HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Bidding questions
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:37:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: irvine.BxtKyK.Dyn
Organization: Irvine Compiler Corp., Irvine, California, USA


A couple bidding problems came up on one hand in a Swiss Team event.

1)  Vul vs. not, you hold in 4th seat:

    AKQxx  Ax  Ax  AKQx

    LHO    Partner   RHO   You
    Pass    Pass     3H    ???

How do you plan to bid this hand?

2)  At the other table, the auction went like this:

    West   North    East    South
    Pass   2D (1)    3H

    (1) weak

    East intended his 3H bid as a weak jump overcall;  he knew South had a
    big hand and wanted to shut him out.  West thought 3H should be a good
    hand, invitational to game with long hearts, because he learned that
    you're not supposed to preempt over an opponent's preempt.  In the actual 
    hand, West had a near-yarborough and wasn't going to make a move anyway,
    but I'd like your opinions on this auction.

                                -- thanks, Adam
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se (Lars Andersson)
Subject: Re: Some problems from the Finnish Pair Ch
Reply-To: ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 12:18:57 GMT

I was sleeping earlier...

In article 25958@nntp.hut.fi, m36150p@kaira.hut.fi (Janne Veikko Petteri Kallunki) writes:
>Problem 1A
>N/NS
>        A542
>        T
>        873
>        KQT63
>KJ8		-
>KQJ8		A5432
>AJ4		T652
>J85		A742
>	QT9763
>	976
>	KQ9
>	9
>Auction:
>N	E	S(me)	W(problem hand)
>p	p	2S	2NT
>3S	4H	4S	D
>p	p	p
>It was two down because I played after two hearts the Ace of spades.
>We took 3 points (top=50).
>

Well as someone said 'always look on the bright side of life'.
Imagine what will happen if East overtakes the heart lead with the ace and plays
a diamond back....

BTW, this seems to be the obvious defence.


>------
>Janne 'Jake' Kallunki m36150p@kaira.hut.fi jkallunk@otax.hut.fi
>p. home 4553831, work 1545182
>"One-Two-Three-Four"
>	-Dee-Dee Ramone 

No Dee-Dee, only three down. One heart, two diamonds, a club and two spade
losers.

--lars




Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Steve Myerson)
Subject: Re: Bidding questions
Organization: Raytheon Company, Portsmouth, RI
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:48:28 GMT

In article <BxtKyK.Dyn@irvine.com> Adam Beneschan writes:

* A couple bidding problems came up on one hand in a Swiss Team event.
* 
* 1)  Vul vs. not, you hold in 4th seat:
* 
*     AKQxx  Ax  Ax  AKQx
* 
*     LHO    Partner   RHO   You
*     Pass    Pass     3H    ???
* 
* How do you plan to bid this hand?

I start with a double. Over 4D, I can bid 4S.
Over 4C or (yeah, right!) 3S, I'll cue bid hearts,
see what partner does, and then decide.
Probably wind up in a small slam.

* 2)  At the other table, the auction went like this:
* 
*     West   North    East    South
*     Pass   2D (1)    3H
* 
*     (1) weak
* 
*     East intended his 3H bid as a weak jump overcall;  he knew South had a
*     big hand and wanted to shut him out.  West thought 3H should be a good
*     hand, invitational to game with long hearts, because he learned that
*     you're not supposed to preempt over an opponent's preempt.  In the actual 
*     hand, West had a near-yarborough and wasn't going to make a move anyway,
*     but I'd like your opinions on this auction.

The way I learned it is "You don't preempt a preempt",
so 3H should have been a strong hand with hearts.

Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Shape and cuebids in 2/1
Date: 16 Nov 1992 11:07:09 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: cypress.cs.utexas.edu


Received from Bi-Yin Yang, who cannot post:
------------------------------------------
hello, just saw briefly the little hassle on r.g.b. about cue etc.
after 1S-1C(GF)-2H-2S

Well, here is my NT$ 0.50

In general a pattern showing phase preceding a cue-bidding phase is a good idea.
   Since if you prefer the right way to cue (Italian cues :-) it is MUCH nicer
to know the relative shape.  However, game-choice must be more important
than slamming, so I suggest the following agreements:

1S-2C-2H-2S     Forcing, promise 3 spades (with 2, either bid 2N or 3D)

then

2N=     stopper in D, usually minimum.
3C=     support (three cards) for clubs.
3D=     NO stopper in D, doubt about strain.
3HS=    Extra length.
3N=     EXTRAS with a stopper (I never play fast arrival).
4C=     Descriptive (Four cards).
4D=     Kickback for spades.

Not the best, perhaps, but easy to remember, which seems a premium
for most people I know (I prefer something complicated so I dislike 2/1)

As for splinters in partner's suit:

I recommend that people look in their methods for ways to
insert such bids without displacing the rest of their system.
With today's shape-forst bidding there is NO certainty about placement
of high cards and xxxxx or Axxxx opposite a stiff has scored up many
slams!  yes, I understadn that it is NOT that likely but good bidders
strive for ways to pick up even the smallest of vigorish.

For example, Woolsey-Manfield, possibly the most Scientific pair
using semi-Standard methods in the U.S., uses 2D (Flannery)-4C to
show a slam try in hearts with a splinter in spades, and 4D to show
a slam try in spades with a splinter in hearts.

That is what I think good bidding needs, the best of tools to help
the use of judgement and the best of judgment to apply the tools with!
From: grove@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Eddie Grove)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Which inference is better, WAS - "finesse or play for the drop"
Date: 20 Nov 1992 21:01:08 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: triangle.berkeley.edu

In article <By11xy.GE6@irvine.com> adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) writes:
>Didn't some researcher just determine recently that if you shuffle the
>cards 7 times (I think), that the result will be close to a perfect
>random shuffle?

This is several years old.  The theorem I remember is that 7 riffle
shuffles produce a distribution whose Total Variation Distance from
random is at most 1/2.  The T.V.D. between two distributions is the sum
of the absolute values of the differences in the probabilities of the
points of the space (each possible permutation, in our case).

Now, a single shuffle is not as good as a riffle.  I, for example,
tend to alternate cards from between the halves more than
a true riffle would do.  It is hard to say (at least for me) how
much of a difference this makes.

Secondly, the statistics on hand-dealt shuffles that motivated this
work were consistent with a T.V.D. of less than .5.  What I mean by
this is that if you just look at the distributions of suits, and
assume that for a given distribution the cards are random, then
hand-shuffled cards would have been observed to have a T.V.D. small
enough to compare to the result of the theorem.

The result is that 7 shuffles suffice, but maybe they don't.
However, I believe it is true that 6 truly random riffle shuffles 
DO NOT suffice.  Of course in practice, for the most part, the
starting configuration is sufficiently unknown to make up for
a few shuffles.  But if you start with a new deck, maybe
you should shuffle 8 or more times.

The actual shuffle in the paper is to take the deck, and for each
card move it to the left or right half with prob 1/2, and then put
one half on top of the other.  It is actually the inverse of the
shuffle we all think about.

Eddie Grove
From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan)
Subject: Re: bidding question
             <9211160831.aa19801@Paris.ics.uci.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:03:44 GMT


>     QJ2       KT73               W        E
>     AKJ5      T6                1D        1S
>     A985      J                 2N
>     AT        KQ9874
>
>

What you're saying makes sense.  I think 4C is definitely Gerber on
this auction, unless you have a specific agreement that Gerber applies
only over 1NT and 2NT openings or something like that.  But this is
the kind of hand where 4C should be Gerber.  Opener has a limited,
balanced hand, and a raise to 4NT should definitely be quantitative,
so you need 4C to ask for aces.  In my regular partnerships, I have
Gerber marked as "obvious over notrump", which means 4C is Gerber in
notrump auctions and any time it's clearly not anything else.  This
auction definitely qualifies.

By the way, in my partnerships, I could not bid 3C---that would be New
Minor Force showing 5 spades.

                                -- Adam
From: fujimoto@carson.u.washington.edu (Bryant Fujimoto)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Which inference is better, WAS - "finesse or play for the drop"
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:44:11 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

grove@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Eddie Grove) writes:

>In article <BxwHCq.55K@irvine.com> adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) writes:
> 
>>Your side has the exact same 26 cards on both hands, and so do the
>>opponents.  The distributional probabilities of the opponents' 26
>>cards will be exactly the same in both cases;  in no way does it

>This is wrong, of course.  Unless you use a perfect random source for
>your shuffles, the conditional distribution of the opponents' cards
>will tend to depend upon your cards.

Would someone please explain this last point more fully? I am afraid
it isn't obvious to me.

	Thanks,  Bryant Fujimoto





>If the cards are shuffled by hand, the distributions are definitely
>related.  A good pseudo-random generator will come close enough to
>perfect you don't need to worry, but there are a lot of bad generators
>out there.  Does anyone know that the generator(s) used in ACBL events
>are good?

>Eddie Grove
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Steve Myerson)
Subject: Re: A spectacular hand from the Israeli Round Robin Team Championship
Organization: Raytheon Company, Portsmouth, RI
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:21:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.031039.5662@ramon.bgu.ac.il> Avi Roy Shapira writes:

* All hands are Imps, and the opponnents are fairly strong players.
* 
* You are South.
* 
*  N dealer all red.
*    p 2H ?
*    AKT9xxx, -, AQx, AQx
* 
*    What do you call, and how do you plan the rest of the auction?.

I would bid a (strong) 3S, and if partner bids a minor, cue bid 4H.
After that, it would depend on what partner bids (delayed spade raise,
retreat to original minor).

Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)
From: thomaso@centerline.com (Thomas Andrews)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Reopening decision
Date: 16 Nov 1992 21:02:08 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.2.21


You hold:

	T7 J86 AT843 984

in a Board-a-Match game, red vs white, RHO is dealer.

Auction goes:

RHO	Partner	LHO	You
P	1S	3H	P
P	D	P	???

What is your bid?
--
Thomas Andrews
CenterLine Software
From: greg@athena.cs.uga.edu (Greg Whitlock)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Looking for MSDOS programs
Date: 19 Nov 92 14:46:49 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Nov19.114734.658@cine88.cineca.it> avl0@cine88.cineca.it writes:
>I'm sorry if this is a FAQ!
>Does someone know a *GOOD* MSDOS program playing bridge? 
>I know two of them but they seem very weak pleyers.
>...Or must I infer that it's harder to make a bridge program than a chess one?

I would like to know if anyone has seen any shareware/pd bridge 
programs.  If so, where are they?

thanks

-greg
From: doug@cm.deakin.OZ.AU (Douglas Newlands)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: bidding problem
Date: 17 Nov 1992 01:16:02 GMT
Organization: Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: sauron.cm.deakin.oz.au

In article <1e8q0vINN835@transfer.stratus.com: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill) writes:
:In article <9211160837.aa19948@Paris.ics.uci.edu>, kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler) writes:
:> Playing 2/1 GF and no opposition how do you
:> recommend bidding the following hands.
:> 
:> Opener:  KQxx,A,AQxxx,109x
:> Responder: Ax,Qxx,10xx,AKQJ8
:
:     1D   2C (1)
:     2S   3C (2)
:     4C   4S
:     6C   P

It seems to me that opener is not strong enough to reverse and you are also in
murky water saying 3C is still gf. I would have thought that it should start

       1D    2C
       2D    2N      this clarifies the diamonds and responder probably
		     shouldn't support diamonds without an honor especially
		     with a stop in both majors.

       3C            not so sure about this since Lawrence says not to support
		     clubs immediately without 4 and not min, so this could
		     still promise 4
	     3D     show the secondary support

but I have no idea how to proceed from there. On the first auction above it
seems that opener overbids then drives onto slam without knowing the clubs are
solid and how the diamonds are going to play. On my partial auction, I am not
clear whther reponder should bid 3D or switch over to cues somehow. I am not
even sure what they both think is an agreed suit, if any, as yet.

Clarification requested.

doug.
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Possibly FAQ - "finesse or play for the drop"
Date: 16 Nov 1992 11:23:16 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: cypress.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Nov16.143024.5460@athena.mit.edu> jmh@athena.mit.edu (J Michael Hammond) writes:
>Say you've got a nine card trump fit missing the Q432. (Say dummy has
>the KJ65 and you've got the AT987.)  Assume further that the play of
>the rest of the hand is automatic and your only concern is picking up
>that queen of trumps.  In the absence of any other information, the
>odds very slightly favor playing for the queen to drop.  But how much
>information is sufficient to make the (non-table-feeling, purely
>odds-calculating) player change that line of play?

Nearly anything.  But bear in mind you're going against most fields.

>So how about the case where you and partner have a double fit and went
>to game with 21 HCP after that same righty opened with 1D?  Or how
>about a negative inference -- you get into the 21 HCP game on the
>auction 1S-pass-4S-all pass and therefore assume that lefty holds
>fewer than about 12 HCP?  Is that enough to change the line?

No.  Most likely division of points is 10-9 and nothing in the bidding
changes that.  Besides, good players will often pass over 1S with more
than 12 HCP.

I once got a good score in an instant matchpoints game when my partner
failed to make an obvious weak jump overcall.  The information that he
had 6 spades and I had 2 was enough that the booklet commentator thought
it obvious to play me for Qxx of hearts which in fact I held.  I'm not
sure why, but I'm much more likely to use distributional information
than weak inferences on high cards.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se (Lars Andersson)
Subject: Another alert problem
Reply-To: ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:45:45 GMT

I was asked for advice regarding a simple (?) question on the local club yesterday;

S/EW vulnerable

        Axx
        QJxx
        -
        KQTxxx
xxx             KQJx
Kxx             ATxx
AKTxxxx         Qx
-               xxx
        Txx
        xx
        Jxxx
        AJxx

The bidding;
S        W        N        E
P        1C(1)    3C(2)    D(3)
P        3D       P        3H
3S       P        4C(!)    D
P        4D       P        P
P

(1) 10-17 hcp, 0-4 spades, 3-5 hearts (!)
(2) agrement = preemptive with clubs, alerted and explained as 5+ spades and another
               5+ suit
(3) Negative double

Both pairs compete at the highest national level.

The director and I thought that North had committed an infraction when he bid 4C.
However, to judge what would have happened if N did not bid 4C was very difficult.
The board had been played at the other table (5D making 6). We decided to throw
the board out and give NS a 3 imp procedural penalty. Essentially NS lost 13 imps.

Any comments on the decision?

--lars
From: zilch@planb.Eng.Sun.COM (John Hoffman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Problems from Portland - results and summary
Date: 20 Nov 1992 21:27:36 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: zilch@planb.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: planb


So you made a light shapely takeout double when vulnerable
then failed to show your double fit over 1N after partner's responsive
double... you deserved what you got.  If you had bid 2C over
1N, partner would have had a much less attractive double.
Partner was right to double 5D.


> * 2. Both vul. South dealer. You are East: T74, KJ52, K7, Q975
> * 
> * West   North   East   South
> *                       1D-1     1. Shows at least 4
> * dbl    1S      dbl-2  1N       2. Responsive, 6-9 HCP
> * pass   5D      ?
>
> Correct answer: PASS.
> net.experts: 5 pass
>              2 double
>
> My partner doubled. Declarer can always make 7D,
> due to 2 finesses working, but only 2 pairs bid 6D.
> This declarer managed to take 12 tricks, losing a heart trick.
> West (me) had a distributional take-out double: KJ2, QT98, 2, AT843.
> 
> North had AQxxx, xx, QJxxxx, void and South was xx, Axx, ATxx, KJxx.
> With spades splitting 3-3 and both the spade and diamond kings onside,
> 13 tricks were easy. NS scores were +1390, +800, +640, +630 and +600,
> (the last two scores presumably as a result of playing in NT),
> so had this declarer managed only 12 tricks (playing 5D undoubled),
> our -620 would have been a very good score.
> In fact, our -950 beat only those defending 6D (striped tail ape double?).


Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: jmh@athena.mit.edu (J Michael Hammond)
Subject: Possibly FAQ - "finesse or play for the drop"
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:30:24 GMT

Say you've got a nine card trump fit missing the Q432. (Say dummy has
the KJ65 and you've got the AT987.)  Assume further that the play of
the rest of the hand is automatic and your only concern is picking up
that queen of trumps.  In the absence of any other information, the
odds very slightly favor playing for the queen to drop.  But how much
information is sufficient to make the (non-table-feeling, purely
odds-calculating) player change that line of play?

For example if your opponents play "sound opening actions" and "never
psych", righty opens 1D, and you end up in 4S with 27 HCP points and
the above nine-card fit between you and pard, you're clearly going to
play dummy's king and then finesse righty for the queen because he's 
all but faced his hand and shown he has all the remaining high cards.

So how about the case where you and partner have a double fit and went
to game with 21 HCP after that same righty opened with 1D?  Or how
about a negative inference -- you get into the 21 HCP game on the
auction 1S-pass-4S-all pass and therefore assume that lefty holds
fewer than about 12 HCP?  Is that enough to change the line?

I guess the industrious person in my position would run a million-hand
Monte Carlo on this question, but I'm lazy and also want to afford
someone with a soap box the chance to climb up onto it and give us all
the good word.

--JMike
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Steve Myerson)
Subject: Re: Reopening decision
Organization: Raytheon Company, Portsmouth, RI
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:55:07 GMT

In article <1e928gINNnj7@armory.centerline.com> Thomas Andrews writes:

* You hold:   T7 J86 AT843 984
* 
* in a Board-a-Match game, red vs white, RHO is dealer.
* 
* Auction goes:
* 
* RHO	Partner	LHO	You
* P	1S	3H	P
* P	D	P	???
* 
* What is your bid?

It's not clear that we have a game,
so I'll pass and hope to beat it a couple.

Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Steve Myerson)
Subject: Re: MIT defeats Harvard and Brown!!!  Yale fails to show!!!
Organization: Raytheon Company, Portsmouth, RI
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:12:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.041809.11039@linus.mitre.org> Robert D. Silverman writes:

* In article <1dueipINNt89@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Sid Vicious writes:

* :MIT continues its long tradition of domination in intercollegiate
* : [rest of story about MIT winning college bridge tournament deleted]
*  
* Much of it by cheating.
* 
* This bragging by (at least one of) the most flagrant cheaters ever
* caught by the ACBL has a hollow ring. 
* 
* I also note that these clowns are considerably older and more 
* experienced than the students from the other schools. These guys
* were undergrads in the early 80's.  How can they claim to represent
* MIT now?
* 
* Hey, if they want to compete with *former* students, I'll get together
* a few ex-Harvard students [Howard Piltch, Arthur Moore, Kitty Bethe,
* Peter Boyd, Eric Robinson, R. Becker etc.] and we'll have a little
* match.

Just make sure you bring bidding boxes, screens, and video camera.

Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)
From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Which inference is better, WAS - "finesse or play for the drop"
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:27:33 GMT
Organization: Irvine Compiler Corp., Irvine, California, USA

In article <1ee8ukINN8ij@agate.berkeley.edu> grove@triangle.Berkeley.EDU 
(Eddie Grove) writes:

> In article <BxwHCq.55K@irvine.com> adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) writes:
>
> >Your side has the exact same 26 cards on both hands, and so do the
> >opponents.  The distributional probabilities of the opponents' 26
> >cards will be exactly the same in both cases;  in no way does it
>
> This is wrong, of course.  Unless you use a perfect random source for
> your shuffles, the conditional distribution of the opponents' cards
> will tend to depend upon your cards.
>
> If the cards are shuffled by hand, the distributions are definitely
> related.  A good pseudo-random generator will come close enough to
> perfect you don't need to worry, but there are a lot of bad generators
> out there.  Does anyone know that the generator(s) used in ACBL events
> are good?

Didn't some researcher just determine recently that if you shuffle the
cards 7 times (I think), that the result will be close to a perfect
random shuffle?  I remember reading something about this but I don't
recall the details.  Perhaps someone out there who's familiar with
this study can enlighten me.

Also, regarding ACBL's random number generator, I believe somebody
either examined lots of tournament hands, or let their hand generator
generate a huge number of hands, and they found that the
distributional frequencies were virtually identical to that predicted
by probability theory.  So this is an empirical indication that their
random number generator is good enough.

                                -- Adam
From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: bidding problem
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:53:18 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbootay.sw.stratus.com

Contract is 6C.

     KQxx
     AQxxx
     A
     T9x

     Ax
     Qxx
     Txx
     AKQJ8

In article <1992Nov23.171758.13500@linus.mitre.org>, bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
> In article <1equdeINNob3@transfer.stratus.com> tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill) writes:
> :As Adam noted, if LHO doesn't lead a trump, you have the needed third
> :entry to ruff two hearts and draw trump, so only 6-1 spades, 5-0 clubs, or
> :a diamond ruff at trick one will set you.
>  
> Or diamond lead, finesse loses, diamond ruff.

Why finesse at trick one?

> Or on a spade lead;
> 
> K wins, A hearts, spade to hand, heart ruff, club to hand, heart ruff.
> Now you need to ruff a spade back to hand. If LHO had 2 you can get overruffed,
> and if you ruff high a 4-1 trump break can beat you if the diamond hook is
> also off.

But ALL of declarer's trumps are high.
-- 
Tim Hill
Stratus Computer, Inc.                  tnh@vos.stratus.com
55 Fairbanks Boulevard                  508-460-2232
Marlborough, MA  01752                  fax 508-624-7488