HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jhaywood@ms.uky.edu (Joel D Haywood)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Least of evils
Keywords: Your guess is as good as mine.
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:23:29 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

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?
You are playing negative doubles and are not playing inverted minors in
competition.

Disclaimer:  I do not have the full hand (as I was not there), so I do not know
which, if any, call(s) are correct resultwise.  I am more interested in what
the number of votes for each call is before I start calling this a four- or
five-way guess.

BTW, I am thinking of sending this to The Bridge World for consideration in
the Master Solvers' Club.  I would appreciate opinions concerning the
appropriateness of this problem.  (The MSC consists of a panel which will
answer the question above and discuss it in print.)  Since this problem does
have at least four possible answers, I thought it would be okay at least to
send.  What do you all think?

Joel
-- 
********************************************************************************                                                                                Joel D. Haywood                         jhaywood@ms.uky.edu                     (606) 231-9083                          jhaywood@ukma.bitnet                                                                                                    ********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: summers%cascades.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jim Summers)
Subject: Re: Need some help
In-reply-to: mikeehli@cie.uoregon.edu's message of Sat, 5 Sep 92 01:43:47 GMT
Organization: U of Utah
	<1992Sep3.010044.8566@msc.cornell.edu>
	<1992Sep5.014347.1318@nntp.uoregon.edu>
Date: 8 Sep 92 10:48:50

   Speaking as a novice bridge player, I agree that OKBridge is a great
   ...
   In addition to the weekly matches for the serious players, maybe there
   should be some events for those of us who are less experienced?

Maybe we should just put "newbie" in our full name.  Of course, then
noone wants to play with you.  It would be nice if there were a 
_LEVEL_ designation (i.e. beginner, medium, advanced, master) so that
you could ask people your level to play -- personally I don't like to
play imp because I feel I'm just upping other people's tally.

LostBoy      varies from day to day on okbridge
jim           

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: A curious question.
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:59:31 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Dr. Weird <maboyiny@ccvax.as.edu.tw> writes:
>No, no, the Rule of Causality (the MGR rule) is designed to allow the
>opponents the POSSIBILITY of switching systems.  To use two different
>systems depending on the meaning of the opp's previous bids you need to
>have them BOTH ready to go.  You are SUPPOSED to prepare beforehand for
>things that people are allowed to throw.

This isn't supported by the Laws, as kindly quoted by Asya:

   LAW 40 E. 1. 2.  At the outset of a round or session, a pair may
   review their opponents' convention card and alter their defenses
   against the opponents' conventional calls and preemptive bids.  This
   must be announced to their opponents.  The opponents may not vary
   their system after being informed of these alterations in defense.

This supports the Rule of Causality, with the understanding (not
explicit in the language of the laws, but reasonable) that a "defense"
to a call or bid is an action taken subsequently to that call or bid.

This says that you don't have to have a previous, prepared agreement of
the form, "If they decide to do this, then we will do that."  You can
make that decision at the table, once it is announced what "this" is.
IMO this is only reasonable; you can't really be expected to prepare a
response in advance to every convention which possibly might be played
against you.

>>>> [...] I believe that the major reason that [Neg.X's over 1N] works is
>>>> that the opponents know that you cannot be too destructive, ...

>>Certainly, though, if negative doubles were really wise, and the
>>substantial majority of players were to start playing them, then it
>>would become worthwhile to preempt more aggressively over 1NT. [...]

>How many times do I have to say this-- you can't do that without giving the
>opp's a chance to switch back to penalty doubles.

It seems significant that the laws specifically distinguish conventions,
"preemptive bids" (are these even defined?), and other bids.  I assume
that a negative or a penalty double is considered a "defense" to an
opponents' system.  Thus, it appears that you are not allowed to react
to your opponents' announcement that they make very light overcalls by
switching to penalty doubles, because this is not a conventional call
but just a treatment.  However, it would be OK over very light jump
overcalls?

It certainly makes sense that you should be able to make the agreement
in advance that doubles of sound overcalls are negative, but doubles of
very light overcalls are penalty.  However a rules lawyer might question
whether this is a legal conventional understanding under ACBL
regulations.  I doubt you would have any trouble at the table, though.

                                        David desJardins
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: A curious question.
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:09:59 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Dr. Weird <maboyiny@ccvax.as.edu.tw> writes:
> ObAnti-American Rant: Of course Wolff and company got an exception inserted
> that this does not apply to people playing Forcing pass systems.  Please
> write the ACBL and register your protest if you agree with me that this is

I assume that this is semi-facetious; I would of course do it, but
arguing with the ACBL is like arguing with a four year old.  I have
better things to do with my time.  Do you really think that it would
have any chance of accomplishing anything?  (Or that this particular
ACBL gaffe is one of their most significant, if I only want to pick the
top few to rant about?)

                                        David desJardins
From: bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:03:05 GMT
Subject: Re: Defense against defense against Precision 1 club
Organization: Princeton University
X-Subliminal-Message: You can quit reading news anytime you want.

In article <C85PERWE.92Sep8095453@odal23.IDA.LiU.SE> c85perwe@und.ida.liu.se writes:
|In article <1041@kopasker.is> brl@kopasker.is (Bjorgvin Runar Leifsson) writes:
|>
|> Hi, bridge fans on the net!
|>
|> so if he still wants to keep his advantages, he must not forget the 'defense
|> against defense against 1c'.
|> Now, there are many ways of handling these interferences, both simple and
|> complicated.  Perhaps the simplest one is this:
|>

...

When I played a 1C system recently, the "defense to interference" we used was 
equally simple, but switched the meanings of bid and double, i.e.

1c - 1 of suit or 2c -

P = very weak hand
X = any positive hand
minimum bid = semi-positive strength (5-8 or whatever), natural

This leaves you better-placed if opener's RHO interferes at some reasonable
level.  (and possibly worse-off if RHO pre-empts sky-high, but that's not
as likely)

Over interference of 2d - 2s, we used Rubensohl transfers, i.e.

2-level suit bids = natural, non-forcing
2n - 3h = transfer to next-higher suit; game-forcing if a transferring
     to a suit above the one bid by opponent

|Due to the common interferences over strong 1 C, I play two-way 1 C
|instead.  Ie 1C is 10-12 balanced or 17+.  This forces the opponenets
|to be more constructive.  The easiest defence against this system is:
|

I like the idea of this system.  What are the continuations, both with
and without interference?


ben

--

Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: jhaywood@ms.uky.edu (Joel D Haywood)
Subject: Re: Least of evils
Keywords: Your guess is as good as mine.
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:50:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.92329.13024@ms.uky.edu> I wrote
>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?
>

I received many responses, and including the ones I asked before posting,
there seems to be complete agreement to bidding 2C, which, by the way, is
my choice as well.  Most responses indicated that to double or to bid 1NT
would just be a lie.  I certainly agree that 1NT is misleading, but I
think that the double is certainly plausible.  Virtually no one even
considered 2H; I'm glad to here that, since I wouldn't have considered it
either except that my usual partner (who is as aggressive as the day is
long) did.  As to the discussion of 2C versus 3C, most thought that 3C is
too much of an overbid and was certainly more of an overbid than 2C was
an underbid.  Also, many responses mentioned that the shape of the hand
indicates a need for discretion in bidding.

The only real problem with 2C is that it _is_ an underbid, IMHO.  However,
it fortunately is not much of an underbid unless partner has lots of clubs.
I have no idea the average number of clubs partner is supposed to have when
I have four of them, but he probably doesn't have six (or more) of them.
Someone mentioned the fact that this sort of problem is why he hates
playing five card majors, but I would think that this problem would be
considerably harder playing four card majors, since then it would be much
more likely for partner to have six clubs.  I'm not particularly worried
about a 4-3 club fit for a partial, especially since the short club hand
will be doing the ruffing (as mentioned by several responses) and, also,
since we don't seem to have any fit.  What I _am_ worried about is
Axx Ax Ax xxxxxx or xxx Ax AKQ xxxxx or, even, KQJx x AKQ xxxxx and 
AKJT x Axx xxxxx.  The dangers if partner has prime cards and five clubs
are evident.  My second choice is to double, hoping to back in with 3C or
4C, but that is dangerous as well, since partner might be misled later in
the auction.

Anyway, I thank all who responded for their opinion.

Joel
-- 
********************************************************************************                                                                                Joel D. Haywood                         jhaywood@ms.uky.edu                     (606) 231-9083                          jhaywood@ukma.bitnet                                                                                                    ********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Law problem
Keywords: mis-information
Date: 9 Sep 92 01:06:07 GMT
Reply-To: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: ux5.lbl.gov

In article <1992Sep8.233817.28925@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> rainbow@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rob Buchner) writes:

>your obligation as dummy before the opening lead is one of two things,
>tell the opponents what you thought your agreement/system was (ie partner
>misbid/misalerted), or indicate you just plain forgot and misbid the hand.

This is totally wrong.  If you misbid the hand, the opponents are NOT
entitled to that information.  As long as they were property alerted
to what your partnership agreements are, then they should stay as much
in the dark as to the actual contents of your hand as your partner was.

>It doesn't matter if they defended badly, they will be protected.

This is also untrue.  If your infraction possibly damaged them, you will
not get to keep your good score, however, if they committed a series
of boneheaded moves to assure themselves of a zero, they may get to
keep it, and a split score will be adjusted.  Usually this is a judgement
call for the director and then a committee.

>As declarer, you need only correct mis-information, if you don't hold
>what you are suppose to hold (ie a misbid), you need not say anything.

The law does not differentiate between declarer and dummy in these
situations.
-- 
"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: jhaywood@ms.uky.edu (Joel D Haywood)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Ethics questions
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:39:03 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

In article <1992Sep10.182108.2507@dg-rtp.dg.com> hamilton@robin.rtp.dg.com (Eric Hamilton) writes:
>Partner opens 1NT.  You have five hearts in a semi-balanced hand, values to
>play either 4H or 3N.  You bid 3H to show that sort of hand, promising exactly
>five hearts, and asking partner a choice of games (you want to know why you are
>using this unlovely treatment?  Hush.  That's beside the point here).
>
>Partner bids 3NT.
>
>RHO asks partner how many hearts you've shown and what this sequence means.
>Partner accurately answers the question.
>
>You now look at your hand and realize that your ace-deuce doubleton of diamonds
>is the ace of diamonds and the deuce of hearts, and therefore that your call
>should have been 4H and that 3N is going to be a grossly inferior contract.
>
>1) Can you ethically correct 3N to 4H after partner's explanation?

I really don't see why not.  Classically, the sequence 3H followed by 4H can be
played (whether or not an agreement or not) by responder to fish around for
a cuebid by the 1NT opener when he has a max and support.  Playing Jacoby and
Texas transfers, the same strength hand would transfer with 2D and follow with
4H, since this usually defined as a mild slam try.  As against that, if
responder has a hand that can look for slam opposite three card support, this
sequence can be used to try to locate that support.

>2) If you choose to correct, and it ends up in committee, should the result be
>   allowed to stand?
 
This problem is covered (at least it used to be) quite well in the Duplicate
Law book under "mistaken explanation versus mistaken bid".  Since the
explanation was correct, the opponents have not been damaged by the 3H call
with respect to undisclosed partnership agreements.  If I were on such a
committee, I would think that the reasoning behind 4H was either one
of the situations in the reply to question one or the actual situation.
Under the Laws, I can't imagine that either of these is damaging or could
result in an adjusted score.

Anyway, this is my opinion.

Joel
-- 
********************************************************************************                                                                                Joel D. Haywood                         jhaywood@ms.uky.edu                     (606) 231-9083                          jhaywood@ukma.bitnet                                                                                                    ********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: pynq@quads.uchicago.edu (George Jetson)
Subject: Re: Bid these hands
Reply-To: pynq@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: D. J. Dougherty & Associates
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:37:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.110325.8655@news.cs.indiana.edu> likes@moose.cs.indiana.edu (Kevin Likes) writes:

>Matchpoints
>Vulnerable vs. Not
>Dealer East
>
>  N
>-----
> KTxx,A,AJx,QTxxx
>
>  S
>-----
> (void),KQJ987,KQxxx,AK

With opps silent and East dealing,

	1C,1S,2H,2N,6H

1) 16+ HGP, undefined.         2) 8+ points, 5+ clubs
3) Natural, asking.            4) denies heart fit, 4+ controls
5) A reasonable shot.

>Hypothetical question:  If west were to open 2S, how should things proceed?

With West dealing and opening 2S, opps silent thereafter, we would have:

	3C,3S,3N,4S,5C,5H,6H

Flame away...

************************************************************************
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 -
************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bjpt@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Ben Thompson)
Subject: Re: WC Problem - Full Hand
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 02:38:48 GMT

desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:

]>You also have to consider the true value of 10 imps vs 2 imps.  It is
]>considerably more likely that the winning margin will be 3-10 imps
]>rather than 1-2 imps.  Given that Line 1 is only some fraction of an imp
]>better than line 2, it is clear that line 2 is more likely to win the
]>match for you than line 1.

]Well, if you don't accept that the goal is to maximize your expected
]IMPs, but rather some psychological effect, then anything could be
]right.  And I mean that seriously.  Obviously any line could be best if
]the criteria for "best" are totally subjective.  For myself, I prefer to
]stick with the odds.

The psychological argument is a small point and is completely separate
from the argument you quoted (and which I have requoted).  The objective
of bridge is NOT to maximize your expected IMPs.  The objective is to
win.  Line 2 is quite a bit more likely to change the result of the
match in your favour than Line 1 (if it is changeable, or needs changing).
Line 2 maximizes your chance of winning.

BTW I misparaphrased John Donne.  For some reason I always misremember
"No man is an island, entire of itself" and then remember the correct
quote shortly afterwards.

Also - I usually argue my point rather bluntly and it sometimes appears
as if I am totally rejecting what anyone else is saying.  David's expected
IMP analysis was inherently sound, as one would expect from RGBs best
(regular) analyst - but I think there is more to analysis than just
expected IMPs.

Ben
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: matthew@base.cs.ucla.edu (Matthew Merzbacher)
Subject: Re: Law problem
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:59:00 GMT

pynq@quads.uchicago.edu (George Jetson) writes:

>Also, on a related note: how does the net feel about the fact that you
>can often draw inferences (most commonly on defense) from the fact that
>declarer has not claimed?

Claims are funny things.  Especially claims for "all but n" of the tricks.
I only claim if we are in a hurry to finish the hand.  Otherwise, I'll take
the extra 20 seconds to finish the hand.  Oh - I occasionally will claim 
if one of my opponents goes into the tank needlessly (probably because I 
didn't claim). 

Basically, claiming against weak pairs typically saves no time.  
If someone goes into the tank on defense, then they're probably a good 
enough player to understand my claim.
--

Matthew Merzbacher	ARPA:	matthew@CS.UCLA.EDU
Moo - Moo Moo  		UUCP:	...!{uunet|rutgers|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!matthew
               		This time, *with* the oys
From: spike@cse.ucsc.edu (Daniel Helman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Vugraph session Saturday at the Santa Clara Regional
Date: 5 Sep 92 02:18:14 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (CE/CIS Boards)
NNTP-Posting-Host: et.ucsc.edu

There is a new version of okbridge (1.7D) that has an electronic
vugraph capability.  We are going to try it out for the first time
at the Santa Clara Regional on Saturday (directors and players
permitting).  The game will start shortly after 1:00pm pacific time.
Please join us.  I will try to sit behind an expert in the Flight
A open pairs.  

You can download okbridge from  cs.ucsd.edu with anonymous ftp.
Look in directory /pub/mclegg/okbridge.
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: bidding
Date: 15 Sep 1992 01:20:55 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In article <92257.155115RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:
>well, if you hope that that was not serious, i'm sorry, but i must dash your
>hopes.  i think that bridge would be much cooler if people were competing
>against each other in making the most artificial, confusing, and yet useful
>bidding systems.  and trying to figure out what the other team's bids mean.

I thought it was serious from the beginning.  I held off answering
because I was curious what others would say.

I think it would be an interesting game, but one very different from
bridge.  It would have aspects of wargaming and baseball sign-stealing.
Back when I was a chess player I used to watch the games of good
players and try to refute their pet openings.  From time to time
I would, and would spring my prepared variation on them.  (Being an
excellent postal player didn't hurt.)  Good enough players beat me
anyway, of course.

So you would have people recording the hands and bids of opposing
pairs, and analyzing them, perhaps using computer statistical
packages.  Knowledge of methods they had favored in the past would
help in this detective work.  Of course, as any cryptologist knows,
you have to keep changing the code, so people would use a different
set of signs with a runner on second, so to speak.  Change the code
according to something completely separate from the game.

While that might be fun, I think it would favor those with large
research staffs and incredible memories.  I think I prefer bridge
as it is; although not necessarily as it is in the US.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: magnus@jaist-east.ac.jp (Magnus Halldorsson)
Subject: Re: Optimal preempts? Depends on opponents.
Organization: School of Info Science, JAIST Hokuriku, Japan
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 06:18:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.014335.11028@leland.Stanford.EDU> daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao) writes:

  [Good examples of effective pre-empts from USA II - Iceland in BB '92]

   After this board Iceland led 68-4 and the match was effectively over.
   (Incidentally, Boards 6 and 12 demonstrate why some in the United
   States wish to ban the Multi.

I was expecting the opposite effects from the performances of the US
teams in Yokohama. Isn't it clear that the fact that American teams
are not used to highly competitive bidding systems weakens them in
international tournaments? Paraphrasing Baldursson: "I like playing
American teams: they're good a card play, but really strait-laced
bidders".

Magnus




Xref: sparky rec.games.bridge:5346 news.answers:2848