HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Comments Please (without tabs)
Date: 8 Nov 92 17:15:45 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Tim Maceachern <maceache@fox.nstn.ns.ca> writes:
>>>:>>   A8xxx      QJx
>>>:>>   JTxx       Axx
>>>:>>   AKxx       Qxx
>>>:>>   -          xxxx

> I think that South should have responded 2d over 1nt.  This gives
> North a chance to bid 2h if possible.  As it is, North would prefer to
> 2s.  South can then bid 3h as a game try which North can accept to 4s.

How can South possibly make a *game try* on 12 HCP and no fit??  The
auction you have proposed for North would normally show two spades and
as little as six points.  And opposite this South should bid to the 3
level and try for game??

Also, in suggesting that South bid 2D, you seem to be implying that
North might bid 2H over 1S-1NT-2D with, say, 2434 shape, so that N-S
could find their 4-4 fit.  This is completely out of the question.  Even
Qx/Axxxx/xx/Jxxx should bid 2S rather than 2H.  Bidding 2D gives up
almost completely on the heart suit.

                                        David desJardins
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ted@sage0.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying)
Subject: Re: Committee Ruling - Opinions?
Organization: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:55:49 GMT

ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se (Lars Andersson) writes:

>and I also do not have the laws at hand but here goes.

>>
>>The bidding went:	
>>
>>E
>>2C*  p 2S** 3C
>>3d   p 3H   4C
>>4d   p 5d   all pass

>>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.

>I think South has a good point here. Judging from the bidding (4C!) he seems to
>be an aggressive bidder and would probably have bid 3S over a correct alert/
>explanation.

>I would adjust the result to 5S going down 2 doubled (AK of spades, a diamond
>and a club ruff).

	I don't think that this is reasonable.  As you mentioned above,
	why didn't E or W bid 6D?  If the N/S cards competed to 5S, then
	don't you think either E or W might take the push to 6D?  And on
	a spade lead, and the A hearts holding up for 2 rounds, 6D can
	go down.  Now, with a 5S sac (down 2 doubled) or 6D making or 6D
	down 1 on good defense, how is a reasonable score to be determined?

	Law 12 specifically covers this situation, "...when, owing to an
	irregularity, no result can be obtained, the Director awards an
	artificial adjusted score according to responsibility..."

	And deems A+ (60% of board) and A- (40% of board) for "in no way
	at fault" and "directly at fault" respectively.

	I think that Laws 12, 21, and 40 (see my previous posting) cover
	this close enough to award those scores.

>>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.

>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)

	I agree that South took undue inference (and all such inferences
	are at the player's own risk), but I still think that the LOL
	should not have hesitated for so long.  In my last posting, I
	advocated a procedural penalty...I still do.

	Ted Ying			ted@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov
	Hughes/STX			Goddard Space Flight Center
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: baseggio@uucp (Franco Baseggio)
Subject: Re: Play 6NT
Organization: D. E. Shaw & Co.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:40:32 GMT

In article <BRYNJULV.HAUKSSON.92Oct19172555@rosmer.nr.no> Brynjulv.Hauksson@nr.no (Brynjulv Hauksson) writes:
>Some random thoughts:
>- it's amazing how early some squeezes operate, on this hand
>  West is squeezed at the fourth trick (and he may not even notice it!)

Here's a fratricidal squeeze at trick 1 (what other kind can there be?):

        AKQJT8
        K
        xxxxxx
        -
2              -
QJT9876543     A
A              KQJT98
A              KQJT98
        976543
        2
        -
        xxxxxx

South declares 6S.  (EW didn't find their sacrifice.)

If west leads a minor, declarer cross ruffs 12 tricks.
A heart lead endplays east for the same result, so W leads a trump.

Now, when declarer plays the 8, East is squeezed.  A heart is obviously
bad.  If a diamond, S plays S7 and establishes a diamond.  If a club, S
overtakes with the 9 and establishes that suit.

Franco Baseggio
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: Legal and illegal information after bid out of turn
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 09:48:10 GMT

Apologies for the long inclusion.

> > > Summary:  East opened 1NT at North's turn to call.  The bidding reverted
> > > to North, who opened 1 diamond.  East then bid 1NT, to avoid lead penal-
> > > ties and barring his partner for the entire auction.  E-W play that an
> > > opening 1NT shows 10-12, while a 1NT overcall shows 16-19.

> > I said [originally] "It was clear that East thought he was opening,
> > not overcalling."  As I recall, the reason that it was clear was that
> > East said "Oh, didn't you pass?" or something like that to North.  As I
> > said, it was an informal game! ...
> > 
> > The illegal bid, by itself, tells West only that *either* East has
> > 16-19 and thought he was overvcalling, *or* he has 10-12 and thought
> > he was opening.  ... With the illegal remark by East, as I see it,
> > West ... has to make the choice not suggested by the illegal
> > information and assume 16-19.

> I think you're misunderstanding the law about unauthorized info, which
> says something like "when choosing between two choices, you may not
> make the one *logically* suggested by the unauthorized information",
> not "if unauthorized information suggests one choice, you must choose
> the other one."

It's in between those.  "The partner may not choose from *among* logical
alternative actions one that *could reasonably* have been suggested over
another by the extraneous information".  (1987 duplicate laws, my emphasis)

> In the auction given above, I don't think it's reasonable
> to say "*either* East thought he was overcalling *or* was opening" --
> in order for East to have thought he was overcalling, he had to have
> heard a bid when no bid was actually made.  When was the last time
> this happened to you?

I can't remember if it's ever happened to me personally, but I've
certainly seen it happen at duplicate games; South at table 1 bids
too loudly, and East at table 2, who quite properly is not looking
at anyone else's face, thinks it was North at table 2 who bid.
(This is one reason why I prefer to use bidding boxes.)

In our case we were playing rubber, so this wasn't a possibility.
There was some extraneous chatter which might have led to a similar
confusion, though.
-- 
Mark Brader		    "One of the lessons of history is that nothing
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto	     is often a good thing to do and always a clever
utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com     thing to say."               -- Will Durant

This article is in the public domain.
From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bidding problem
Date: 13 Nov 92 14:00:56 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbootay.sw.stratus.com

In article <6041@tivoli.UUCP>, taylor@foraker.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Eric Taylor) 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: QJxxxx, AKQx, xxx,--  ...

> 1S	2C
> 2H	2S
> 3S

I gather Eric meant 3S to show a 6-card suit and invite cuebidding toward a
spade slam.  Unfortunately, I think it shows a semi-balanced hand (5422) and
invites 3N if partner has diamonds well stopped and no ruffing value.

In general, after partner raises, rebidding our suit at some level other than
game or slam carries some message other than additional length.  For example,
after 1S-2C,2H-2S, 3S (inviting 3N) and 5S (inviting 6S) would each say
"partner, my only concern is my worthless holding in the unbid suit".


                                     Tim
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Steve Myerson)
Subject: Re: Striped-tail doubles
Organization: Raytheon Company, Portsmouth, RI
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 13:04:31 GMT

In article <9211111532.aa27705@Paris.ics.uci.edu> Dennis Kibler writes:

* As dealer you pick up  Axx,AQ10x,xx,Qxxx and open 1 club.
* The bidding goes:
* 
*   1c   1nt  2s   3d*    Alert transfer to hearts
*   p    3h   p    3nt
*   X**  p    p    4d
*   p    p    p
* 
* 
* ** I believed 3nt as asking for a choice between 3nt and 4hearts
* and felt I could beat either contract.
*     Not - 3nt makes with an overtrick as 1nt bidder held KJXX of hearts.
*
* Does the double call for any particular suit to be lead?

I'm not sure if there is a standard for this,
but the way my partner and I play it,
the double calls for a spade lead. 
The double says, "Even though I didn't support your suit,
I want you to lead it."
Without the double, normally partner leads your suit.

In this case, with such poor clubs and some help for partner's suit,
a spade lead would be preferred.
Spade to the ace, and a spade back before declarer gets going rates
to be a good start for the defense.

Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: taddiken@ms.uky.edu (scott taddiken)
Subject: Competitive evaluation.
Keywords: competitive evaluation
Summary: I'd like opinions on how to tell the strengths of these hands.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:54:18 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

Suppose your opponents and you are playing yellow card, noone vulnerable,
and the auction has gone:

 W   N   E   S
--- --- --- ---
1d   p  1s   ?

You, South, hold either:

42                            KJ765
AQT87          OR             AQT87
KJ765                         42
3                             3

Clearly, you would rather call 2h on the second hand than on the first.
But how much stronger is the second hand on this auction?

In his thought provoking book "The Complete Book of Overcalls", Lawrence
says that the second hand is 2 and a half to 3 tricks stronger.  I am
interested to know people's "thumbnail methods" of calculating such a thing,
and whether they agree with Mr. Lawrence.

I suppose that the spades in the second hand might be worth 1 or 2 honor
tricks (depending on the location of the ace and queen of spades, about
which we have probabilistic information) and perhaps a long suit trick or
a ruff or overruff.  These are tricks which we are quite unlikely to get
from those wretched diamonds.  I guess that way we might come to Mr. Lawrence's
conclusion, and I'm sure his experience guides us correctly, but he is
teaching by example and filling in none of the "little thoughts" he thinks
on the way to coming to his "2 1/2 to 3" conclusion.  What little thoughts
do YOU think?

Certainly the "correct" method would be to generate all hands which the other
three parties at the table might plausibly hold on this bidding, figure out
the likely number of tricks in each case, and find the expected value.  But
until I am allowed to bring software into the auction, I will continue to
fumble in the darkness for rules of thumb.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Taddiken,         University of Kentucky
From: sater@sater.home.cs.vu.nl (Hans van Staveren)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Legal and illegal information after bid out of turn
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:37:36 GMT
Organization: The home machine of Hans van Staveren

adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) writes:


>   Summary:  East opened 1NT at North's turn to call.  The bidding reverted
>   to North, who opened 1 diamond.  East then bid 1NT, to avoid lead penal-
>   ties and barring his partner for the entire auction.  E-W play that an
>   opening 1NT shows 10-12, while a 1NT overcall shows 16-19.

>>  Questions:

	deleted

>The following answers are based on the Laws of Duplicate Contract
>Bridge, printed in 1982.  Since I don't yet own the latest version of
>the Laws, I'd appreciate hearing (via email or posting to news) any
>corrections to these answers.

>Surprisingly (to me, at least), the answer to (1) and (2) is No.  That
>is, West is *not* required to bid and defend as though his partner has
>16-19 HCP.  Part II(C) of the Proprieties states:  

	deleted

>Insufficient bids are treated similarly.  Even in the case where the
>offender makes his bid sufficient, so that there is no penalty, it is
>proper for the offender's partner to make use of the extra
>information.  For example:  LHO, who has a British accent, opens 
>1 heart, but this sounds like "pass" to my partner, who then bids 
>1 club.  When it's pointed out that this is insufficient, he changes
>his call to 2 clubs.  Now, partner doesn't have to have an opening
>hand to overcall 2 clubs, but I know he has an opening hand because of
>his 1C bid.  Furthermore, I also know he may have as few as 3 clubs in
>his hand (in the system I play).  Apparently, I am allowed to take
>advantage of this information and bid accordingly.  In fact, it
>appears that this is the case even if we play Precision and the 1C was
>intended to be artifical.  However, 27B1(b) says:

If you play precision 27B3 applies, since the 1C is not clearly
not conventional, and you are barred from bidding throughout.

A case where 27B1b could be applied is the following:
South opens 1NT and West bids 1D. They play a natural system, so
the bid is corrected to 2D, which all players at the table will
know is natural. Since this pair plays a 2D overcall over 1NT as
multi however, West now has an opportunity to bid diamonds he might not
otherwise have. If this leads to damage for NS the director can
award an adjusted score.

	Hans van Staveren
	Amsterdam, Holland
From: bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: 8 Nov 92 09:16:27 GMT
Subject: Re: Legal and illegal information after bid out of turn
Organization: Princeton University
X-Subliminal-Message: You can quit reading news anytime you want.

In article <1992Nov6.234343.8309@sq.sq.com> msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
|Adam Beneschan (adam@irvine.com) answers my query:
| 
|>    Summary:  East opened 1NT at North's turn to call.  The bidding reverted
|>    to North, who opened 1 diamond.  East then bid 1NT, to avoid lead penal-
|>    ties and barring his partner for the entire auction.  E-W play that an
|>    opening 1NT shows 10-12, while a 1NT overcall shows 16-19.
|> 
|A point occurs to me which has not yet been mentioned by anyone.  In the
|original posting, I said "It was clear that East thought he was opening,
|not overcalling."  As I recall, the reason that it was clear was that
|East said "Oh, didn't you pass?" or something like that to North.  As I
|said, it was an informal game!  If we were playing with any degree of
|seriousness, this would be a violation of propriety since it tells West 
|that East thought he was opening and not overcalling.
|
|The illegal bid, by itself, tells West only that *either* East has
|16-19 and thought he was overvcalling, *or* he has 10-12 and thought
|he was opening.  As I see it, it is therefore proper for East to
|assume that 10-12 is correct only after he has enough information to
|rule out the other case, though he might assume it provisionally on
|probabilistic grounds.   With the illegal remark by East, as I see
|it, West can't even do that; he has to make the choice not suggested
|by the illegal information and assume 16-19.
|

I think you're misunderstanding the law about unauthorized info, which
says something like "when choosing between two choices, you may not
make the one *logically* suggested by the unauthorized information",
not "if unauthorized information suggests one choice, you must choose
the other one." In the auction given above, I don't think it's reasonable
to say "*either* East thought he was overcalling *or* was opening" --
in order for East to have thought he was overcalling, he had to have
heard a bid when no bid was actually made.  When was the last time this
happened to you?

I should probably get off this topic, but it seems to me that people
are persisting in misinterpreting the unauthorized info rule, sometimes
to the point of absurdity.

ben

--

Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Software packages
From: sturgeon_c@eis.dofasco.ca
Date: 9 Nov 92 08:21:59 GMT
Organization: Dofasco Inc, Hamilton, Ont. Can.
Nntp-Posting-User: sturgeon_c

I don't follow bridge, however, my father does--He'd love this forum.
Are there any DOS or DOS/WINDOWS software packages that are worth
investigating (public domain, shareware or commerical)?  Thanks.
Please reply by e-mail.

-- 
____________________________________________________________________________

Craig Sturgeon
(sturgeon_c@eis.dofasco.ca)

Dofasco Steel Inc.                                          100 Lyons Ave.,
1330 Burlington St. East                                 Brantford, Ontario
Hamilton, Ontario                                           Canada  N3R 4R4
Canada  L8N 3J5
(416) 548-4420
____________________________________________________________________________
From: fishberg@cs.swarthmore.edu (Dylan Steinberg)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Assign the blame
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:11:47 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College

paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson) writes:

>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.

>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

I'm inclined to give most of the blame to south.  Here are my reasons.

1) North has bid twice at the three level with no support from you, so he
rates to have a strong hand an be 6-5.
2) With your four small hearts (and his bidding) he has heart shortness, so
you have no tricks to lose there.
3) If 4S is wrong, 3S doesn't rate to get you a tremendous board either, but
if 4S is right, 3S making a bunch will be just awful.

That's my reasoning anyway.

--Dylan
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dylan Steinberg				"A foolish consistancy is the
Swarthmore College			hobgoblin of little minds."
Swarthmore, PA				    --Ralph Waldo Emerson
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: Comments Please (without tabs)
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:35:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.151053.23205@ramon.bgu.ac.il> avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira) writes:
 
stuff deleted....

:: I am also of the opinion that South does not have an accept of a 3 card
:: limit raise. One normally accepts a 4 card limit raise with a 6-loser
:: hand. South has a 6 loser hand. However, South also has to worry about
::
:: (a) The 4th card in each of the round suits. Partner not having 4 trumps
::     may make it difficult to handle these 2 cards.
::
:: (b) Duplication in clubs. Partner is likely to have at least one wasted
::     card in clubs.  Note that partner showed up with ABSOLUTELY no
::     wastage whatsoever. Every card in the North hand was working, and
::     still 4S was only a marginal game.
::
:: Note that even if you may North slightly stronger, [add say Q or K
:: of clubs] giving him a legitimate 11 count or so, game is STILL
:: marginal.
::
:: North could even have:  Kxx  Axx xxx KQxx  and game is HOPELESS.
::
:: So:
::
:: (1) North should only raise to 2S.
:: (2) SOuth should not accept the 3S call.
::
:I have a feeling that both Bob and David think that the sequence 1S-1NT;
:2h-3S is the equivalent of a limit raise with only 3 trumps, as it
:would be if one were playing 1NT forcing. If NS were playing 1nt forcing, I
:would agree with their comments.
 
I did not make that assumption. There was no indication that 1NT was
forcing, and the article did say ACOL.

:
:NS were playing Acol, however (be it dutch or otherrwise).  In Acol this
:bidding sequence shows a maximum 1NT (6-9) response that was greatly improved
:by the 2H bid. So that now N expects to cover 3+ losers in South hand.
 
But North still cannot know whether any minor suit cards he holds are wasted.
If you want to say that the 3S call promises NO strength in the minors,
I will agree with your assessment. There is no guarantee that even an A
in one the minors will be a working card.

:Possible holdings are QJx, KQx, Jxx,xxxx. or Qjx,Qxx,Axx,xxxx.
 
If the latter, there is no way of knowing that the A is a working card.
Partner might have a diamond void and (say) Axxx in clubs.

If the former, partner might have  Axxxx Axxx - Axxx.

Partner will accept with this (6 losers) and game is STILL marginal.

I do not think South has an accept opposite only 3 card trump support
on ANY holding North can have for his bidding. South only has 6 losers, but
also has 'eventual' losers in the 4th card of the side suits. This point
is more important than I think you realize.
--
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