tan         Chambers     Shimamura Bjerkan 
-           -            2S        x
P           4H           P         P
P
Result: NS +420, 8 IMPs to USA I
From: zilch@apples.Eng.Sun.COM (John Hoffman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: 1S-2D-3C
Date: 9 Sep 92 01:32:59 GMT
Reply-To: zilch@apples.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: apples

rainbow@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rob Buchner) writes:

> Not so fast. I agree, I play that as a splinter too, and I tried
> using this very example only to hear that 1C-1H-2D is a reverse
> and therefore 1C-1H-3D is a strong jump shift and 1C-1H-4D is
> the splinter bid. You don't make a reverse with a 19+ points.
> Apparently there are lots of people who also play this style.

I suppose this goes to show that anything worth playing is worth 
discussing to make sure you agree with partner. 

I do not agree with the idea that a reverse is limited
(or passable), especially if you play splinters.

Time to hear from others: do you agree with either of these statements:
1.  Your preferred style is that a reverse is limited to something below 20+ points
2.  A lot of other people who play splinters also play that a reverse
	is limited to something below 20+ points.

Just trying to know what to expect from the 40+ new partners
that I play with each year...

John Hoffman
From: bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:26:47 GMT
Subject: Re: Preemption and Interference overrated?
Organization: Princeton University
X-Subliminal-Message: You can quit reading news anytime you want.

In article <1992Sep10.113057.20970@galois.mit.edu> maboyiny@ccvax.as.edu.tw (Dr. Weird) writes:
|[ALAN JAFFRAY responding]
|
|>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,  
|
|Seems presumptious to say that when the whole world's best pair in the
|Americanocentric view plays Precision throughout.
|

Of course, "the whole world's best pair" has extremely voluminous agreements
about interference over a club opening.  Didn't you make some comment earlier
that a good pair can play an inferior system and still win?

|Kidding aside, I am beginning to wonder whether all this preemption is
|really worth its while.  My unofficial count is that I get more penalties
|over my own big club than the difference between constructive auctions to a
|beautiful spot and completely messed up constructive auctions,
|percentagewise.  Something is wrong here.
|

Perhaps you're over-rating the efficacy of doubling pre-empts, esp. when the
pre-empter is non-vul.  It's often quite hard to determine just how much
the pre-empt is going down and whether your side has a game, and even getting
a nice penalty when you open a strong club may not be good enough.  I've had
decent enough results playing a fert, even against opponents who are
interested in doubling.

ben
--

Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge