HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Sheinwold on bridge flub...
Date: 7 Oct 1992 13:08:56 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: bovina.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1av4e2INN1cd@armory.centerline.com> thomaso@centerline.com (Thomas Andrews) writes:
>Today's Sheinwold column has a travesty of a bidding suggestion.
>Here is the problem. You hold:

>        AQ983 KQ7 T AJ97

>You open 1S, partner bids 2H.  Your call.

>Alfy's answer is to bid 4H(!)

>Well, I don't know how partner is supposed to know the slam potential
>of this hand.  I would bid 3C after 2H, planning to bid 4H.

Sheinwold is usually better than that.

The usual rule is that if your hand is a trick better than a simple
game bid you should make a slam try, and if your partner makes a slam
try and you are a half-trick better than minimum for previous bidding
you should accept it.  (This is purely quantitative, of course, and
depends on not having too many fast losers, which must be checked on
by other means.)  This hand is (barely) worth 4H without the ace of 
clubs.  That tells me 4H is too weak a call.  But in momma-papa bidding
it is difficult to come up with a stronger call!  We can rule out the
splinter, and that leaves 3C followed by 4H, which at least shows
extra values.  (I would splinter, myself, but I doubt that's included
in Sheinwold's assumed methods.)  The alternative is an immediate
Blackwood, which seems a bit excessive.

If Sheinwold's point was that 4H is better than 4NT, I'm not sure I
agree, but at least the view is understandable.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
From: maceache@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Tim Maceachern)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Play 6NT
Date: 16 Oct 92 12:23:49 GMT
Organization: NSTN Network Operations Centre, Nova Scotia, Canada

Brynjulv.Hauksson@nr.no (Brynjulv Hauksson) writes:

>All vulnerable, South dealer.

>	J953
>	K64
>	A5
>	K863

>	AK
>	Q72
>	KQ7
>	AQ972

>You are South, and end up in 6NT after the following bidding sequence:
>South				North
>2 NT (20-21)			3 C (intended as stayman)
>3 NT (replied to Baron)		6 NT (believed 2 NT showed 22-24)

>West leads the jack of clubs, and East follows. How do you play?

Cash the minors, ending with a strip sqeeze against West, who has to
discard from H Axx, S Qxx in front of dummy.  Must come down to H Ax, 
so lead to the H K, then duck a heart to the Ace.

I don't think any pressure can be applied to East.

Tim MacEachern
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sajid@jam.wpd.sgi.com (Sajid Zia)
Subject: A Question!
Reply-To: sajid@jam.wpd.sgi.com (Sajid Zia)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:25:58 GMT


So Far I had known that Black Wood Convention means, you have
to bid 4NT to ask for aces. But recently I saw in the bridge section
of newspaper, bidding 4 Clubs may also means asking for aces. Could
somebody clarify when it happens, and what are the other possibilities
for asking for aces?

thanks, sajid

P.S. BTW, Why it is classed Black Wood?
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: A Question!
Date: 13 Oct 1992 17:03:53 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Oct13.164925.20943@sunova.ssc.gov> henk@pdsf.ssc.gov (Henk Uijterwaal) writes:

>ps. If you'd ask me: don't play Gerber at all. The number of hands which
>are suitable for 1/2NT-4C is so limited that you better give it another
>meaning.

If you ask me, in an established partnership consider not using
ace-asking bids at all.  Certainly do it for a while as a training
excercise.  It's amazing how little Blackwood buys you.

Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: 6N Play Problem
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:13:32 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Avi Roy Shapira <avir@chen.bgu.ac.il> writes:
> It is tempting to play the J of clubs on the first round, but it is very
> unlikely to gain.

As this posting was getting ever more fanciful, I was debating whether
to reply.  But this line made it impossible to ignore.

What is so unusual about a 4-4 heart split?  On a normal West hand like
x/xxxx/KJ9xx/T9x of clubs, your line is doomed.  This seems not unlikely
at all.

You also have a good chance of going down if West holds xx/xx/KJ9xxx/T9x.
East will duck two rounds of hearts, and if you play West for
xx/xxx/KJ9xxx/Tx you will misguess in the strip-squeeze ending.

In order to gain, you have to find West with something like
xx/xxx/KJ9xxx/Tx.  Why lead the ten of clubs from this hand?  A spade or
a heart would be better and more usual.

I suspect that some may be (unconsciously) reasoning: "The hand is
posted as a problem, therefore play for the squeeze."

                                        David desJardins
From: brl@kopasker.is (Bjorgvin Runar Leifsson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Choosing the right asking bid in Precision
Date: 11 Oct 92 22:34:35 GMT
Reply-To: brl@kopasker.is (Bjorgvin Runar Leifsson)
Organization: Kopasker Primary, Iceland

Hi, Precionists and others using Italian style and related asking bids.

This hand came up the other day when I was playing with my new partner:

You, the opener:

Sp AQJx
He Kx
Di QT
Cl Axxxx

You open one club, showing 16+ hcp, and partner responds 1 H, showing 5+ suit
and 9+ hcp.  Do you:

a) Bid 1NT, asking for controls
b) Bid 2C, asking for club support and controls
c) Bid 2H, asking about lenght and strenght in the heart suit itself?

If a) then partner will respond 2H, showing 4 controls, now what?
I. Bid 2NT, asking about distribution
II. Bid 3C, asking about club support
III. Bid 3H asking about the heart suit?

If b) then partner will respond 3C, showing at least four clubs with at least
one of top three honors and 4+ controls, now what?
I. Bid 3D, asking about diamond stoppers
II. Bid 3H, asking about the heart suit?

If c), partner will respond 3C, showing 5 hearts with two of top three honors,
now what?
I. Bid 3D
II. Bid 3S, asking for controls
III. Bid 4C, asking for club support and controls?

This is how we bid the hand:

Me    Partner
1C    1H
1NT   2H
2NT   3C
4C    4H
6C

Partner has told me about 5+ hearts, 4 controls and a 4+ club suit with at 
least one of top three honors.  He came up with:

Sp x
He AQxxx
Di Kx
Cl Kxxxx

How did I know that the diamond were stopped?  I didn't!  Anyway, I got a
spade lead, so I took all the tricks, but the small slam is unbeatable.
A small slam in notrumps is not on, the H Jxxx being offside.  But I am not
very proud of myself and the opponents playing the VERY OLD Vienna Club made
a lot of nasty comments about the precisement of Precision :-)

So, what would you do, playing a strong club system with similar asking bids?
How would you choose your asking bids?  It seems to me that if I start with
2C, asking about clubs and controls, then ask about diamonds I know all I
need for the small slam and can even afford an asking bid in hearts.  Does
this state that one should always start with an asking bid in one's own
5+ card suit if there is one?

Bjorgvin R. Leifsson
brl@kopasker.is

Flames are welcome. I think I deserve them :-)
From: pmontgom@math.orst.edu (Peter Montgomery)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: North American Collegiate Bridge Championship
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:02:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.Bw81vM.uv
Organization: Oregon State University Math Department

In article <REISS.92Oct15234143@husc11.harvard.edu> 
reiss@husc11.harvard.edu (Peter Reiss) writes:

>On Tuesday, November 10th, the ACBL will hold the North American
>Collegiate Bridge Championship (NACBC), a nation-wide
>Instant-Matchpoint event.  Any colleges are allowed to have such a
>game on their campuses.  
>
>    ...
>
>It's a lot of fun.

	I tried this at another school last year (or perhaps in 1990?).
We had two tables (4 partnerships).  The two North-South
scores NS_1 and NS_2, were compared against each other, 
as were the two East-West scores EW_1 and EW_2.  Unless
|EW_1 - EW_2| or |NS_1 - NS_2| was large, nobody from our
school would advance to the next level.  In particular, if
all of you are experts and everyone arrives at optimal 
contracts on every hand, then there are no score differentials
and none of you win.  Unless the scoring rules have changed,
I recommend against participating.
-- 
        Peter L. Montgomery              Internet: pmontgom@math.orst.edu
        Dept. of Mathematics, Oregon State Univ, Corvallis, OR 97331-4605 USA
``Who do you trust?''  Those whom I trust know English spelling and grammar.
Our economy needs more business, not more Bushiness.
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Funny story
Date: 13 Oct 1992 16:07:41 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In article <4953@tivoli.UUCP> dinah@rockytop.tivoli.com (Dinah McNutt {sysadmazon}) writes:

Note:  Very few sysadmazons post to r.g.b.  (Hi, Dinah.)

|In article <4932@tivoli.UUCP>, taylor@foraker.tivoli.com (Eric Taylor) writes:
||> White vs White, Playing in a local sectional I pick up:
 
||> K1098
||> QJxx
||> AQx
||> xx
 
||> Like it or not you open 1D.  Partner responds 2C which you alert
||> as game forcing with real clubs.  RHO bids 3S.   You double, all float.
 
||> In all seriousness, RHO then informs me that she thought
||> 2C was forcing to game!!  While I am fumbling for words, partner
||> says, "It certainly does not rule out doubling the opponents."
||> RHO grumbles and says we should start giving complete explanations
||> of our bidding.
 
I think this is an interesting point, besides being incredibly
funny.  When we say "forcing to game" we mean "forcing to game or 
a resonable expectation of getting at least an equivalent score 
on defense."  You would think everyone would realize that.

I once had a chess opponent who was fond of saying, "In a sharp
position, the first person to take a step backwards loses."  I
had an inferior position against him, so I sacrificed a piece in
such a way that the only defense required taking *several* steps
backwards.  He of course took them and won easily.  I asked him
afterwards about his maxim.  He shrugged his shoulders and said,
"Well, you know."  End of discussion.

|Same sectional, same game, different opponents:

|The bidding went:

|1NT on my right
|Pass
|3 NT on my left.
|All pass.

|Dummy came down with 1-4-4-4 distribution. Down 2, vulnerable. (I led
|a spade.) Dummy's explanation for not bidding 2 clubs (Stayman) was that
|she didn't want to describe her hand to the opponents. Everyone else 
|was in 4 hearts making.

This doesn't make nearly as good a story.  It was either a case of
extreme notrumpitis or somebody shooting with very bad judgment.
4441 hands are hard to play, but they almost always play better in
a 4-4 than in NT.  The ruffs make up for the nagging 3rd- and 4th-
round losers.

Lawrence tells the story of setting 2D when he can't make 3C and the
opponents can make 5H.  He expected a good result.  Seems most of
the field opened 1NT on A Q 2   K 3   3 2   A Q T 8 7 6.  That shut
out the opponents and they scored 90 on a spade lead.  Average minus
for setting at the two-level opponents who can make game in another
suit.  Sometimes rabid notrumpitis works.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Forcing Pass (was "Bid these hands" and "Competitive Decision")
From: avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:57:43 GMT
Organization: Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

taylor@foraker.tivoli.com (Eric Taylor) writes:
: In article <1670@idacrd.UUCP>, desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
: |> Eric Taylor <taylor@logan.tivoli.com> writes:
: |> >>>>>> BTW, if you're in the habit of opening strong two-suiters (hands
: |> >>>>>> like, say, -,AKJxx,AKQxxxx,J, from the November 1990 ACBL charity
: |> >>>>>> game) with 2C, you'll find this sort of preemption much harder to
: |> >>>>>> handle.
: |>
:
: Please give some auction where it would hurt to open
: this hand 1 diamond.

This is simple.

Give partner QJxxx, Qx, xx, Axxx with the remaining 13HCP equally divided.

1D p  1S p
2
What do you bid now, that is unconditionally forcing?
lets say, you bid 2H. Now you will hear:
2H p  2N p
3H p  3N p
?
You can never tell that partner has the A of C and Q of hearts. You may get
to 6D but if you bid wither 5D or 4H you will hear a big pass.

most partners will pass, since you denied 16 HCP, you can have at most
- AKJxx AKxxxx xx and either 6h or 6D are clearly against the odds.

The point is that if you open this 1D you have to bid the slam all by yourself
and you cannot get any intelligent cooperation from partner, and you will
never find that partner has the two missing keycards.

According to Garozzo and Forquet, this hand - AKJxx AKxxxx xx is worth a 1C
opening, even though their 1C requires 17 HCP, and they have a good method
of describing this kind of hand.

Avi
From: dej@qpoint.ocunix.on.ca (David Jones)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Elo ratings
Distribution: world
Date: 4 Oct 92 18:19:30 EST
Organization: Dejital Software

In article <1ajc56INNhi0@cs.utexas.edu> varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) writes:
>4. I favor Elo ratings for bridge, largely for political reasons.
>   Most bridge players, and almost certainly the league hierarchy,
>   will oppose them for exactly the same political reasons.  I
>   think that's perfectly valid.

I would also be interested in seeing Elo ratings for bridge because, in
the ACBL at least, you are effectively purchasing masterpoints (in Ottawa,
a club game, a sectional, and a regional tournament will attract the same
players with the same skills, but the entry fee increases with the
masterpoint awards).

However, there is one problem: I don't have a regular partner.  Sometimes
I play with very good players and sometimes I play with "fish".  Given that
the performance of a partnership depends on the performance of BOTH players,
how can one assign a meaningful rating to an individual?

If you can figure out a way of doing it, a lot of players would be
grateful.

>
>-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
>

--
 David Jones, 6730 Tooney Drive, Orleans, Ontario K1C 6R4 CANADA
       email: dej@qpoint.ocunix.on.ca    Fido: 1:163/109.8
 AMIGA: Advanced Multimedia with Interactive Graphics and Audio
From: jacma@IDA.LiU.SE (Jacek Malec)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Salsomaggiore
Date: 16 Oct 92 10:08:09 GMT
Organization: CIS Dept, University of Linkoping, Sweden

Could anybody send me the location of the FTP site keeping the
bulletins from Salsomaggiore.

Thanks in advance,

Witold Lukaszewicz
(witlu@ida.liu.se)
--
Jacek
(Jacek Malec, Dept of Computer and Information Science,
Linkoping University, 581 83 Linkoping, Sweden,
tel. +46 13 282362, fax. +46 13 282606, email: jam@ida.liu.se)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: davidm@voltaire.Rational.COM (David Moore)
Subject: Re: Elo ratings
Organization: Rational
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:56:58 GMT

I daresay the ACBL would adopt Elo ratings if they could be shown to make 
money. The thing to do would be to find a club that was willing to try the
system; and make available the data to allow you to develop the required
formulae, and once it is in use there and attracting players to that club,
start selling it to other clubs/units etc. 

You would need to integrate it into the ACBL score program.

some games Elo games and demonstrate increased attendance at those games.

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: lsimonse@vipunen.hut.fi (Leif Simonsen)
Subject: Re: 6N Play Problem
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: 14 Oct 92 08:21:03 GMT

In <1992Oct12.114931.11821@eua.ericsson.se> ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se (Lars Andersson) writes:


>An interesting (?) declarer play problem.

>AQT752
>7
>AT
>KJ85

>N


>S

>KJ84
>KQJ3
>Q9
>A62

>As South you are declaring 6N. West (LHO) has doubled a diamond bid. North
>has shown a good hand with 6Spades, 4Clubs, ace of diamonds, 2 aces and the queen
>of spades. Actually the bidding was (EW vul) 2S-2N; 3S-4D*-(D); RD-4N; 5S-6N.
>(matchpoints)

>West leads the ten of clubs. Plan the play (with variations).

>--lars



Note that the game never is home if east holds Q9x. There will be no finesse
and no squeeze. If the opponents don't take their ace of hearts until the
third round there will never be the right tempo. (because declearer of
course not can play hearts himself the fourth time)

The only right solution is to play the jack of clubs in the first trick and
than if it does not go finesse again with the 8c. (Much more probable than
a chinese finesse in diamond.)


Kenneth Simonsen
lsimonse@vipunen.hut.fi
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: 6N Play Problem
From: avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:48:37 GMT
Organization: Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

Since the D KJ are marked, one does not have to play the J of clubs on the
first round. If W has the Q, you can surely squeeze it out. But the odds
are heavy that E has the Q.

I would play K of clubs on the first round, and continue with a low heart to
the Q. If this wins, the K of hearts. If the K of hearts wins too and W has
the Ace (you should know by now), strip squeeze Weat in Diamonds.
If E has the Ace, strip squeeze him in Clubs.

If E takes the Ace of hearts, he will return a diamond, to drive out your A.
Now you should hope that E has 5 or more hearts, and play for a double
Squeeze, with clubs as the anchor suit, and menaces H3 against E, Dt against
W.  If W takes the A of heart, and returns a club, you have to hope that
he has the 9, if he returns anything else, the same squeeze options exist + a
red suit squeeze against W, if the discards indicate that W hold 5 Hearts.

It is tempting to play the J of clubs on the first round, but it is very
unlikely to gain.

Avi

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: carney@rocky.rational.com (Mike Carney)
Subject: Bridge program (again)
Organization: Rational, Santa Clara, CA
Distribution: rec
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:55:56 GMT


If this already made it to the net, ignore this. My news program was
acting funny, and I couldn't tell if this actually got posted.

Does anyone out there know of a public domain graphical bridge program
that runs under X (I know it's a lot to ask for :-). I'd like one
that can somehow customize for different bidding systems (That's even
more to ask for!! :-).

Anyway, if you know of one, post the answer to News instead of mailing
me, as I'm sure that there would be other interested parties.

Thanks in advance.



--
 __________________________________________
|                         ______+          |
|   Michael D. Carney    < M    |  \+/     |
|   carney@rational.com  <____C_| _<=>_    |                      
|                               @/, [* ]   |
|   "Remember...                \/[_[**]   |
|    no matter where you        | /_\_*/   |
|    go, there you are" -B.B    | [] []    |
|_______________________________|_d]_[b____|



Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: silver@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Anthony Vernon SILVER)
Subject: Re: Elo ratings
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 08:33:35 GMT

varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) writes:

>In a recent article, curt (someone I see frequently at okbridge)
>suggested Elo ratings.  This has come up before on this forum,
>and I would like to address it.  I think several points must be
>recognized:

>1. Elo ratings are possible in bridge.  For any pair or team of
>   players of known strength playing against another pair or team
>   of players of known strength, there is an expected outcome and
>   an expected error.  These can be translated into ratings.  The
>   initial pool of "known strength" players can be produced by
>   analyzing tournament results.  A couple of arbitrary decisions
>   must be made at the beginning, but there no technical reasons
>   why it can't be done.

An initial pool of known strength players is unnecessary/irrelevant.
The arbitrary decision to be made is actually the expected outcome,
given certain rating differences and so forth.
Everyone could initially be given the same rating - eg 1000, and the
system would take care of the rest...

>3. One of the things that always bothered my about chess 
>   tournaments back when I played the game was that people played
>   often not to win the tournament but to gain rating points or
>   to pick up a class prize.  Class prizes are consolations prizes
>   for people who don't win.  Ratings are indications of strength 
>   and not ends in themselves.

How do these two goals differ? Players may use the ratings as an indication
of whether they are going to win or lose, and, for example, accept a
draw against a higher rated player when in a better position. But
who would condemn someone accepting a draw when they could not guarantee
themselves a win, when it's apparently a good result. Even a draw can
boost confidence and save the anguish of blundering away a win. Aside
from this, players, surely, don't throw games... how can this help
either their rating or chances of a rating prize?? (with the possible
exception of the Swiss Gambit - whose usefulness is dubious anyway)
My guess is that your exception is taken to those who don't always
strive to win... isn't that their business? Do you perhaps have a
general contempt for mediocrity?

I think the idea of developing the rating system for bridge is excellent.
From: taddiken@ms.uky.edu (scott taddiken)
Subject: Defensive falsecard.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 01:19:55 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

You are in 3NT, holding:

         DUMMY: JT987
                3                 The bidding was, perhaps, optimistic:
                6432              V vs NV, opps pass throughout:
                QT9               2c(strong and artificial) 2d (neg) 
                                  2h  2s 
         YOU:   AK                2nt 3nt
                KJT82             All pass.
                AK95
                A2

LHO leads 5c.  You play the 9c, RHO the K, and you take with the A.
The advised line in the text which contained this problem (which I will
keep secret for a day or two) was to unblock the s's, then play off the
A and K of d to see if d's will provide another entry to get the s's.

My problem is this.  It is just possible that RHO holds the protected Qs,
and the d's break 4-1, and when RHO gets in, he will present us with a 
guess (at best) in h's.  Those are, perhaps, long odds.  But at the club
where I play, there are very few RHO's who, holding KJ4 of c's, won't
play the J at the first trick.  So an ironclad method of making (except
against a couple of the better players) is to use the Qc and Tc as your
entries to get the s's.

Question for those of you who defend well:
Were I playing against you, for MPs or $, how likely would it be that
you put up the Kc from KJ4?  From other combinations?

(I'm sorry not to provide you with an entire hand, but that is in fact
part of the question.  What kind of hands would make you play such a 
falsecard?)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott A. Taddiken, University of Kentucky
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge