HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Professor WHO?
Subject: Re: This weekends results from Salsomaggiore
Summary: SOme information wanted, if available....!
Originator: boyiny@kovalevskaya
Keywords: olympiad, quarterfinals
Reply-To: maboyiny@ccvax.as.edu.tw (Dr. Weird)
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
X-Subliminal-Message: Death to all Sponsors in World Championships!
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 12:02:07 GMT


>Final Results follows
>>Open
>USA - Egypt 225-154

Not unexpected.

>>Denmark-France 113-106 ;-)
>Denmark - France 143-145 :-( :-(

Who are the respective (and highly respected) lineups?  Did France finally
send its prime lineup ( Chemla-Perron plus support from
Mari/Lebel/Soulet/Abecassis/Whoever else ) for a change?

Did the Saffle Spar pair play for Denmark?  Or was it just the Acolites?

>>Netherlands-Israel 98-88
>Netherlands - Israel 137 - 119

:-) :-)  Perhaps Leukens and Westra will finally see a World Championship
final!  High time, seeing that they are among the top five pairs active in
Europe now.

>>Sweden-Poland 126-80 ;-)
>Sweden - Poland 171-91 ;-);-);-)

;-) ;-) ;-)  WHo is the Swedish team?  Gullberg-Sundelin?
Morath-Bjerregard (spelling?) ?  Nilsland-Fallenius?  Or was the last pair
replaced for this one?

>This leaves the following semifinals:
>USA - Sweden
>The Netherlands - France
>
>Two very even matches. If the US play Deutsch I believe in
>a final between Sweden and France.

So do I--- but I will hold off the celebrations until I see the result.
{BTW, I _AM_ American.}  Death to all Would-be-buyers of World Championships!!
Anyway, if only by sentiment I am rooting for the Dutch to play Sweden.  [I
like Westra and Leufkens better, anyway.]

>>Women
>Final: GB-Austria. I think Austria will win this.


Why?  Who is the English Team?  If they fielded Davies-Smith, Landy-Handley
plus a good support (Penfold-McGowan?) they should match Erhart-Bamberger
and co. especially if the third pair support was Spinn and Widengren....

[Dammit, I _am_ getting old, I already forgot who Terri Weigkricht was
supposed to be playing with.]

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: olle@astro.uu.se (Olof Morell)
Subject: Re: What would you bid?
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala, Sweden
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:42:49 GMT

In article <34823@cbmvax.commodore.com>, macon@gallifry.Berkeley.EDU (Glen Macon) writes:
|> 
|> In article <3645@tivoli.UUCP>, taylor@foraker.tivoli.com (Eric Taylor) writes:
|> |> 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.
|> 
|> au contraire, 3D is a point count bid (let alone the the power in D).
|> if your partner has the points, you should end up at game (looks like
|> a good 4H.)

If he says it's non-forcing, then that's the way he plays!
And also the way most of us do, I believe...

3D could well be bid on a decent 16 count and here you have 18 hcp,
a solid suit, a seventh diamond, a superb fit for partners suit, and
almost game on your own hand. 3D is a big underbid.

It is impossible to show this hand with normal methods; why didn't
partner respond 1S, so we could make a false reverse :-)

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

Snail Mail - Astronomical Observatory, Box 515, 751 20 Uppsala, Sweden
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: Two questions on 3-suiters
Keywords: 3-suiters
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:42:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.145236.22037@odin.diku.dk> turin@diku.dk (S|ren Turin) writes:
>
>Hi learned netters.
>
>Sorry if this a repost, but we have had some problems with news lately.
>
>The following hand came up last saturday and provoked a heated debate.
>	S AKxxx
>	H KJxx
>	D -
>	C AJxx 
>  The bidding went 1S-1N (forcing). Do you now rebid 2C or 2H. I had
>never considered this to be a problem always rebidding 2C, but the
>ensuing discussion revealed that i was alone with that idea. No one was
>able to give a remotely scientific explanation for bidding 2H, apart
 
I can.

In natural or 'standard' systems, when faced with the choice of bidding
two suits of equal length, the generally accepted treatment is to bid
the HIGHER RANKING first. The exception to this, of course is when responding
to 1 of a minor with 4-4 in the majors.

In all other situations, one bids the higher ranking first.

The purpose of this, of course, is to avoid reversing. If you rebid
hearts first at the 2 level and bid clubs later, partner will be able
to prefer to hearts without increasing the level of bidding.

Hope this helps. Standard practice is to rebid 2H, not 2C.
--
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: willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Appeals Committee ruling
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:31:26 GMT
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


In article <ted.714681780@sage0>, ted@sage0.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) writes:
>   The director
> must enforce the laws without interpreting them and this clause would
> govern that situation.  However, I do not believe that the appeals committee
> is so bound.  They are free to interpret the laws (to my knowledge) and act
> accordingly in trying to award an equitable result.

Both the director and the appeals committee are obliged to enforce
the Laws; otherwise we are playing some game other than bridge.  Law
93B3 makes this explicit.  The point is that in awarding "an
equitable result," neither the committee nor the director is free to
ignore the relevant law just because they happen to disagree with it.
Or because of the personalities involved.  Or for any other
irrelevant reason.

That said, it's true that directors and committees have different
functions.  It is the prime duty of the committee to apply bridge
judgement.  (There is disagreement on the extent to which a director
should do so, but it is certainly less than appropriate for a
committee.)  But in no case is bridge judgement to be applied
arbitrarily or in conflict with the Laws; in fact, the committee is
specifically forbidden to overrule the director on a point of law.

In the case at hand, West overcalled 3NT on a solid suit with no
outside stoppers and later run from a double.  The main question at
issue is whether or not there is any other "logical alternative
action" to pulling the double.  The question of logical alternatives
is indeed one of bridge judgement, and it is entirely proper for a
committee to reach a different conclusion than a director.

In effect, the committee has to rule on two cases: 1) East announces
that the overcall is to play and shows stoppers; West pulls.  This
was what actually happened (in effect).  Or 2) East announces that
the overcall shows a solid suit without outside stoppers; West passes
the double.  The committee MUST be willing to adjust the score in at
least one of these cases and maybe should do so in both.

-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu
  member, League for Programming Freedom; contact league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: What would you bid?
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:07:43 GMT

In article <3645@tivoli.UUCP> taylor@foraker.tivoli.com (Eric Taylor) writes:
: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

Yes.

:an acceptable lie?
 
I don't like the 4D rebid, but to be honest, I don't see any
better alternative. This hand is close to opening 2C even under
the very strict rules I have for when I open 2C. However, it is
slightly shy in defensive tricks. 
 
Switch hearts and spades and one has a nice, easy, 3NT rebid.
 
I'd prefer to be playing ACOL 2 bids, Precision, Roman, or K-S
on this hand to SA. 
 
It's not an easy rebid problem and the correct answer seems far
from clear.
--
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: dif@bhprtc.scpd.oz.au (David Faulkner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Preempt, how big?!
Date: 27 Aug 92 08:26:42 GMT
Organization: BHP Steel, Sheet & Coil, Research & Technology Centre

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?)
>
>>If you insist on getting in on the auction,
>>2N for the minors is better than a preempt in clubs.
>>If you plan to go to the 5-level anyway,
>>I would try an unusual 4N.
>
>>Of course, you might also pass and see what happens.
>>Note that your partner has yet to be heard from.
>
>I think trapping on this hand is silly.  It *could* be an overall
>misfit.  And the race goes not always to the swift, but that's
>the way you should place your bets.  I expect to come out well
>ahead in the long run by preempting.  This hand is worth about a
>half trick on defense, and 7 or so on offense.
>
>I had some bad results many years ago bidding an unusual notrump
>when there was a two-card difference between the suits.  I'm not
>enthusiastic about playing in a weak 5-3 with a weak 7-card side
>suit, especially at the 5-level.
>
>I would be a bit cowardly and bid 4C.  5C could work better, but
>it leaves the opponents little option but to double, and doubling
>might well be right.
>
>Of course, from the way the question was asked I suspect 2NT works
>better this time.

Ah, don't try and read too much into the question wording. 
2NT sees partner bid 3D which is doubled and takes only 3 tricks against
perfect defense for -1400. 4NT for minors doesn't bear thinking about.

I bid 5C, which was doubled, and partner had the club Ace, three
diamonds to the 9, and not much else. All well and good, I thought,
until a club to the bare Ace revealed a 5-0 trump break offside. Even
worse, as well as holding 5 clubs, LHO held AJx of diamonds over my
KTxxx. I ended up -1100, and promptly received a lecture from LHO.
6H was cold for the opponents, but had only been bid at one table by the
time it got to us. Mostly it was 4H, making 6.  Oh well, the perils of
set hand events.

  -dif-

-- 
Dave Faulkner, Research Engineer                    (dif@bhprtc.scpd.oz.au)
BHP Coated Products Division, Research and Technology Centre
Port Kembla, New South Wales, Australia.
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bid these hands
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:55:20 GMT
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA

In article <1992Aug28.140001.19525@midway.uchicago.edu> pynq@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
:... when it happened, I realized I had no answer for it.
:North: AJTx,Qxx,AQTx,xx
:South: Qx,Kxxxx,9xx,Axx
:
:North opens 1D and opps are silent.  It goes:
:1D-1H
:1S-?
:
:Now, at ?, what do you do?  It seems to me that bidding 1N gives up the
:chance of playing in hearts when he has 3 of them.
 
Why do you believe this??

1NT would show 6-9 points, a balanced hand, the unbid suit (probably) 
stopped, and 4 or 5 hearts. This is what you have. Why is rebidding
1NT a problem? Partner is free to bid 2H over 1NT if he has 3 and thinks
it is right. 

On the actual hand, with a weak doubleton in clubs, the hand is
probably worth a trick more even in a 4-3 heart fit, so as opener
I would prefer to hearts over 1NT. 

--
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: kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler)
Subject: Precision
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:46:20 GMT

 I'm considering switching from 2/1 to Precision, a system
I've only read about. My attraction to Precision is
the closer specification of non 1-club opening hands
and what appears to be a fairly simple bidding structure.
Would people with experience comment on the deficits
of Precision?

dennis
From: jaffray@oreo.berkeley.edu (Alan Jaffray)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bid these hands
Date: 28 Aug 1992 20:53:04 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Reply-To: jaffray@zippy.sonoma.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: oreo.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug28.165520.16891@linus.mitre.org> bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:

>:North: AJTx,Qxx,AQTx,xx
>:South: Qx,Kxxxx,9xx,Axx

>:1D-1H
>:1S-?
>
>On the actual hand, with a weak doubleton in clubs, the hand is
>probably worth a trick more even in a 4-3 heart fit, so as opener
>I would prefer to hearts over 1NT. 

Wouldn't opener's sequence (1D then 1S then 2H) show extras, or at
least extra shape, most likely 4351 with 14 points or so?  If
so, South would jump to game over 2H -- not exactly a successful auction.

Roth mentioned this in a recent column, I recall... (his solution was,
of course, to not open such trashy hands).  Kantar had this in a recent
column, an auction between him and Alan Sontag:

QJT4      952
AT2       KQJ83
AQ        932
8764      K9

1C        1H
1S        1NT
2H        4H

"Afraid of my own club suit, I removed 1NT to 2H.  Alan assumed (as
he should) that I was short in diamonds.  Seeing a perfect fit, he
leaped to 4H.  Well, we found the right fit, about we were about two
levels too high.  What is the solution?  Kokish, if you tell me that
I should have opened a weak notrump, I will not read your next five
articles.
"I know that it is blasphemous even to think of skipping over the spade
suit to rebid 1NT, but maybe that is the answer with this type of hand.
(My editors suggest gently that I shouldn't be afraid of my own suits.
All right already, so I should have passed 1NT!"

Maybe it's better to define the delayed raise as a correction rather
than a descriptive move, but that loses on other hands...

Anyway, it appears a nontrivial problem.

-- Alan
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ted@sage0.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying)
Subject: Re: what went wrong?
Organization: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:59:02 GMT

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

>In article <ted.715016216@sage0> I wrote:

>>>1H   1S(1)
>>>2N   3H
>>>3S   4H
>>>P

>>	2NT was a good bid to show the values of the hand and 3H is
>>	a forward-going bid (at least a mild slam try).  Most people
>>	play that 2NT is game-forcing there 

>Hold it.  *Nobody* I know of plays 2NT here as game-forcing.
>The three styles I know of for bidding over 2NT, bearing in
>mind that Pass is quite possible:

	Urk.  This week has been too long.  Sorry about this.  I do
	agree with you, Don, really.  I just said something stupid.
	Since 2NT shows a strong bid and any response other than
	pass is game forcing, it is reasonable to play that 4H is
	a mere signoff and 3H is stronger.  This is the principle
	of fast arrival (when you only have a game, bid the game,
	use other lower forcing bids to be more constructive and use
	the space to search for the potential slam).

	Excuse me for responding quickly and without proofing my
	answer.

	Ted Ying			ted@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov
	Hughes/STX			Goddard Space Flight Center
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: spencer@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: 1+1
Reply-To: spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun)
Organization: Live Organ Transplants
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:45:35 GMT

In article <17hi91INNcck@overload.lbl.gov>, asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky) writes:
>
>Hey, this is the net.  There are no rules.  Each newsgroup is what the
>readers (or writers, rather) make it.  There is nothing you can do about
>it.  Well, that's not really true.  You can start another whining string
>of postings about it, but there is nothing you can do to change it.

In article <17huj9INNemn@overload.lbl.gov>, asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky) writes:
>
>Well, if [novices] 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.

Care to clarify, Asya?  First you say that you can't control what other
people post and you should just give up trying to change them.  Then you
bitch about how people are wasting your time with posts you consider
inappropriate, with a strong implication (IMO) that such articles should
be eliminated.  If there are no rules, then how can something be
inappropriate?  Which is it?  If I were in your position, I would want
to make my statements more precise.

Besides, the only responses I've seen to non-expert-type questions are
flames.  Haven't seen anyone offer any book titles (although Bob gave me
one or two in e-mail which I'll look for)

----------- The opinions expressed in this article are solely mine. -----------
<Insert lame attempt at disclaimer humor>
sss/PU'94 Dept of CS (spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu)/JvNCnet (spencer@jvnc.net)
"Mahwage.  Mahwage, is what bwings us, too-gethah, too-dahy."

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From:  (martino@courier6.aero.org(Nick Martino))
Subject: RGB Etiquette (WAS: Try this one)
Followup-To: rec.games.bridge
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:57:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.223338.14575@ramon.bgu.ac.il>, avir@chen.bgu.ac.il
(Avi 
Roy Shapira) wrote:	

> [...numerous flames extinguished...]
> 
> If you don't like the tone of this group, please poll the net for
> opening another group: rec.games.bridge.novices. See how many vote you'd get.
> 
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,
Eddie Kantar and others in the Australian Bridge Forum.  Those big boys can
take it and dish out some of their own.  It's quite another thing to
attempt to humiliate a bright beginner, who may just decide that bridge
isn't such a great game after all.  It's not as though we have an
overabundance of new players as it is.
 	
Nick

*******************************************************************************
                                                                          
*                                                                          
          
*    martino@courier6.Aero.org (Nick Martino)                           
    *    
*    The Aerospace Corporation                                             
 *
*                                                                          
 * 
******************************************************************************

 
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: rainbow@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rob Buchner)
Subject: Re: Michaels
Organization: St Barts
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 07:21:21 GMT
Keywords: with a clue

>West                East
>T 7                 A K Q J 8
>9 2                 K Q 8 7 5
>7 5 3               K
>A K 9 7 4 2         6 5
>
>Pass      (1D)      2D(1)
>3C                  Pass
>
>(1) Michaels--weak or strong.

3C indicates no fit for partner and a good suit of his own.
It is natural and non-forcing. That looks like what he has.
East with the strong Michaels hand took a view and passed,
deciding that game is no longer a good proposition. While
this is not exactly a mistake, ie it could have worked out,
on this hand it was not the correct decision. East I think
is good enough to make another try for game on this hand.
East really has a great playing hand in my evaluation.
I would choose to bid 3S (not 3D) because of the quality
of the suit fearing that partner may otherwise take a 
preference to hearts which will probably not be right.
East has very little trump control in a 5-2 heart fit.
West looking at AK of clubs and Tx of spades should raise.
This turns out to be an excellent contract which I expect
will normally make, it even has good play when majors break
4-2, particularly on a trump lead or switch by the defense.
Of course I'd probably go down with the 4-1 club break
attempting either to cash out ten tricks with a cross
ruff or by trying to set up the club suit by ducking 
the first round. It is unlucky that a plus score in 3C
was a bottom, probably there were also some 140s...
Next time spades and hearts won't be breaking 3-3.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: Professor WHO?
Subject: Re: bidding
Summary: Matter of taste about sound or light openers.
Originator: boyiny@kovalevskaya
Keywords: distribution, 2/1, variation, system
 
Reply-To: maboyiny@ccvax.as.edu.tw (Dr. Weird)
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
X-Subliminal-Message: Speak softly and carry a _big_club_
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 21:27:28 GMT

There is nothing wrong with real sound openings in the practical sense _if_
it suits your temperament.  As people who know me will attest, it doesn't
become me very well-- I *can* play it religiously and I _do_know_ its
ramifications, but I _hate_ to pass ace-king-ace under most circumstances.

I like to open light, so I will set up my system that way.  If people have
different opinions, hey, _viva_la_difference_!  Different ideas are what
makes bridge such a fascinating game (and this is also why I loathe
attempts at controlling bidding of other people by legislation!) and the
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: what went wrong?
From: avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:09:01 GMT
Organization: Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

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
: this proved to not be the optimal contract as we were +480 missing a
: nearly cold slam with partner holding:
: AJ
: Axxxx
: KQJ
: Axx
:

I would like to know more about your bidding system, but on the face of it,
I think that your 1S response is not so bad, but I think that your
subsequent bids are.

I think that you should bid 4H and not 3, unless you play that 3H is stronger
than 4H. You have to show partner that you have real supprt.  If you bid 4H,
you indicate that you have about 10HCP and a real heart support.  Partner
can then bid 5H to inquire about the quality of trumps which you will gladly
raise to 6.

Alternatively, over partner's 3 spades, you must make a slam try. You see
10 tricks, with only 8 of partner's 19 HCP. Surely his other 11 will provide
2 more?

Partner cannot move over 4 hearts, because of his weak trumps, and 3S was
already a slam try.

Avi