HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Misalert
Date: 16 Apr 92 07:15:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

From article <1992Apr14.202126.28049@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, by
atleung@troy.uucp (27354-leung): 
> Partner (North) is the dealer 
> S  Q 10 8 7 6            N      E      S     W     
> H  x		          1NT(0)2C(1)   2H(2)  pass   
> D  x		          2S    pass    3C     pass   
> C  K 10 9 x x x         3NT   pass    pass   pass   
> (0) 15-17 HCP
> (1) Alert as heart and a minor
> (2) Transfer to spade (it was properly alerted)

> The committee ruled that no injustice has been done in my team.

Although in the minority (of one ?), I question the ruling.  On the
facts reported, it appears that the E-W agreement was that 2C was
natural.  If this is correct, West committed the infraction of
misinformation.  The director and committee should determine the
actual agreement, but let us assume that the bid was correct and the
explanation was wrong.

The legal questions in these circumstances are 1) was the poor N-S
result a _direct_ result of the misinformation, and if not 2) did the
misinformation _contribute_ to the result.

The committee and all netters so far agree that the first question
must be answered no.  The poor result came from the N-S bidding.  The
bidding was certainly bad, so it is hard to argue.  I'd like to see
the whole hand to be sure, though.  If South is given a correct
explanation, surely he will double.  Can E-W escape?  They have a
nine card heart fit, so perhaps they can.  Perhaps.

To the second question, though, I think we may answer yes.  After the
double of 2C and a heart escape, South might bid spades, but it seems
unlikely that game will be reached.  Again we need to see the whole
hand, but South will be aware of the misfit and likely more cautious.

If the answers are no/yes as suggested above, the result should be a
split ruling.  At pairs, N-S would keep their bad result but E-W
would get the likely result after a correct explanation.  The
procedure at teams is different but well-defined.  

Some netters have suggested that South was after a "double shot."  I
don't see how that can apply, since South (on the facts presented)
was unaware that there had been an infraction until the bidding was
over.

The suggestion that South should have looked at the opponents'
convention card has some merit, but only because West indicated
uncertainty in the explanation.  Normally one should be able to rely
on oral explanations.  Suppose here that South had looked and that
the card had 2C marked natural.  What should South do then?  Call the
director, I suppose, but what would the director do?  Regardless of
the card, an incorrect oral explanation is an infraction.  
-- 
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: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Myerson)
Subject: Re: Problems from Pasadena
Organization: Raytheon Company, Portsmouth, RI
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 12:47:04 GMT


In article <1992Apr6.011329.15094@pencom.com>, eric@pencom.com writes:

ERIC:  What does parner have to do to get you to bid when he has 6-5
ERIC:  in diamonds and spades?  Get out his cattle prod?
ERIC:  
ERIC:  Besides, why don't people think: QJT - AJ7xx - Kxx - Jx
ERIC:  Is a good hand?
ERIC:  
ERIC:  If partner is 6-5 in diamonds and hearts, slam is so
ERIC:  close to reality, I don't see why people keep WANTING to
ERIC:  pass.  Your holding in hearts is excellent opposite shortness.
ERIC:  Why not give partner the benefit of the doubt and take simple
ERIC:  preference?

In article <1992Apr7.144149.24558@dg-rtp.dg.com> hamilton@siberia.rtp.dg.com (Eric Hamilton) writes:

EH: Because this is matchpoints.
EH: If you leave 4S for 6D, and it makes, you gain 1/2 MP against the pairs in
EH: 4S, and do not change your position relative to any other results.

Oops - I believe that you are forgetting those pairs playing in diamonds.

Let's say spades makes 4 and diamonds make 6.
In addition to the 1/2 MP you gain against each pair in 4S (as you stated),
you also gain 1/2 MP against each pair in 5D since you are now beating
them instead of tieing, and you gain 1/2 MP against each pair in 6D
since you are now tieing them instead of losing.

If spades makes 5, then you gain 1/2 MP against each pair in 6D,
having have already beaten all those in 5D.

EH: If you leave 4S for 6D, and it doesn't make, you lose a full matchpoint
EH: to all the other pairs (except the other kamikaze slammers) and half a
EH: matchpoint to the 4S bidders.

That one seems right.

EH: If you leave 4S for 5D, you lose 1/2 MP against the pairs in 4S, and do not
EH: change your position relative to any other results.

Oops again - you forgot those other pairs in 5D.
You now lose 1/2 MP against each pair in 5D since you are now tieing
them instead of beating them.

Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)
From: bs@faron.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bid this hand
Date: 1 Apr 92 11:40:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: linus.1992Apr1.114022.9957
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA

In article <1992Apr1.052156.17144@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> apearlma@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Andrew Pearlman) writes:
:
:You have this hand:
:S K10x
:H A2
:D AKQ1098
:C Ax
:
:Bidding goes
:2H(weak2)-?
:
:Actual bid follows:
:
:2H(weak2)-3NT-Pass-Pass-Double-Redouble-All Pass.  Made 6 when partner showed
:up with:
:
 
deleted....

:Was there a better bid than Redouble?  Partner hasn't played much recently
 
The redouble was wishful thinking. You have only 8 tricks even assuming
diamonds break, are missing the A spades and have only 1 heart stopper.
If the 2H bidder had Ax KQJ10xx x xxxx  You could be going down 2 tricks.

In fact, his double strongly suggests this is happening.

:and is a bit shaky on her bidding.  Was 3NT a good bid?
 
3NT was fine.

--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: What is going on?
From: avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 00:02:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

danil@boreal.owlnet.rice.edu (Danil Patrick Suits) writes:
: IMP teams, everybody green
:
: Axx
: KQx
: xxx
: Axxx
:
: Second chair, playing Standard American, you open
: 1C. Partner skips the bidding up to 2H (strong)
: you raise to 3H....
:
: Partner bids 4H.
:
: 1] What is going on?
:
: 2] What should partner's hand look like?
:
: 3] What do you call?
:
1.  Partner must have something like:  KQX AJxxxx Kx Kx.

2. 6H.

Avi
From: baseggi1@husc8.harvard.edu (Franco Baseggio)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Multi 2D
Summary: Looking for description
Date: 8 Apr 92 02:30:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.baseggi1.702700227

My partner and I have noticed that we will be playing in a number of
superchart events in the future and are therefore considering adopting
some good agreements which are normally forbidden to us.

Can anyone mail me a complete summary including responses, rebids, and
further bidding as necessary for the Multi-2D?  I am interested in any
and all varieties, and also in what 2H and 2S might now be used for.

Finally, I'd be interested in recommendations about other possible 
modifications.  We currently play Lawrence style 2/1 with 10-13 NT Not Vul.

Thanks,
  Franco Baseggio
From: barth@bcse.enet.dec.com (Karl Barth)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: hesitating with a singleton
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:26:30 GMT
Reply-To: barth@bcse.enet.dec.com (Karl Barth)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bridge-o-matic, Inc.

In article <1992Apr8.221748.10734@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu>, ted@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu (Ted Ying) writes:
|>Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:17:48 GMT
|>
|>In article <1992Apr8.183647.29084@leland.Stanford.EDU> daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao) writes:
|>>Suppose partner has made an opening lead in a suit in which you have
|>>a singleton, and your usual practice is to spend a few moments
|>>studying the dummy.  Declarer plays a card almost immediately after
|>>seeing the dummy.  Do you have to play the singleton at the 
|>>fastest pace at which you play a card, or can you take your usual
|>>time after the opening lead?
|>>
|>	First of all, the common misperception is that you can pause to
|>	look at the dummy at your first opportunity to play. 

You certainly CAN pause to look at dummy at your first opportunity to play.
What you cannot do is hesitate with the intent of making declarer misguess.
My partner and I state "Take no inference from my hesitation on this trick"
so that we do not give the impression that our thinking has (one way or another)
anything to do with our play to the first trick.  The fact is, it can be important to
decide things about the whole hand before playing to the first trick.  Why tell the
opponents or partner where your difficulty is?  If you choose to spend a little time
on the whole hand before playing to trick one, that is your right.  You should warn
declarer not to infer anything from this hesitation.

|>             Many
|>	people will state, "I have no difficulty with the trick, I would
|>	just like to study the hand."  If you have no difficulty with
|>	the trick, then you should play to the trick and then hold the
|>	card face up and do not turn it over. 
True.  It's even better to pause BEFORE PLAYING ANYTHING and warn declarer that s/he 
shouldn't take any inference from your delay in playing.  Sometimes your play to the
first trick is related to your analysis of the auction and the sight of dummy.  It's nice to
have a way of  saying "I'm thinking about all this" without giving anyone (partner included)
any unauthorized information.

I think most people mean "take no inference from this hesitation" when they SAY "I have
no difficulty with this trick..." at trick one.  But you are right - the speaker can just play 
a card if their statement is true.

Karl B.
From: tac6189@hertz.njit.edu (Tom Carmichael)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: hesitating with a singleton
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:51:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <1992Apr9.180712.10188@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu> ted@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu (Ted Ying) writes:

>
>	In addition to this, when you play it face up, and pause *AFTER*
>	playing then you allow all 3 people at the table (excluding dummy) the
>	opportunity to think about further developments of the hand
>	simultaneously rather than in parallel.  I find that this helps to
>	keep a game running more smoothly than without.
>
>	I've also noted that many of the top American players tend to do this.
>	They tend to play cards as soon as they know which one they will play
>	and then leave the card face up until they know what they will do
>	after that trick.
>

	I will frequently do this as well.  (This is not a claim to be one
of America's top players.  :-)  There is one problem with this, especially at
the club level:  a lot of declarers will lead to the next trick even though you
still have your card up.  Sometimes, if I mention something about it, they just
get annoyed.  Basically, there is no perfect solution.  I agree with this idea,
but there is a problem with this too:  if you sometimes pause before playing
and sometimes pause after playing, this also goves partner some information
(potentially at least.)

Tom



-- 
"Sleep is a poor substitute for caffine."|  Tom Carmichael
	- The Wizardry Compiled		 |  tac6189@hertz.njit.edu
-----------------------------------------|  tomc@shock.njit.edu
#include <stddisclamer.h>		 |  
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: dif@bhpcpd.kembla.oz.au (David Faulkner)
Subject: Sneaky LOL
Organization: BHP Coated Products Division, Research & Technology Centre
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 17:13:36 EST

Recent comments in this news group on cheating reminded me of a funny(?)
incident which happened to me a while ago in the local club game.
My RHO was a LOL, 70+ years and could barely see the cards (so bad in fact
that she had her own private bidding pad twice normal size so she could see
the bids). However, she wasn't one of the worse players in the club.

Anyway, during the course of the play I led the king of Clubs, and instead of
following suit she played a spade. Her partner queried, and she said,
"Oh, sorry, I thought it was spades led". I didn't worry about letting her
pick her card up and play a club, because of her eyesight.
Now, I had AQJx Spades in dummy. So I thought, if she thought my king of
clubs was the king of spades, she can't possibly have the spade king, and
I can take the perfectly safe spade finesses. (Am I being unethical here? I
wasn't too worried since I had already let her pick up a tabled card).
So I took the finesse, and imagine my surprise (horror) when she took my
queen with the king. 
I just smiled, scored -50 for down one and moved on to the next table.

  -dif-
-- 
Dave Faulkner, Research Officer                     (dif@bhpcpd.kembla.oz.au)
BHP Coated Products Division, Research and Technology Centre
Port Kembla, New South Wales, Australia.
From: f84beo@efd.lth.se (Bjorn-Erik Olsson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bidding problem
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:57:10 GMT
Distribution: rec.games.bridge
Organization: Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden

In article <1992Apr2.152353.26077@linus.mitre.org> bs@fatima.mitre.org
(Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>In article <1992Apr2.112307.7736@lth.se> f84beo@efd.lth.se
(Bjorn-Erik Olsson) writes:
>:In article <1992Mar31.142637.28135@linus.mitre.org> bs@gauss.mitre.org
>:(Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>:stuff deleted.....
>:>
>:>It is a SURE sign of a weak or novice player when they want to open 2C
>:>based on playing strength alone without defense. Or when they want to open
>:>2C with strong 2-suiters.
>:>
>:>Let me offer some advice to those playing SA variants. 
>:>
>:>2C should promise a MINIMUM of 7 controls. (A=2 , K=1). This usually
>:>guarantees not only the playing strength to open 2C, but some defense
>:>that partner can count on as well.
>:>
>:In Bermuda Bowl 1987 Tony Forrester opened a gameforcing 2C on:
>:
>:      x
>:      xx
>:      Ax
>:      AKQJxxxx
>:
> 
>Wonderful. What do you want to give him?  A medal???

No, the opening bid of 2C doesn't appeal to me either, but my point is that
even very strong players open with a forcing 2C on hands which aren't up to
the standards you have set.

>Opening 2C did not get him in trouble because PARTNER held a strong hand
>as well. The problems arise when partner holds a mediocre hand [not weak,
>not strong] and the opponents compete.
>
True, but that risk might be smaller then the possibility that you will miss
a game/slam because partner won't realise that you have 9 solid tricks by
yourself, this is what happened to the Swedes at the other table.
It is also possible that it's the opponents who get preempted. Who wants to
enter the auction at the two-level with 5431 and ~12HCP, partner is likely to
have a yarborough. As a matter of fact 2C is such a good preemtive bid that 
the ACBL has banned psychic 2C.

Another risk with the 2C opening is that you will overstate your overall
strength. This is what happened to the British, Forrester's partner just
blasted 7NT on a good ~14HCP beliving Forrester just had to have fillers
in his suits. 7NT wasn't a very good contract, depended on a first round
finess on a heart lead and a little less on another lead.

stuff deleted.....
> 
>This hand is much better served by a Namyats 4NT opening bid.
>
No hand will cause any bidding problems if you have a gadget to show
exactly what you got. Most pairs, all eight in the semifinals of BB -87,
hasn't a Namyats 4NT available and have a problem with this hand.

      Bjorn
From: tpermutt@eng.umd.edu (Thomas Permutt)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: No clubs?
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:07:01 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park, College of Engineering

Asya Kamsky writes:
>David Moore writes:
>>Apparently, here in the US, statements like "No clubs partner?" are not
>>frowned upon. When I played in Australia, making such a statement would have
>>caused the immediate calling of the director (and rightly so). Another practice
>>that is common here and which I find obnoxious is people alerting their partner
>>that they have made an insufficient bid.
>
>Why should they be frowned upon?  They are 100% legal.  It would "rightly"
>cause a director call, if it were not explicitly made legal.
>
Legal, in the US.  The Laws of Bridge were changed a few years ago to make
this practice illegal.  After an uproar they were changed again to allow local
authorities to make them legal, which the ACBL did.

>It's everyone's responsibility to draw attention to irregularity, which an
>insufficient bid is.  What's your problem with the partner of the bidder
>drawing attention to it, rather than the opponents?  It doesn't change anything.
It is nobody's responsibility to draw attention to an irregularity.  Dummy is
prohibited from doing so, and other players may do so if it is to their
advantage.  It was formerly the Law, but is no longer, that calling attention
to certain irregularities was tantamount to requiring their correction, and
therefore gave up the option of condoning them.

Tom Permutt
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: cjvg8608@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher J. Vandemore)
Subject: Bharat takes the Big Ten
Reply-To: vandemor@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 23:52:40 GMT


Congratulations to Bharat Rao, Kris Maillacheruvu, Charles Blair and
Hiroshi Miyauchi on winning the Big Ten Team Championship held at the
University of Illinois on 11 April 1992.

Maillacheruvu represented Iowa, while the others represented Illinois.
This board set the tone in the 14-board final against an all Illinois
team:

Dealer West
E-W Vulnerable

            AJT843                  West      North     East    South
            KQ32                              Kris              Bharat
            -----  
            A96                     1H        1S        Pass    2C
KQ65                   72           2D        2H        Pass    2S
AJT64                  98           Pass      4S        Pass    5C
AT96	               87543        Dbl.      Pass      Pass    Pass
-----                  KJ54

            9
            75
            KQJ2
            QT8732

550 N/S vs. 80 N/S at the other table

--------
Rao-Maillacheruvu won the pair game on Friday evening.  Sunday morning's
individual title was captured by the tournament chairman, Josh Shanes of
Illinois.

Chris Vandemore
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bs@faron.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: Bid these hands
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 01:20:44 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.225418.24729@midway.uchicago.edu> valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty) writes:
>bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>> 
>>1H (1)   1NT(2)
>>3C (3)   7NT
>
>>Can anyone else find a shorted auction to 7NT?? (2 bid apiece!!!)
>
>I actually think that we would bid this:
>
>	3N (1)	6N (2)
>	7N (3)
>
>1) Solid minor + 1 outside card (A or K)
>2) 8 + 4 = 12
>3) If he's got 12 w/o the heart Q, surely he has 13 with it.
				    ^^^^^^^

 
Gag. vomit. retch.

This has got to rank as one of the most contrived auctions after
the fact that I have ever seen. 

Did it occur to you that partner might have:

AKxx
Jxx
AQx
xxx
 
or similar?? i.e. he has secondary cards in hearts missing the A?


With your agreement, "solid minor + 1 A or K" partner need only have
3-1/2 tricks, not 4 to bid slam.
 
Yes, 6 might be on a finesse, but it is certainly no worse than that
and is cold if they lead a heart. This is a slam I would want to
bid.


Also, that you are lying when you open 3NT???  You said solid minor
plus 1 extra card. You have 2 extra cards.

Also, that the agreement about what 3NT means is *totally* idiotic??
It means that when you open 3NT and he only stops 2 outside suits he
must guess [with nothing to help; it is a sheer guess] whether your
A or K duplicates one of his stoppers or is in the other suit????


Wonderful treatment. Really well thought out.  If you want to
play 3NT = solid minor, do so rationally. Play that it shows NOTHING
outside. Now partner need not guess.
 
Your auction bears no resemblence to reality.
--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sperbr@vccnorthd.its.rpi.edu (Ron E Sperber)
Subject: Re: Matchpoints, opposite a 2C opener
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 22:47:48 GMT

matthew@pram.cs.ucla.edu (Matthew Merzbacher) writes:

>With a novice partner, playing NO GADGETS
>At Matchpoints
>White vs. White
>You want to play flawlessly to give partner confidence (read: don't be a hog
>because partner is a newbie).

>You hold:
>AJxx
>9x
>Tx
>Q9xxx

>Partner holds (and deals):
>Kxx
>AKQxx
>AKQJx
>(void)

>We managed to end up in 5NT, which makes on the matchpoints defense of taking
>the top two clubs.  Our auction:

>2C-2D
>2H-3C
>3D-3S
>4D-4N
>5H-5S
>5N

>Can you provide a less perverse auction?
>--

2C-2D
2H-3C
3D-3S
4D-4H
P

4H is probably the best at matchpoints, though 6D isn't terrible.
partner has to take a preference at open point.


>Matthew Merzbacher	ARPA:	matthew@CS.UCLA.EDU
>Moo - Moo Moo  		UUCP:	...!{uunet|rutgers|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!matthew
>               		This time, *with* the oys

	-Ron
-- 
    Ron Sperber  sperbr@rpi.edu Ron_Sperber@mts.rpi.edu Ron_sperber@rpitsmts
	"All the World's indeed a stage/And we are merely players"
	"Performers and Portrayers/Each anothers audience        "
	"Outside the gilded cage"                     	-Rush,"Limelight"
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ttw@beta.lanl.gov (Tony Warnock)
Subject: Reverse Redux
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:03:25 GMT

What should one bid in the following situation:
 
               South     S: KQJx
                         H: xx
                         D: xxx
                         C: xxxx
 
The bidding has gone:   North          South
 
                        1 club         1 spade
                        2 hearts         ???
 
 
This is a follow-up to the case where North bid 2 diamonds.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge