HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: maugx@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr G A Jordan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: 2NT Forcing Support
Date: 11 Nov 1992 17:41:54 -0000
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK
NNTP-Posting-Host: paprika.csv.warwick.ac.uk
Summary: Using 2NT over 1 of a major

  I know of a few methods where 2NT is used by a hand with trump support over
an opening bid of 1 or a major. These include Jacoby 2NT and the Scanian
version which includes hands which are not game forcing (however I believe
that this is not General Licence in England).

  I was wondering whether any partnership who had experiencing of playing
this method could give details on positive/negatives aspects as well as
the best methods and any modifications they think are needed.

  At present, my 2NT bid is used as Baron (16-18 balanced) but I think that
a 2NT forcing support over the majors would be more useful.

  Please e-mail me with any relevant comments.

	Thanks

  G A Jordan (Warwick University)
  [email - maugx@csv.warwick.ac.uk]
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bidding problem
Date: 10 Nov 1992 23:00:48 -0600
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: im4u.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Nov10.213924.5962@m.cs.uiuc.edu> bharat@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>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...

I agree.  That 4C might be a splinter in partner's first-bid suit
would not have occurred to me.

>>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.) 

I also don't like the idea of bidding 3D with no values there.  At
this stage of the auction we should be bidding suits or supporting
partner's suit.  I don't mind bidding a 3-card suit when there's a
reason, but xxx doesn't qualify as a reason.

>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.

And telling partner you have a minimum.

But wait a minute.  Even with a void in partner's suit this is no
minimum.  Two first-round controls, 5 losers in a fit auction, a
6-card suit?  I think 4S is a gross underbid.

I would bid 3S and hardly think about it.  I will cuebid hearts on
the next round.  Partner will bid slam or not bid slam.  With the
present hand, of course, partner will bid slam.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: davidm@voltaire.Rational.COM (David Moore)
Subject: Re: Bidding problem
Organization: Rational
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:10:31 GMT

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

>In article <1992Nov10.213924.5962@m.cs.uiuc.edu> bharat@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>>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...

This does not seem right to me. Surely the 2S bid is showing real
spade support rather than just preference since we are in a game
forcing sequence whatever South bids (except perhaps 3C if playing
Lawrence style). With only 2 card support, some number of NT would
be indicated.

That being the case, it is highly unlikely that 4C could be anything
but a splinter( Gerber? :-)). As for 3C, this is clearly a slam try. If North
wanted to make a slam try in clubs, he would have started with 3C directly 
over 2C. Therefore, in the absence of another agreement, I would expect
3C to be a cue bid. 

Knowing that partner has 3 cards (presumably with
a fitting honour) in clubs might be very useful information to South, but 
having the 3C bid mean this seems to me to be rather unusual.
From: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Committee Ruling - Please spare me more Opinions?
Date: 10 Nov 1992 23:12:05 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Reply-To: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ux5.lbl.gov

In article <BxIoCw.6sL@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jones@venus.iucf.indiana.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.182027.2005@speedy.aero.org>,  
>(martino@courier6.aero.org(Nick Martino)) writes...
>> 
>>The A+/A- score adjustment raises a question in my mind.  Say, you're
>>having your average 70% game and the offenders are having their average 29%
>>game.  In such case, a 60/40 score would be disappointing result for you
 
>A+ is the lesser of 60% or the average of your remaining boards. I believe A- 
>is always 40% even if that improves the pair's average.

Who knows where this garbage comes from?
Average plus is 60% of top or percentage of your game, whichever is higher.
-- 
"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
From: taylor@foraker.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Eric Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Freak hand. YBTJ
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:48:10 GMT

In article <1dukuaINN7cq@leo.asc.slb.com>, hargrove@nobelium.asc.slb.com (Jim Hargrove) writes:
|> =================== 
|> Freaks are always hard to bid. This hand proved too much for both
|> tables in a recent team game.
|> 
|> Both Vul.
|> Dealer North.
|> 
|>                         S Q 7 4
|>                         H 10
|>                         D J
|>                         C A K Q J 9 7 5 3
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|>                         S A K 6 5 3 2
|>                         H A 2
|>                         D K 10 8 6
|>                         C 10
|> 
|> The pairs at both tables were playing the "yellow card."
|> 
|> At Table 1:
|> 
|>    N        S
|>    1C       1S
|>    3C       3D


3S is correct and forcing after 3D (And shows slam interest).
If opener cuebids (in this case he will),
I will launch into blackwood.
Otherwise I will pass 4S.
From: paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Assign the blame
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:44:25 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

This hand generated some discussion last night, and I'd like some opinions.
First, a problem :

Club matchpoint game, you're vulnerable, opponents aren't. You're south and
hold
S A953 H 8532 D 32 C 732

Auction goes :
W	N	E	S
2H(1)	3D(2)	3H	P
P	3S	P	????

1) Weak, not specifically disciplined but not completely random
2) In case it matters (negative inferences and all), you're playing
Lebensohl over take out doubles of a weak 2. A direct cue bid by partner
would be an undisclosed two suiter.
\014
What actually happened :
South passed in the above position

North's hand is :
S KQ874 H A D AT9864 C 6

On less than perfect defence 6 spades are made but 4 spades is a touch
frigid.

Please assign the blame between north and south
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Steve Myerson)
Subject: Re: Committee Ruling - Opinions?
Organization: Raytheon Company, Portsmouth, RI
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:12:41 GMT

Sure I'll give my non-expert advice.

In article <1992Nov7.035724.10953@ramon.bgu.ac.il> Avi Roy Shapira writes:

* Last week I had the dubious pleasure of sitting in a committee to decide
* the fate of the following two hands. I am not sure we made the right
* decisions. I'd like to get the opinion of the net.
* 
* This is a pair event played at IMPs with Butler scoring.
* 
* Hand 1:  all white, E dealer
* 
* 	Qxxx, Axx, xxx, KJx
* Axx                           K
* KQx                           JTxxxx
* AQJxxxx                       Kx
* -                             xxxx
*         JTxxx, x, x, AQTxxx
* 
* The bidding went:	
* 
* E
* 2C*  p 2S** 3C
* 3d   p 3H   4C
* 4d   p 5d   all pass
* 
* North led the CK and EW made the obvious 12 tricks.
* 
* 2C was artificial and forcing. 2S showed 7-8 HCP. was not alerted.
* South claimed that the failure to alert distorted his bidding and prevented
* the pair from finding the good 5S sacrifice.
* 
* How would you rule?

I assume you meant West was dealer and opened 2C, etc.

This one is easy, as I have been in an almost similar situation.
I was guilty of not alerting and the director awarded average plus
to our opponents and average minus to us.
The failure to alert influenced the bidding, and basically,
there was no way to recover to obtain a "legitimate" result.

* 2nd hand.
* 
* This time I don't remember the exact hand, but the problem came at this
* position:
* 
*              AJ, - , xx, xxx
* Kx                           xx
* KQxx                           j
* Kx                           JTxx
* -                            -
*              QTxx,  AQx -
* 
* or something like that. NS were playing 4S, and need all the tricks.
* Clubs are good. W overruffed once. Now, the lead is in dummy
* S played a diamond, intending to  win the A and finesse in Spades, hoping
* for a 2-2 break. However, on the play of a low diamond, E went into a trance.
* pulling one card, then the other, finally played the J. There was no
* dispute on the facts of the matter.  Now S thought the E had the K of D,
* and decided to finesse, planning to ruff one in dummy, and hope that the
* K of spades in now single.
* 
* 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.

Well, if East really overcalled, then East was more likely to have
the high cards. Of course, if the bidding you gave it accurate,
then East bid out of turn.

Anyway, on to the problem at hand.
Doesn't declarer draw inferences from the opponents at his/her own risk?
Declarer shouldn't be protected from his/her own mistakes.
The result should stand.

Perhaps EW should be given a procedural penalty,
but that NS shouldn't be the beneficiary of an adjusted score.

Remember, these are my non-expert opinions.

Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)
From: kennykb@dssv01.crd.ge.com (Kevin B. Kenny)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Playing in an individual
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:24:29 GMT
Reply-To: kennykb@crd.ge.com
Organization: GE R&D, Information Architectures & Management Program


In article 1dn2e9INN9ga@overload.lbl.gov, asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
writes:
> 3. If you have another hand to play with partner, say "Nicely
> played/bid"

If you get to be declarer, *always* smile and thank your partner when
dummy appears.  No matter how distressed you are at its appearance.
Not only does it help partnership harmony, but the opponents don't
know that you have a problem.

73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin          There isn't any .signature virus, is there?
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: davidm@voltaire.Rational.COM (David Moore)
Subject: Re: Freak hand. YBTJ
Organization: Rational
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 22:19:21 GMT

hargrove@nobelium.asc.slb.com (Jim Hargrove) writes:

>Both Vul.
>Dealer North.

>                        S Q 7 4
>                        H 10
>                        D J
>                        C A K Q J 9 7 5 3




>                        S A K 6 5 3 2
>                        H A 2
>                        D K 10 8 6
>                        C 10

>The pairs at both tables were playing the "yellow card."

Why? Were they after points for difficulty?

>At Table 1:

>   N        S
>   1C       1S
>   3C       3D
>   5C       Pass

North earns a gold hideous hog badge, to be worn at all times
at the table. 3S over the 3D is clearcut (even if the yellow card
says bid 4 card spades before 4 or even 5 card diamonds). If they are
playing yellow card because they have never played before, a 
direct jump to 4S might be forgivable. The only alternative would
be 3H (4th suit forcing) but I expect yellow card doesn't know about
that.

>At Table 2:

>   N        S
>   1C       1S
>   3C       3D
>   3S       4S
>   Pass

How could South meakly say 4S over 3S? Partner has shown a
big club hand with 3 card spade support and you've got a 
minimum of 15 points in support (even discounting the club shortness)
Its just about impossible to not be in slam with this hand. You
can cue 4H, use Blackwood or just plain jump to 6S. Typical bidding
might be
    1C   1S                       1C  1S
    3C   3D                       3C  3D
    3S   4H or, the LOL way,      3S  4NT
    4S   5D                       5D  6S
    5H   6S
From: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Committee Ruling - Opinions?
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:08:08 GMT
Reply-To: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: ux5.lbl.gov

In article <1992Nov9.130408.13245@eua.ericsson.se> ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se writes:
>and I also do not have the laws at hand but here goes.

I understand that Avi asked for *opinions* but should they be rooted in
facts and laws just a little bit?

>>2C*  p 2S** 3C
>>3d   p 3H   4C
>>4d   p 5d   all pass

Question 1: was there an infraction?  Yes.
Question 2: did it cause damage? Yes.
Question 3: can we determine likely result had the infraction not occurred? No.

A+/A-.  Next.

>>KQxx                           j
>>Kx                           JTxx
>>-                            -
>>             QTxx,  AQx -

>Why would a LOL think about playing the king!? I would rule no infraction and 
>allow the result to stand. If E would have been a decent or good player I would
>rule split scores giving both sides bad scores (yes, I am mean)

*IF* East COULD have known at the time of hesitation that it might mislead
opponent, then yes, adjust the score. For a GREAT example of this see the
April or May Bulletin, where it's explained how a committee ruled on a nearly
identical case (save for no LOL, this was the Vanderbilt).
-- 
"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
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: hand generating program source
Date: 8 Nov 92 04:05:28 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Hans van Staveren <sater@sater.home.cs.vu.nl> writes:
> shuffle(d)
> deal d;
> {
> 	int i,j;
> 	card t;
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * Algorithm according to Knuth. For each card exchange with
> 	 * a random other card. This is supposed to be the perfect
> 	 * shuffle algorithm. It only depends on a valid random number
> 	 * generator.
> 	 */
> 	for (i=0; i<52; i++) {
> 		do
> 			/* Upper bits most random */
> 			j = zero52[random()>>(31-RANDBITS)];
> 		while (j==0xFF);
> 		t = d[j]; d[j] = d[i]; d[i] = t;
> 	}
> }

You have misunderstood Knuth in some way.  This is not a valid algorithm
for the purpose of generating deals with the uniform distribution.  This
has been discussed ad nauseum in various newsgroups over the years.

A quick calculation (actually I had to write a short program) indicates
that, using your method, the probability that North holds the spade ace
on the first deal is 0.197479, the probability that East holds that card
is 0.227520, the probability that South holds that card is 0.266187, and
the probability that West holds that card is 0.308814.  Obviously this
is not what you want.

To demonstate the problem, I ran the program 1000 times, dealing only
one hand each time.  Here is the distribution of where the spade ace was
located:

   North  209
   East   205
   South  263
   West   323

The fact that you shuffle the previous deck for each subsequent deal,
rather than starting from an unmixed deck, probably saves your
statistics over the long run.  However you are absolutely right that
this method would be completely unsuitable for tournament play.  For
example, the probability that a card which is in the North hand on deal
N will be in the North hand on deal N+1 is 0.273562, significantly
greater than 1/4.

Here is a correct bit of code which I recommend you substitute.  There
is no convenient way to avoid the modular arithmetic.  If you really
want, you could make 52 tables.  But I suspect the division takes an
insignificant fraction of the time.

	for (i=0; i<52; i++) {
		/* Upper bits most random */
		j = i + ((random()>>(31-RANDBITS)) % (52-i));
		t = d[j]; d[j] = d[i]; d[i] = t;
	}

                                        David desJardins

P.S. Here is a math puzzle with a cute answer.  Using Hans' shuffle
method, the probability that a card which starts in the North hand ends
up in the North hand is 0.27356248.  The probability that a card which
starts in the West hand ends up in the West hand is 0.27356248.  Why are
these two numbers the same?
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: jones@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (William P. Jones)
Subject: Re: Committee Ruling - Opinions?
Followup-To: rec.games.bridge
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: jones@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:14:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.182027.2005@speedy.aero.org>,  
(martino@courier6.aero.org(Nick Martino)) writes...
> 
>The A+/A- score adjustment raises a question in my mind.  Say, you're
>having your average 70% game and the offenders are having their average 29%
>game.  In such case, a 60/40 score would be disappointing result for you
>(not to mention being a positive boon to the incompetents).  It sounds
>silly, but I could see an instance where A+/A- isn't enough.  Are there any
>provisions in the rules which might allow leeway in awarding adjusted
>scores?
> 
===============================================================================
A+ is the lesser of 60% or the average of your remaining boards. I believe A- 
is always 40% even if that improves the pair's average.
===============================================================================
> 
> 
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se (Lars Andersson)
Subject: Re: Playing in an individual
Reply-To: ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 08:08:35 GMT

In article 1dn2e9INN9ga@overload.lbl.gov, asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky) writes:
>1. Don't waste time discussing what 4 level bids over Jacoby 2NT are.

I would rephrase this;
1. Don't waste time discussing system. Play your partner's system.
 (If possible, try to eliminate all transfer bids from the system.)

>2. Don't waste time telling partner what s/he did or didn't do right/wrong.

Correct

>3. If you have another hand to play with partner, say "Nicely played/bid"

3. Always be nice to partner before, during and after every hand.

>4. Tell them one thing only:
>     "Lead 4th best and please always give count"
>
>The theory here is that a bad player won't always decide correctly whether
>they want the suit continued, but even a total idiot knows whether he has
>an even or odd number of cards.

People who are not used to giving count would tend to be overloaded when
trying to do it. This advice is unnecessary and dangerous. If you are playing
with a bad player chances are that you will not get your defences right anyway.
Just give attitude signals and try to cash your tricks.

>
>5. (optional, if necessary) Third hand high please.
>

Yes, tell them right away that they need some elementary lessons. This will
certainly make them feel comfortable.

The most important advice is;

Have fun and make your partners feel happy and comfortable. Don't teach anybody
anything. If you show trust in your partner they will respond by playing much better.
(An advice not solely intended for individual tournaments)

--lars
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: lufeng@vis.toronto.edu (Feng Lu)
Subject: Re: Committee Ruling - Opinions?
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:41:21 GMT

In article <1dr993INNcfr@transfer.stratus.com> tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill) writes:
>> rules that describes that an adjusted "average plus" is
>> the higher of that pair's actual score on the other boards and 60%.
>
>(Of course, the original problem was scored at IMPs, so A+ is +3 and A-
>is -3 [law 86A].)

What if in IMP pairs? Should A+ be the higher of +3 and the average IMP on
the other boards?
From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bidding problem
Date: 14 Nov 92 02:08:22 GMT
Organization: Irvine Compiler Corp., Irvine, California, USA

In article <1992Nov13.155607.5602@m.cs.uiuc.edu> bharat@cs.uiuc.edu 
(R. Bharat Rao) writes:

>  Why in the world would you want to splinter in partners primary suit.
>  A good agreement (even in a practiced partnership -- and yes, I would
>  take this as the default) would be "you never splinter in partners
>  suit".  A stiff (or a void) opposite partners suit is a BAD thing to
>  have -- why get all excited and jump to show it...

Maybe it's bad, maybe it's not.  In these auctions:

            North  South          North  South
              1C     1H             1C     1S
              1S     4C             2S     4C

I would treat 4C as a splinter in my regular partnerships.  If I have
a small stiff club, it's bad if partner's suit is KJxx, but not if
it's Axxx or 10xxx.  Why not tell partner what you have and let him
decide if it's bad or not?  If you have something else to show him,
OK, you can decide whether to start by showing the singleton or
cue-bidding another suit, perhaps (or by forcing with 2D in the first
auction).  I'm certainly not saying that you SHOULD ALWAYS splinter if
you have a singleton in partner's suit.  But I see no reason not to
have the splinter available.  If partner does have wasted values, he
can always slam on the brakes and bid 4S.

                                -- Adam