HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: "Computer foursomes: Chaos, but no yelling"
Date: 23 Aug 1992 19:41:21 -0400
Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, Michigan
NNTP-Posting-Host: nigel.msen.com
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

The 23 Aug 1992 Sunday NY Times (front section, p20) writes:

	Imagine a game of bridge in which a dozen or so players,
	cutting in and out randomly, are scattered about a continent.
	Not only can they not see each other but there are no playing
	cards.  If players fall asleep, there is no way to wake them.

	This might sound like a vision of hell to the average player,
	but it may offer a clue to the future of the game.

The article goes on to diagram a deal by Alan Jaffray and Bill Chen which
was played with OKBridge, and gives some phone numbers for those
interested in getting on line.  The author is a little bit confused about
the Internet, calling it an "academic electronic network", which isn't
quite right; I don't know of any other public access Internet sites that
have the software up and running but I'll give it a shot here.

  Edward Vielmetti, vice president for research, Msen Inc. emv@Msen.com
        Msen Inc., 628 Brooks, Ann Arbor MI  48103 +1 313 998 4562
           (contact info@msen.com for connection information)
From: taylor@foraker.tivoli.com (Eric Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: What would you bid?
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:02:15 GMT
Organization: TIVOLI Systems, Inc.

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.
From: davidm@voltaire.Rational.COM (David Moore)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: New Suit over Preempt
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:09:30 GMT

willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) writes:

>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

I was the person who said it was non-forcing. However non-forcing does
not equal mandatory sign-off. The bid is highly encouraging. Without
agreements to the contrary, I would play it as a limit bid; partner expects 
to make 3S opposite average rubbish. It is NEVER made simply because you do 
not like partner's suit, which is what the "Life Master" seems to have done. 
He does not have his bid.

On the particular hand, it is a close decision between pass and 4S. Having the 
King of spades rather than 2 small is a value but not having the club ace and
being 2-2 in the reds are both negatives. 
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: what went wrong?
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:13:24 GMT

In article <BtLMp5.I5D@news.cso.uiuc.edu> j-grout@uiuc.edu writes:
:olle@astro.uu.se (Olof Morell) writes:
:
:>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 ?
:
:Presumably, they are playing a 2D or 2H opening as Flannery (11+ to 16- HCP, 5
:hearts, 4 spades)... with this understanding, a 1H opener either hasn't 4
 
Huh? I don't follow this at all. I think the auction is perfectly reasonable.
The 1H bidder has a 19 count and they play 3H as forcing (presumably with
some kind of signoff, e.g. Wolff or Kantar available). The 3S bid is either
3 card support [offering choice of 4H or 4S], or a cuebid according to
their agreements.

I would expect something like:

Axx
Axxxx
AQx
AJ

or similar from opener.

I do believe responder should take a call other than a simple 4H over
3S because he has slam going values, but there is nothing strange
about the auction. Why do others believe this auction is strange?
 
I would bid 4D over the 3S call with responder's hand.

--
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"
From: matthew@base.cs.ucla.edu (Matthew Merzbacher)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Splinters w/ A, K -RE: What to bid?
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:08:46 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department

>	What is the r.g.b.consensus (is there) on splintering with
>	a) Stiff Ace
>	b) Stiff King
>	c) Void

I dislike splintering with either a stiff ace or a void, but a stiff King is
OK (not great, but OK).  However, when deciding whether or not to play 
splinters, I try to discuss this with my partner in advance.

With many conventions, it is not enough just to agree to play them.
--

Matthew Merzbacher	ARPA:	matthew@CS.UCLA.EDU
Moo - Moo Moo  		UUCP:	...!{uunet|rutgers|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!matthew
               		This time, *with* the oys
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: RGB Etiquette (WAS: Try this one)
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:26:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.205719.27055@speedy.aero.org> (martino@courier6.aero.org(Nick Martino)) writes:
:
stuff deleted....

:Being a relative newcomer to r.g.b., I am curious if a code of etiquette
:has ever been set forth in writing for this thread.  If one hasn't, perhaps
:it should be.  If it has already, could someone please post it once more.	 
:It does seem to me that some of the postings of late have been
:mean-spirited and/or self-serving.  No, I'm not saying we should change the
:name to rec.games.kinder.gentler.bridge.  I think the majority of readers
:appreciate an occasional dose of sarcasm.  However, I do feel that it is
:inappropriate to ridicule very inexperienced players who take the trouble
:to post an article.  It is one thing for R. McNeil to roast Terence Reese,
 
Of course it is inappropriate. The problem is that I believe that the
default assumption within the newsgroup is that posters are at least
moderately experienced. Thus, unless you say "I am a novice, please help"
others have no way of knowing and would tend to treat you as if you
were more experienced.

Errors that SHOULD be ridiculed if made by an experienced player are
simple mistakes to a novice, but how does everyone else know?
--
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"
From: jj@alice.att.com (alice!jj)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Bid this, or something
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:56:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23573
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

Well, either I'm not too bright, or something.

What do people suggest for bidding methods over pre-empts (he's
asking it again).

Case in point. You are third hand.  Partner opens 2D (weak, pre-empt,
implies at least 2 honors and 6 cards, no voids, at most
one singleton, but better none.  I'd prefer none, but we've
had this discussion a few times). 

You hold

S - A K 3 2
H - K J 10 9 6
D - <nil>
C - K Q 9 6

Bid what?  (actual auction deleted, ridicule expected and likely deserved)

As an aside, pard holds:


S - 7 4
H - Q 7
D - A K 10 9 8 5
C - 8 5 2

I'm sure we're doing something wrong. Care to enlighten me?
-- 
 Bush    *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
   vs       *by USENET and like facilities granted.      Said permission is
 Clinton  --    *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
 Just Say !NO!       *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: dberman@cs.washington.edu (Deborah Berman)
Subject: Re: Bid this, or something
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 18:38:21 GMT

In article <23573@alice.att.com> jj@alice.att.com (alice!jj) writes:
>Well, either I'm not too bright, or something.
>
>What do people suggest for bidding methods over pre-empts (he's
>asking it again).
>
>Case in point. You are third hand.  Partner opens 2D (weak, pre-empt,
>implies at least 2 honors and 6 cards, no voids, at most
>one singleton, but better none.  I'd prefer none, but we've
>had this discussion a few times). 
>
>You hold
>
>S - A K 3 2
>H - K J 10 9 6
>D - <nil>
>C - K Q 9 6
>
>Bid what?  (actual auction deleted, ridicule expected and likely deserved)
>
>As an aside, pard holds:
>
>
>S - 7 4
>H - Q 7
>D - A K 10 9 8 5
>C - 8 5 2
>
>I'm sure we're doing something wrong. Care to enlighten me?
>-- 
> Bush    *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
>   vs       *by USENET and like facilities granted.      Said permission is
> Clinton  --    *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
> Just Say !NO!       *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.

Is this Just Say !NO! to Bush or to Clinton? :)

I would bid 2nt asking for an outside feature, upon hearing none, I would
bid 3nt to play.  Even if I hear one, I would bid 3nt to play.  It seems
to me to be the right contract, even with the void, since pard doesn't
have a void, and my hand looks good in the other three suits.

No flames, please.  Just nice intellectual exchanges...

Deb

-- 
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend...
   Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.  (Groucho Marx)
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Need some help
Date: 2 Sep 1992 15:49:35 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: notrees.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Sep2.172429.20242@tamsun.tamu.edu> andrewd@tamsun.tamu.edu (Andrew T Duchowski) writes:
>Hi, 

>I'm new to rec.games.bridge, and I just started playing
>okbridge.  I'm an ok player, I've won a few hands, got
>whipped on others.  I can play with people I've played
>with before, because we know what we're doing, but I don't
>know how to call certain actions so that I can communicate
>my intentions more effectively to my partner and to 
>opponents.

>I'd like to be more familiar with some of the many bidding
>conventions that I see on okbridge, as well as some of the
>coined terms, including:
>  Stayman, 
>  Blackwood,
>  reverse bid
>  Jacobian transfers

Jacoby transfers.

>  etc....

>Is there a book someone could suggest that would explain these
>terms?

First of all, I *really* appreciate your asking.  OKBridge may
eventually be a very good thing.  Right now it has some problems,
which I'll talk about below.

While I am *far* from agreeing with everything they recommend,
and it's a bit out of date, I suggest _Modern Bidding Conventions_
(or something like that) by Root and Pavlicek.

I had something like the following conversation on OKBridge the
other day, where "D" is me and "P" is partner.

D: What do you play?
P: SA 5cm limit raises, but I don't know Jacoby 2NT.  What range
   for 2NT bid?  11-12 or 13-15?
D: What *do* you use for a forcing raise?
P: New suits are forcing.
D: I open 1S and you have Kxxx AQx QTxx Qx.  What do you bid?
P: CQ not worth much, 3S.  [I consider even Kxxx AQx QTxx xx worth
   a game force, but decided to press on.]
D: Then make it Kxxx AQx QTxx Kx.
P: That why I ask about 2NT range.  13-15?
D: To hell with it.  Bid.

That partner actually turned out to be pretty good, by OKBridge
standards.  He played very sound defense and we had no bidding 
misunderstandings.

Matt, if you're reading this, would you consider including in the
distribution materials definitions of the abbreviations used and
maybe a brief explanation of Yellow Card?  How about a player's
directory?

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
From: bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: 26 Aug 92 04:09:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Preempt, how big?!
Organization: Princeton University
X-Subliminal-Message: You can quit reading news anytime you want.

In article <17cum8INNmvq@cs.utexas.edu> varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) writes:
|In article <1992Aug24.205635.22861@rayssd.ssd.ray.com> sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Myerson) writes:
|>In article <1992Aug23.234921.26054@bhprtc.scpd.oz.au> David Faulkner writes:
|
|>* At favourable vul, you hold   S  x, H  -, D  KTxxx, C  QT98xxx
| 
|>* RHO opens 1S.
|>* What do you bid?
| 
|>* (By the way, rather than preempting in clubs, as I did, should I
|>* consider overcalling 2NT for the minors?)
|

I think I would pre-empt 4H, and bid 5C if doubled.

(of course partner will probably raise you to 6H :-)

ben
--

Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
From: fishberg@cs.swarthmore.edu (Dylan Steinberg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: A question of ethics
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:08:05 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

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?

Clearly you have to alert your agreement and play as if partner has bid
correctly.  You and partner have a clear agreement on how to play this
auction.  If partner has failed to follow that agreement, your knowing that
(however you know it) is unauthorized information and you must bid as though
you don't know it.  Any information you have about partner's bidding that
contradicts your agreed upon system clearly cannot be used by you to make
decisions about your bidding.

--Dylan
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dylan Steinberg				"A foolish consistancy is the
Swarthmore College			hobgoblin of little minds."
Swarthmore, PA				    --Ralph Waldo Emerson
From: jaffray@oreo.berkeley.edu (Alan Jaffray)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: 2/1 theory
Date: 28 Aug 1992 21:13:15 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
NNTP-Posting-Host: oreo.berkeley.edu

In article <3387@tivoli.UUCP> taylor@foraker.tivoli.com (Eric Taylor) writes:
>
>In fact, it might make sense to say
>that the cheapest bid over responder's 2/1 response
>begins a relay sequence showing a better hand than advertised while
>any other bid is limited to, say, 15 points.

I sometimes play a relay system, and like the concept in many cases,
but I dislike the idea of relays after a 2/1.  There's not enough room.

The best situation for a 
relay sequence is when you have enough room to convey all relevant 
information about a hand.  When space is limited, two-way bidding is
often superior since you need to tell partner what you have to get
him to evaluate his cards properly, you don't have enough room to
find out everything and evaluate his cards yourself.

-- Alan
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: holzsche@prl.philips.nl (Con Holzscherer)
Subject: Re: This weekends results from Salsomaggiore
Organization: Philips Research Laboratories, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:56:17 GMT

     Results from the World Bridge Olympiad:


  Ladies: Final:     Austria - England     265 - 218
          3rd place: France  - Germany      52 -  26


  Men: SemiFinals:   USA     - Sweden      149 - 117
                     France  - Netherlands 149 - 115 

       Final:     France  - USA        82 - 38 (64 boards to play)
       3rd place: Netherlands - Sweden 65 - 21 (16 boards to play)

                                                                    Con
-- 
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Con Holzscherer | phone +31-40-744431 | Internet: holzsche@prl.philips.nl  |
| Philips Research,  PO-box 80000, 5600 JA  Eindhoven, The Netherlands       |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: martel@spider.cs.ucdavis.edu (Chip Martel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: bidding
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:03:10 GMT
Reply-To: martel@spider.cs.ucdavis.edu (Chip Martel)

In article <3969@sol.deakin.OZ.AU>, doug@cm.deakin.OZ.AU (Douglas Newlands) writes:
|> In article <17hi6bINNccj@overload.lbl.gov; asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky) writes:
|> ;>Really we just have to settle down and compare
|> ;>which loses 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?
|> 
|> Probably a good measure as long as you are happy with Blue Club being
|> the hands down winner. It has also survived pretty well intact over
|> decades which natural systems haven't in terms of meanings of opening
|> bids, NT ranges, forcingness of sequences.


If you want to evaluate the best systems you would be much
better off using results since 1975. This both allows you
to compare the effectiveness of the best current systems, and, since
screens were introduced in 1975, results since then are a prurer test
of a system's effectiveness.
 To the best of my knowledge, the only top pair in the world who
currently plays Blue Team is Hamman-Wolff (and while they are certainly
a fine pair, few would credit their success to their constructive
bidding).

 However, I would also be the first to admit that judging the
worth of a system by its success by a few players is not very accurate.
A first class pair will be very successful with any decent system they
know well. If a large number of players are successful using
a bidding system, that is  much stronger evidence. Also, if many
experts choose to play a particular system, that suggests that they
have found it works well. If they all play a particular part of the
system the same way, that suggests they are reasonably happy with it
(thus the fact that allmost all of the best 2/1 players do not bid
1H-2D-3C on minimum 5-4 hands is good evidence that this is not the
best way to play).

Finally, it is not at all clear that Blue Club would be is the hands down
winner even if you go back 30-40 years. Typically only one pair on the Blue
Team played Blue Club, and that was only for about a 10 year period (it was
only started around 1960, and they switched to Precision around 1970). If
you count 1 point for a system each time a pair playing that system wins
a world championship, I think that both Precision and 5-card majors with
forcing notrumps would be competitive, and perhaps Roman Club as well
 (I am not prepared to do the exactcalculation). Certainly if you count how MANY different pairs have won using these systems, Blue Club is a hands down loser. 


Chip Martel
From: h75@nikhefh.nikhef.nl (Henk Uijterwaal)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Monday's results from Salsomaggiore
Date: 1 Sep 92 08:19:54 GMT
Reply-To: h75@nikhefh.nikhef.nl (Henk Uijterwaal)
Distribution: world
Organization: Nikhef-H, Amsterdam (the Netherlands).

NOTE: I won't have net-access after Thursday morning. Is there anybody
===== in the Netherlands who reads the Volkskrant and can post the 
      results of the remaining matches? If you do, please send me a mail.
      (I can even phone you the results if necessary). Henk.


Open (After 26 of 29 rounds).
====

    Group A                              Group B
    =======                              =======
 1. Poland             26-470 VP's    1. THE NETHERLANDS  26-504.5 VP's  
 2. Austria               459         2. USA                 495  
 3. Denmark               458         3. Turkey              488  
 4. Israel                453         4. France              478
 5. Egypt                 448         5. Sweden              465
 6. Hong Kong             446         6. Iceland             445.5
 7. Great Britain         437         7. Pakistan            443
 8. Brazil                431         8. Finland/Suomi       427

Today's matches in Group B include:

Round 27: The Netherlands-Monaco, USA-Bermuda, Turkey-Ch.Taipei,
          France-Botswana, Sweden-Finland
Round 28: The Netherlands-Spain, Turkey-Pakistan, France-Liechtenstein,
          Sweden-Thailand. USA: bye.
Round 29: USA-Finland, Turkey-Germany, France-Thailand, Sweden-Botswana.
          The Netherlands: Bye

Women (After 33 of 34 rounds).
=====

   Group A                               Group B
   =======                               =======
1. Germany             33-609 VP's    1. France           33-610 VP's
2. Austria                587         2. Great Britain       607
3. China                  575         3. Sweden              598  
4. THE NETHERLANDS        560         4. Denemark            590 
5. USA                    538         5. Canada              575
6. Japan                  521         6. Australia           557
7. Bulgaria               517.5       7. South Africa        548
8. Israel                 505.5       8. Greece              547
From: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: 1+1
Date: 27 Aug 1992 07:00:57 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Reply-To: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ux5.lbl.gov
Keywords: gunfighters

In article <1992Aug26.232148.18886@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rainbow@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rob Buchner) writes:
>People do not intentionally try to embarrass themselves.
>People's own self interest and survival instincts inhibit
>such behavior. People do not try to make themselves look
>foolish. Nor do people seek out situations in which to
>be ridiculed, humiliated, insulted, or lose self respect.

Haven't read much DeSade lately, have you?  How about Califia?

>the basic fundamentals which have led up to the question.
>Should they be put down for this inadequacy? I doubt it.

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.

>If you point a smoking gun, beware the flames coming back.
>There may be a gunfighter waiting to shoot you down...

Ha!  I won't hold my breath, I'll just go back to asb if I want that.
-- 
"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
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ed@scorpiocmc.ca (Ed Antosz)
Subject: A question of ethics
Reply-To: antosz@scorpio.ic.cmc.ca
Organization: Canadian Microelectronics Corporation
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:33:57 GMT

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?
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge