HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao)
Subject: Re: Bidding problem
Reply-To: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:39:24 GMT

adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) writes:

>In article <1dmjrqINNgt8@transfer.stratus.com> tnh@sw.stratus.com 
>(Tim Hill) writes:

>> In article <9211090824.aa21965@Paris.ics.uci.edu>, kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU
>> (Dennis Kibler) writes:
>> > No opposition bidding, 2/1 with WJS.
>> > North deals and opens 1 spade. South responds 2 clubs.
>> > Now what?
>> > 
>> >   North: QJxxxx, AKQx, xxx,--
>> > 
>> >   South: K10x, xx,Axx,AKQxx
>>
>>     1S   2C
>>     2H   2S
>>     3C   3D
>>     3H   4C
>>     4H   5N
>>     6S   P
>>

>I can't agree with the 3C bid by North.  I think this sounds like a
>"pattern" bid, showing some length in clubs (3+) and implying diamond
>shortness.

Agreed - a 5-4-1-3 or so...

>4C (splinter) may work out the best.  It should warn South not to get

this is wrong -- a good rule of thumb in NOT to splinter in partner's
suit.  First of all, it can lead to extreme confusion and secondly you
already know to devalue  your hand.  I would keep 4C for a super fit
hand with a 5-4-0-4 shape...

>too excited if he has wasted values in clubs (KJxxx) or no help in
>diamonds.  (North might have bid 3D with 5-4-3-1 distribution and some
>values in diamonds.  I don't like bidding 3D with the North hand on 3
>small.) 

Why bid 3D at all?  Why is everyone getting so excited with Norths
hand.  You have a 12 count, a VOID in partner's suit, and while you do
have 6 trumps you are missing the AK.  Simply leap to 4S showing
little interest and pinpointing the diamond weakness.  partmer has
enough to bid 6S GIVEN that he holds the DA.  Note that with
Kxx,xx,KQx,AKQxx he should not jump to 6S (perhaps a try with 5C or
just 5S showing the good club suit).

>Since I was Dennis' partner on this hand, I'm sure I'll have more to
>say about this.
>                                        -- Adam

The above hands can be bid very simply with 1s-2c-2h-2s-4s-6s-p.

Bharat
 
--
R. Bharat Rao                          E-mail: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu 
AI Group, Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology
405 N. Mathews, Urbana, IL 61801  (217)337-6498(H)
Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana
OFFICE: (217)244-0292, 333-5978 (NOTE new numbers)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Club Raise
Date: 6 Nov 1992 19:19:26 -0600
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: coltexo.cs.utexas.edu

In article <7970@transfer.stratus.com> tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill) writes:
>In article <1d3skaINNcr6@agate.berkeley.edu>, grove@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Eddie Grove) writes:
 
>> This question is inspired by (b) in the Bridge World November MSC:
 
>> Pard  You
>> 1D    2C
>> 3C    3S
>> 3N
 
>> Is partner supposed to raise 3S to 4S when holding 4 spades?

>If partner had four spades, should he have rebid 2S rather than 3C (even
>with a minimum opener)?  I think so, but I don't know the Official Bridge
>World Standard Understanding.

>The BWS summary does say that a "2C response to 1D does not promise a rebid."
>What I think this means is that responder may pass after 1D-2C-2D, 1D-2C-2N,
>or 1D-2C-3C.  1D-2C-2M do not promise extra values, but are unlimited and
>therefore do require responder to bid once more.  In 1D-2C-2D, 1D-2C-2N,
>and 1D-2C-3C, opener denies a four-card major.  1D-2C-3M are splinters.

>(I hope this will stir up some discussion, and maybe even an authoritative
>posting on 1D-2C in BWS.)

Someday soon everyone will have been taught an entirely different
version of 2/1 from anyone else and each will think hir own standard.

BWS doesn't mention that 2M requires extras because in 1984 when it
came out nobody in hir right mind thought it didn't.  Minimum rebids
are 2D, 2NT, and (perhaps) 3C.  I would be the first to affirm that
this is less than ideal, but making 2M a minimum rebid is not usually
considered a solution.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: reha@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (reha.gur)
Subject: IMP play problem
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:49:27 GMT


This hand came up at a recent flight A swiss:

North:	K x x
	Q x
	A K Q x x x
	10 x

South:	A Q J x
	A x x
	x
	A x x x x
	
Opening lead 10 of diamonds (not journalist)

The contract is 4 spades with silent opponents.
How do you play the hand at IMPS?

I realize that you might want to back the bidding to 3NT which has
10 tricks of the top, but I think 4 spades is a better contract.

reha gur
From: bs@fatima.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Committee Ruling - Opinions?
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:22:15 GMT
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA

In article <ted.721337643@sage0> ted@sage0.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) writes:
 
stuff deleted....

:	In this case, N/S were definitely damaged by the failure to alert
:	and explain.  However, no reasonable result can be assigned (would
:	they have sacked in 5S?  Would E/W then have competed to 6D, which
:	makes?).  Hence I would award an A+ to N/S and an A- to E/W and

6D does not make. Try A hearts, heart ruff.

6H makes, but the auction shows that E-W were unlikely in the extreme
to wind up in a heart contract.

It is also equally unclear that N-S will sack over 5 of a minor.
They may already be getting a good score because the opponents are
not playing in hearts.

--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Club Raise
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:33:31 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1d3skaINNcr6@agate.berkeley.edu>, grove@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Eddie Grove) writes:
> 
> This question is inspired by (b) in the Bridge World November MSC:
> 
> Pard  You
> 1D    2C
> 3C    3S
> 3N
> 
> Is partner supposed to raise 3S to 4S when holding 4 spades?

If partner had four spades, should he have rebid 2S rather than 3C (even
with a minimum opener)?  I think so, but I don't know the Official Bridge
World Standard Understanding.

The BWS summary does say that a "2C response to 1D does not promise a rebid."
What I think this means is that responder may pass after 1D-2C-2D, 1D-2C-2N,
or 1D-2C-3C.  1D-2C-2M do not promise extra values, but are unlimited and
therefore do require responder to bid once more.  In 1D-2C-2D, 1D-2C-2N,
and 1D-2C-3C, opener denies a four-card major.  1D-2C-3M are splinters.

(I hope this will stir up some discussion, and maybe even an authoritative
posting on 1D-2C in BWS.)

So, I think 1D-2C-3C-3S promises a spade stopper, denies a heart stopper, and
does not promise four spades.  Partner's choices are 3N and 4C.

> Playing 15-17 NT, 2/1 style,

Which 2/1 style?  Is 1D-2C forcing at least to 3N or 4m?  Does 1D-2C-2M
promise extra values?  Does 1D-2C-3C deny a four-card major?

> what does partner have?  Could it be
> 
> x,QJx,KQxxx,AQxx (splinter?)     No - 3S (this IS a splinter, right?!)
> x,QJx,Kxxxx,AQxx (open?)         I might open this.  If 1D-2C isn't a GF,
                                      I just raise to 3C.  If 1D-2C is a
                                      a GF, I splinter.
> x,QJxx,KQxxx,AQx                 No - 2H
> x,QJxx,KQxx,AQxx                 No - 2H
> xx,QJx,KQxxx,AQx                 No - 2D
> xx,QJx,KQxx,AQxx                 Yes
> xx,QJxx,KQxx,AQx                 No - 2H
> xx,Kx,KQxxx,AQxx                 Yes
> xxx,Kx,KQxx,AQxx                 Yes
> xxx,Kx,KQxxx,AQx                 No - 2D
> 
> These are full openers.  Does it make any difference if the DKQ is
> changed to DAx or DKx?

Nope.  That's like asking whether a Blackwood responder should reduce his
ace count if he might have overbid earlier in the auction.  If opening was
wrong, denying a heart stopper won't make it right.  How does opener know
whether responder has AKQ xx Ax KJxxxx?

> or maybe s/he has more:
> 
> x,QJx,AKxxx,AQxx (splinter?)     No - 3S
> x,QJxx,AKxxx,AQx (reverse?)      No - 2H
> xx,Kx,AKxxx,AQxx (jump raise?)   No - 4C
> 
> 
> So what hands are possible?

See above.

> Which hands, if any, are a raise to 3C, but then
> should not bid 3N over 3S?

xx,xx,AKxxx,AQxx, for example

> I would think opener's rebid in an uncontested auction should be a system 
> question, not a scoring question.  Shows what I know.  Are any answers 
> different at matchpoints vs rubber?

I don't think opener has any scoring-dependent decisions in this auction,
but responder's rebid might well have been influenced by the scoring.


                                    Tim
From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Legal and illegal information after bid out of turn
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:43:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: sq.1992Nov6.234343.8309
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada

Adam Beneschan (adam@irvine.com) answers my query:
 
>    Summary:  East opened 1NT at North's turn to call.  The bidding reverted
>    to North, who opened 1 diamond.  East then bid 1NT, to avoid lead penal-
>    ties and barring his partner for the entire auction.  E-W play that an
>    opening 1NT shows 10-12, while a 1NT overcall shows 16-19.
> 
> Surprisingly (to me, at least), the answer ... is ...
> West is *not* required to bid and defend as though his partner
> has 16-19 HCP.  Part II(C) of the Proprieties states:  

My thanks to Adam and to Steve Willner who made a similar response in email.
I share his surprise at the existence of the rule; two others who wrote to
me also agreed that bridge principles seemed to demand the opposite.

>     After the offending side has paid the prescribed penalty for
>     an inadvertent infraction, it is proper for the offenders to
>     make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though
>     they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction.
> 
> So it is proper for West to assume that his partner has 10-12 HCP and
> bid and defend accordingly.  Apparently, the drafters of the Laws felt
> that being barred for one round was enough penalty.  (Apparently, they
> also changed their minds about this later, since Mark says that the
> 1987 laws bar West for the entire auction.)

No, that was only if East made a call other than in notrump, the
denomination of his original bid.  (Side remark: I detest the term
"denomination" for "suit or notrump"; it sounds as though it ought
to be a synonym for "level".  On the other hand, the only other
term I've heard is "strain", and I don't care for it either...)

A point occurs to me which has not yet been mentioned by anyone.  In the
original posting, I said "It was clear that East thought he was opening,
not overcalling."  As I recall, the reason that it was clear was that
East said "Oh, didn't you pass?" or something like that to North.  As I
said, it was an informal game!  If we were playing with any degree of
seriousness, this would be a violation of propriety since it tells West 
that East thought he was opening and not overcalling.

The illegal bid, by itself, tells West only that *either* East has
16-19 and thought he was overvcalling, *or* he has 10-12 and thought
he was opening.  As I see it, it is therefore proper for East to
assume that 10-12 is correct only after he has enough information to
rule out the other case, though he might assume it provisionally on
probabilistic grounds.   With the illegal remark by East, as I see
it, West can't even do that; he has to make the choice not suggested
by the illegal information and assume 16-19.

Further comments welcome...
-- 
Mark Brader				"What's fair got to do with it?
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto			 It's going to happen."
utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com			-- Lawrence of Arabia

This article is in the public domain.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: geppo@spot.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi)
Subject: Re: IMP play problem
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 02:54:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.184927.19839@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> reha@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (reha.gur) writes:
>
>This hand came up at a recent flight A swiss:
>
>North:	K x x
>	Q x
>	A K Q x x x
>	10 x
>
>South:	A Q J x
>	A x x
>	x
>	A x x x x
>	
>Opening lead 10 of diamonds (not journalist)
>
>The contract is 4 spades with silent opponents.
>How do you play the hand at IMPS?
>
>I realize that you might want to back the bidding to 3NT which has
>10 tricks of the top, but I think 4 spades is a better contract.
>
>reha gur

After the lead it is practically sure that diamonds don't split.

Thus a reasonable play seems to be the following: Take the lead with the A,
small diamond ruffed with the _small_ spade, and heart for the Q.

1) if the K appears on the left, the problems are finished: 
   a) in case of club return, take with the A, H->Q, S->A, HA discarding
      clubs, club ruffed small and the last three tricks crossruffing with the
      spade honors (total 4S + 2 ruffs in dummy + AQ hearts + DA + CA = 10)
   b) similar with a heart return.
   c) in case of trump return, take with the SA, cash the SQ hoping spades
      don't split 5-1, H->Q and play the diamond honors, waiting for the ruff 
      and coming back in dummy with the K of spade (drawing the last trump 
      of the opponents).

In order to play the line a) and b) it's necessary to ruff with a low spade 
the first diamond, thus I lose with a 5-1 diamons split.

2) if the KH is on the right, the only chance is to play for the spade 3-3.

3) if the Q of heart wins (LHO ducks), play heart for the A the third heart
   discarding a spade. Depending on the return, play like the case 1).

Basically the percentage of this line is about 50% + 18% = 68% (actually
something less, being necessary, with the HK onside, to find D 
not 5-1, spades not 5-1 in case of trump return and H not 6-2 and C 
not 5-1 in case of club or heart return).

Giuseppe.
From: doug@cm.deakin.OZ.AU (Douglas Newlands)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Competitive evaluation.
Keywords: competitive evaluation
Date: 9 Nov 92 09:13:07 GMT
Organization: Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: aragorn.cm.deakin.oz.au

In article <1992Nov8.145418.5591@ms.uky.edu: taddiken@ms.uky.edu (scott taddiken) writes:
: W   N   E   S
:--- --- --- ---
:1d   p  1s   ?
:
:You, South, hold either:
:
:42                            KJ765
:AQT87          OR             AQT87
:KJ765                         42
:3                             3
:
:Clearly, you would rather call 2h on the second hand than on the first.
:But how much stronger is the second hand on this auction?

:I will continue to
:fumble in the darkness for rules of thumb.

No need to fumble, I don't think you are even close to having a bid with
either hand. You've got about 4 tricks. Trump quality is poor. The opponents 
are unlimited. The hands appear to be a misfit for both sides; a disaster for 
whoever wins the auction. Altogether a most unattractive hand on which to
overcall.

I hope you don't play for money if you overcall like this :-)

doug.
From: bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: 12 Nov 92 09:31:57 GMT
Subject: Re: Bidding problem
Organization: Princeton University
X-Subliminal-Message: You can quit reading news anytime you want.

In article <1dqvutINNagb@transfer.stratus.com> tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill) writes:
|In article <1dmjrqINNgt8@transfer.stratus.com>, tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill) writes:
|> In article <9211090824.aa21965@Paris.ics.uci.edu>, kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler) writes:
|> > No opposition bidding, 2/1 with WJS.
|> > North deals and opens 1 spade. South responds 2 clubs.
|> > Now what?
|> > 
|> >   North: QJxxxx, AKQx, xxx,--
|> > 
|> >   South: K10x, xx,Axx,AKQxx
|> 
|>     1S   2C
|>     2H   2S   ...
|
|Upon reviewing Hardy (Two Over One Game Force, Revised) and Lawrence (Workbook
|on the Two Over One System), I see that 2S is Systemically Incorrect.  Lawrence
|and Hardy agree on these systemic meanings for 1S-2C-2H-nS:
|
|     4S   Good spades, good clubs, no first or second round control in the
|          red suits
|     3S   Slam interest, 16+, at least QJx in spades
|     2S   Neither of the above (at least three spades)
|

It seems to me more sensible that 3S ought to show 4 spades with an honor
as well as slam interest, because it uses up lots of space.  Often there's
a big difference between 5-3 or even 6-3 fits and 5-4 fits.

|Adam Beneschan, Olof Morell, Bharat Rao, and Don Varvel all suggested that
|1S-2C,2H-2S,3C shows club support rather than first round club control.
|That's certainly a possible interpretation.  If Lawrence or Hardy gives the
|systemic interpretation, I can't find it.
|
|If 1S-2C,2H-2S,3C shows club support rather than first round club control,
|when DO you stop showing suits and start showing controls?  (Remember that
|1S-2C,2H-2S has already established a major-suit fit and a game force.)

It seems more sensible to me to have low bids be pattern-showing rather
than cueing, because the pattern is important in hand judgement and there's
lots of room for cueing.  Generally, I would think that suits below 3 of
trump should be pattern and suits above 3 of trump cues.

ben
--

Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
From: taylor@foraker.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Eric Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Comments Please
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:40:33 GMT

In article <thijs.720875456@ei0>, thijs@ei0.ei.ele.tue.nl (Thijs Veugen) writes:
|> We play Dutch ACOL, i.e. 5card spades, 4card hearts, strong NT, 2/1 not
|> GF.
|> I would like some comments on the following hands (IMP's):
|> 
|> 1. South			North
|> 	A8xxx			QJx
|> 	JTxx			Axx
|> 	AKxx			Qxx
|> 	-				xxxx
|> 
|> 	White vs. red:
|> 	1s				1NT
|> 	2h				3s
|> 	4s				all pass
|> 
|> 	Result: -2
|> 
|> 	What about the 1NT bid and the final contract?


1NT is fine.  I don't like the raise to 3S.  2S seems adequate.
9 losers and a balanced hand does not usually play well in a 5-3 fit.
The 4S raise is fine.

The contract is certainly playable.  But rough.  A dummy reversal might work out.



|> 
|> 2. South			North
|> 	T				AKQJxx
|> 	-				xxx
|> 	AJTxxxx		KQx
|> 	Axxxx			x
|> 
|> 	All white:
|> 	W		N		E		S
|> 	1c		2s		3h		4d
|> 	4h		4s		all pass
|> 
|> 	Result: +3
|> 
|> 	2s shows openingstrength and a good 6card. 
|> 	7d and 7s allways makes. 

South bid 4D and North has KQx?   Opponents are at 4H and you have
3 small?  I salivate at slam.   4S is way too timid.


|> 
|> 3. South			North
|> 	Kxx			Qxx
|> 	KQ9xx			x
|> 	Qxxx			Ax
|> 	x				AKxxxxx
|> 	
|> 	Red vs. white:
|> 	-				1c
|> 	1h				2c
|> 	2d				3c
|> 	pass
|> 
|> 	Result: +1
|> 
|> 	2d is roundforcing.
|> 	3NT is the better contract provided they don't lead dK.

If you are playing sound openers, I think 3N by South is a good call.
You have a known 8 card fit with plenty of tricks.   You should certainly be
able to eke out a 9th trick.

You may be beaten with a spade lead with accurate defense and a well placed spade ace
depending upon who is declarer.
From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Euchre/500
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:59:10 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbootay.sw.stratus.com

In article <wiley.721328175@crooks>, wiley@crooks.b11.ingr.com (Dave Wiley) writes:
> Quick question.  In those games which use a right and left "bower"
> (jack of trump and jack of same colored suit), does the left bower
> count as the trump suit?

Yes.

> For example, if clubs is trump, the jack
> of spades is the left bower.  If trump is led would one be forced
> to play the jack of spades to follow suit?

Yes.

> Conversely, if spades
> is led can one sluff if the jack is your only remaining spade?

Yes.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se (Lars Andersson)
Subject: Re: Bidding problem
Reply-To: ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:04:36 GMT

In article 1dqvutINNagb@transfer.stratus.com, tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill) writes:
>In article <1dmjrqINNgt8@transfer.stratus.com>, tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill) writes:
>> In article <9211090824.aa21965@Paris.ics.uci.edu>, kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler) writes:

>>     1S   2C
>>     2H   2S   ...
>

>     3S   Slam interest, 16+, at least QJx in spades

>In any case, Lawrence and Hardy clearly state that opener should cuebid
>after 1S-2C,2H-3S.

I suggest a small refinement here;
3N	No shortness (but extra values?)
4min	shortness
4H	Cue (preferably AK)

Over 1H-2C, 2D-3H;
3S	No shortness
3N	spade shortness 
4C	club shortness
4D	AK

--lars
From: taylor@foraker.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Eric Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bidding problem
Date: 13 Nov 92 01:24:14 GMT

In article <9211090824.aa21965@Paris.ics.uci.edu>, kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler) writes:
|> No opposition bidding, 2/1 with WJS.
|> North deals and opens 1 spade. South responds 2 clubs.
|> Now what?
|> 
|>   North: QJxxxx, AKQx, xxx,--
|> 
|>   South: K10x, xx,Axx,AKQxx

1S	2C
2H	2S
3S

At this point, South knows north has 3 cards in the minors.
We can cover 3 of them plus a heart.  Only 1 heart ruff is needed.
The only pertinent question is, what can partner do with his first
2 hearts?  We can only find this out with cue-bidding.

	4C
4H	5D
5H	5N	(GSF)
6S
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: pynq@quads.uchicago.edu (George Jetson)
Subject: Re: Committee Ruling - Opinions?
Reply-To: pynq@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: D. J. Dougherty & Associates
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:20:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.160227.23466@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> jch@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (jeffrey.c.halle) writes:

>
>I might give a small procedural penalty against EW, but their result was
>likely not that great anyway.  I'd give a large procedural penalty against
>NS for wasting the committee's time with a frivolous appeal.  They already
>have a good result, probably near a top.  Of course you could offer them
>6S, which would be down 3 for a bottom (or at least worse than they have now).

This is not at all clear.  As Ted Ying points out, 6D can be beaten, so
it is not at all clear that 5+1 is a bad score.  I would expect it to be
A+ish in most fields.

>> 2nd hand.

>> 
>> In the auction. S opened 1S, E overcalled 2H and N doubled (-ve) and W
>> remained silent.  South claimed that he thought that the high cards were
>> marked, and that without the hesitation, he would have certainly not finessed.
>> South is a good player. E is an LOL.
>
>No adjustment for south.  He should not have been fooled.  The rules and
>properties are clear that any inferences are at his own risk.  EW should
>get the score they'd have gotten if south had gone right.  In addition, there
>should be a LARGE procedural penalty, and a report filed.
	(Against whom, for what?)

If you don't punish this sort of thing, bridge will turn into poker.
I think the goal of not turning the game into a game of bullshit is a
good one.  These LOLs do this sort of thing all the time, and I think in
their minds, they view it as justified - as a way to level the playing
field, since they will never be able to compete on merit.

************************************************************************
A note to new readers:  the weasely :-) symbol is frowned upon in this
group.  Any questions, see Phil Gustafson who will gladly rearrange your
diodes for you.
			- From the AFU FAQ -

	- pynq@quads.uchicago.edu, who is still costing the net
	  hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars, every time he posts -
************************************************************************
From: jcrowley@leotech.mv.com (Jon Crowley)
Sender: uucp@leotech.mv.com