HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: skataba@pbhyf.PacBell.COM (Sam Atabaki)
Subject: Re: Bidding of Hand, is there a good way to do this?
Reply-To: skataba@PacBell.COM (Sam Atabaki)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 01:29:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.152631.19070@linus.mitre.org> wchenaul@cyclone.mitre.org (William W. Chenault) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.115236.13588@rayssd.ssd.ray.com> sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Myerson) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul30.013035.16002@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> Sam Atabaki writes
>>about the following hands (rearranged for easier reading):
>>
>>* North   S - Axx, H - void,  D - xx,  C - Q J 10 9 6 5 3 2 
>>* South   S - x,   H - Axxxx, D - KQx, C - AK84
>>* 
>>* bidding opens with West, who opens 1H  (using Std. American 5 Card Maj)
>>* 
>>* This is how I would bid it:
>>* 
>>* W     N      E      S
>>* 1h    2c(1)  p(2)   2h(3)
>>* p     3c(4)  4n(5)  5d(6)
>>* 6c    p      p      p
>>* 
>>* (1) Suit length and void justify this bid at any vul.
>>* (2) You did not mention if East made a bid, but I assume not- if West's
>>*     bid is genuine East can not have much anyway.
>>* (3) Strong cue-bid; forcing at least to game.
>>* (4) I only have clubs and am not strong.
>>* (5) Blackwood. Partner probably has a singleton heart or is void, so
>>*     combined hands can not have more than 2 losers.
>>* (6) One ace- that is what I want to hear. If pard bids 5c I pass.
>>
>>I think not.
>>
>>4N. East, who could not bid after 1H-2C, now has a good enough hand
>>    to ask for aces from a partner who got out of the bidding after 
>>    one round of bidding?
>>
>>5D. I like this convention. East asks for aces, and South responds!
>>    Now if I could only force *my* opponents to tell me how many
>>    aces they hold. By the way, South holds *two* aces.
>>
>>6C. Given that I can see that NS hold 12 clubs, is this a cue bid
>>    showing first round control?
>>
>>Interesting bidding system you have.
>>
>>Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)
>
>I think a little common sense would be sufficient to indicate that the
>origional poster mis-typed the bidding, by accidently leaving out the
>rest of the passes for both east and west.  The bidding should probably
>be as follows:
>
> W     N      E      S
>1h    2c(1)  p(2)   2h(3)
> p    3c(4)   p     4n(5)
> p    5d(6)   p      6c 
> p     p      p
>
>Notice that now all the bids (with the textual explanation above) make
>sense.  It is interesting that you would notice the above absurdities
>in the inaccurate bidding, especially including the facts that East bid
>when he should have passed and south would be responding (and doing so
>inaccurately) and not have guessed the correct bidding. (Or if you did
>guess it, why didn't you post the correct bidding?)
>
>This post is not intended as a flame.
>
>Bill
>

I am the original poster and I'm sorry for causing the confusion.
As Bill mentioned, I mistyped the bidding sequence and left out
the passes by East/West pair. The correctly typed bidding 
sequence is given by Bill, above.

Thanks,
-Sam.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Do you convert for penalties?
From: avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 01:37:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

Nick Martino writes:
: IMP's, NS VUL. South holds:
:
:        9 A6532 K7 87643
:
:  The bidding is:
:
:   East    South    North   West
:    2H       P        P*      X
:     P       ?
:
: *Long hesitation
:
: What is your call?
:
3C.  Bid you longest and strongest non trump suit. No need to jump since pard
     expects at least this much playing strenght.
     To convert the double to penalty, you need to have spots and
     intermediates.  Say KJ97x

Avi
From: jicsg21@cetus1c.cs.utk.edu (jicsguest21)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bridge game software
Date: 31 Jul 92 12:52:43 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Distribution: world
Reply-To: jicsg21@cetus1c.cs.utk.edu (jicsguest21)
NNTP-Posting-Host: cetus1c.cs.utk.edu

The okbridge program is available from suned.cs.yale.edu by anonymous ftp.

Good Luck
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Yet another assign the blame
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:07:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.132031.12341@wam.umd.edu>, on 28 Jul 92 13:20:31 GMT,
pi@wam.umd.edu (Raymond L. Gilbert) writes:
>
>    The following nasty sequence happened to my partner and
>me last night, playing 5cm S/A.
>
>Matchpoints, E/W vul, N dealer
>
>    North             South
>S: A Q J T 9 x    S:
>H: x              H: T x x x
>D: J              D: A K x x x x
>C: A K J x x      C: x x x
>
>The bidding (E/W passing throughout, not even a double!):
>    North             South
>     1S                1N
>     3C                3D
>     3S                3N
>     4S                5D
>     5N                P
>Opening lead by W: 4H
>
>    The only bid I really hated in this sequence was 5D, but
>still it was a nasty sequence.  Given the poor bidding, how
>would you now plan the play?  As it turns out, clubs broke 4-1
>and are sitting off sides for a nasty 300 set and a bottom board.
>--
I'm not crazy about the 3NT bid without a stopper in hearts; however,
the situation is somewhat difficult. Probably the best bid of a bad
lot is 4C, denying both spade tolerance and a heart stopper.

I agree with both the 3S and the 4S bids because of the solidity of
the spade suit. North really doesn't need spade support from partner.
Without such a self-sufficient spade suit, 4C would have been correct
to show the distribution (5-5 or 6-5). (4S should make on any normal
split in spades and even on some 5-2 splits when clubs lie well).

5D is atrocious, and, IMO, clearly the worst bid on the hand. 5NT is
also inexcusable; up to that point North had done nothing wrong. Both
4S and 5D must be passed if there is ever to be any partnership trust.

Blame: North 15%, South 85%. (ALthough 5NT was bad, the damage had
already been done since 5D would also be a near bottom).

>/----------------------------------------------------------------------------\
>| Raymond L. Gilbert       | "I *hate* Vulcans! I *hate* the logic. I *hate* |
>| Internet: pi@wam.umd.edu |  the arrogance."                                |
>|           pi@lpr.umd.edu |        - Sela on Spock, ST:TNG, Unification II  |
>
    ====Jack====
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bdsokolo@morpheus.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Bernd Sokolowsky)
Subject: Re: Try this one out...
Organization: CSD., University of Erlangen, Germany
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:17:06 GMT

In <1992Jul20.163431.1155@sco.com> philipg@sco.COM (Philip Gordon) writes:


>Matchpoints
>Fairly weak opponents
>N/S Vulnerable

>South:  
>  S: QT6432
>  H: 852
>  D: 74
>  C: 932

> 1. North   East   South   West
>    ---------------------------
>     1S      2D     Pass    2H
>     2S     Pass    Pass    3D
>     3S     Pass    Pass   Pass

>Do you agree with all of south's bids?  If, not when and what would you
>bid differently?

Perhaps this is a matter of stile, but i would at least bid 2S in the first
round of bidding. And i like 3S even more. With such a fit it is not
important to have 6 hcp for a 1st round response.

Yes, i saw the vulnerability.

Bernd.
--
bdsokolo@faui33.informatik.uni-erlangen.de
bdsokolo@daphne.rrze.uni-erlangen.dbp.de
From: graeme@castle.ed.ac.uk (G J Ackland)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Short vs Long suit game tries
Date: 27 Jul 92 10:01:22 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Jul21.030846.5333@ramon.bgu.ac.il> avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira) writes:
>IMHO the reaseon for this debate is simply because on some hands long suit
>tries are more usefull, while on others SSGT are more informative.
>
>Why not use both?
>
>After 1H-2H, the bid of 2S asks partner to bid 2NT, after which
>opener will make a SSGT in the suit above the singleton. (3c with a singleton
>spades). 2NT is a long suit try in spades. 3C 3D are natural and long.
>Similarly, after 1S-2S, 2NT is a relay to 3C, and again opener bids the suit
>above the singleton.

This is a nice solution, but why bid the suit above the singleton?

>You don't lose anything by this approach. Bidding the suit above the
>singleton minimizes the risk that the oppenents will be able to find a cheap
>sacrifice by doubling.
> [rest deleted]

I am not generally in favour of banning new ideas, but it seems to me
that the claimed advantage of this (suit above the singleton) is to exploit
the fact that opponents have not had chance to discuss defences to it.  
A ten second discussion (X shows length in the singleton suit) would
resolve it - but who has the time?  As an opponent waiting to double the
SSGT, I'll have to ask about the alert, digest the information, consider
how partner will read a double of the suit above the singleton and
then...  but by now partner's constrained by my hesitation.

Surely a straight SSGT is fairer (and after the transfer, I suppose,
rebidding trumps to show the unbiddable S/C suit).

                              Graeme
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: pi@wam.umd.edu (Raymond L. Gilbert)
Subject: Yet another assign the blame
Originator: pi@rac2.wam.umd.edu
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:20:31 GMT


    The following nasty sequence happened to my partner and
me last night, playing 5cm S/A.

Matchpoints, E/W vul, N dealer

    North             South
S: A Q J T 9 x    S:
H: x              H: T x x x
D: J              D: A K x x x x
C: A K J x x      C: x x x

The bidding (E/W passing throughout, not even a double!):
    North             South
     1S                1N
     3C                3D
     3S                3N
     4S                5D
     5N                P
Opening lead by W: 4H

    The only bid I really hated in this sequence was 5D, but
still it was a nasty sequence.  Given the poor bidding, how
would you now plan the play?  As it turns out, clubs broke 4-1
and are sitting off sides for a nasty 300 set and a bottom board. 
-- 
/----------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Raymond L. Gilbert       | "I *hate* Vulcans! I *hate* the logic. I *hate* |
| Internet: pi@wam.umd.edu |  the arrogance."                                |
|           pi@lpr.umd.edu |        - Sela on Spock, ST:TNG, Unification II  |
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao)
Subject: Re: Zip Swiss misadventure
Reply-To: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 13:36:13 GMT

desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
>zilch@planb.Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>>All vul.
>>South    West   North   East
>>  3H      DBL    Pass    3N
>>  Pass    Pass   Pass

>>  West             East     
>>  S- Q62           S- 94    
>>  H-               H- QJ5   
>>  D- AKJ4          D- Q7632 
>>  C- AK8632        C- J97   

>100% of the blame to South.  Preempts work.  What else is new?

Interesting -- my view differs from David about 180 degrees on this
one.  Of course the preempt by South is what caused the problem in the
first case, but I agree with a prior poster that EAST's 3NT is
"profoundly preposterous".  How the #$%@& does E hope to make it with
that rag of a hand?  I would have responded 4D with the E hand
(obviously, I agree with West's double).

West will be hard pressed not to shoot out a 5D call at IMPs, since
you need DQxxx(x) CQ and 3rd round spades stopper to make 5D.  At
Matchpoints, I'd accept that South had "got" us, and probably pass 4D
or go on depending on the phase of the moon....


>                                        David desJardins

Bharat
From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Yet another assign the blame
Date: 29 Jul 92 12:02:07 GMT
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA

In article <1522@idacrd.UUCP> desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
:Eddie Grove <grove@triangle.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
:>Here is the point to 3S.  Presumably partner has denied 4 clubs (or
:>s/he will jump in clubs later, but we may safely ignore it for now).
:>The spades will usually play for 1 loser, but the clubs need
:>Txx or better  support for the same performance (presumably you get forced 
:>opposite Tx fairly often).  So long as there was a chance of
:>a good club fit, it was worth exploring a club slam.  But how
:>likely is 5C to make when 4S is going down, now that partner has
:>implied at most 3 clubs?  At matchpoints it would be even clearer.
 
Damn it!!  Partner has NOT denied holding 4 clubs with his 3D bid!!!

Have you ever heard of an advance cuebid? Has it occurred to you that
partner's diamond bid is an advance(d) cuebid and that he will support
clubs later? What would you do with:  - xxxx AKxxx Qxxx  over 3C??
You'd cuebid your diamonds, that's what! 
--
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: sater@cs.vu.nl (Hans van Staveren)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Italy, are you there?
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:44:03 GMT

I am trying to organise the posting of the daily bulletins of the Olympiad
in Salsomaggiore, but I need some help from Italy. If you are in Italy
and read this I would appreciate hearing from you. Even if the only thing
you are willing to do is tell me how phone plugs look like in Italy it
would be a help. If you could persuade your system administrator to provide
a temporary guest account it would be better.

Your best chance of glory, fame and appreciation from all r.g.b readers
would be your willingness to go to the start of the Olympiad and hook
up the computers for the daily bulletin guys.

If I get no help from Italy I have to abandon the project, which would
be a shame. This network can do more than flaming people for bidding
insanely (Hi Bob!).

	Hans van Staveren
From: doug@cm.deakin.OZ.AU (Douglas Newlands)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Classical v. Crowhurst Acol
Date: 29 Jul 92 05:29:03 GMT
Organization: Deakin University, Geelong, Australia

In article <5485@m1.cs.man.ac.uk: kempr@cs.man.ac.uk (Ray Kemp) writes:
:Eric Crowhurst in his book 'Understanding Acol', specifically the notion

: For example, he gives the following hand :
:
:           K J 9 4,   A K Q 7,   A 5 2,   7 4
:
:which he suggests should be open with 1H and over a 2D response he
:re-bids 3NT.  Isn't this approach too cavalier even for pairs?  I would
:like other people's opinions on this, particularly any partnerships that

I would have thought that he might be playing weak NT and 2 over 1 responses
about 10+ rather than 9+. It means that after 2 over 1 if you are 12-14 you
must have opened a 5 card suit which you rebid and if you are 15+ and flattish
you rebid 2NT. This auction is treated as game forcing and leaves the 3 level
to find another fit, spades presumably in the above example. A jump to 3N
seems less than optimal.
If he playing strong NT, that's what he should be opening. There is less risk
with the poor suit when you have bid none than when you have bid 2 suits so 1N
opening must be superior to 3N rebid.

doug.
From: holzsche@prl.philips.nl (Con Holzscherer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: report 10 from the EBL juniors
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:40:48 GMT
Organization: Philips Research Laboratories, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

In article <15524@star.cs.vu.nl> Hans van Staveren writes:
>Let me start with a hand that I forgot to tell you some time ago in the
>Italy versus Ireland match on Vugraph. This was it:
>
>brd 13	A Q 10 9 7
>N/All	A 9 3
>	10 6 5
>	5 4
>J 8 4 2	K 5 3
>Q J 10		6 4 2
>K Q 4 3	A
>A Q		J 10 8 7 6 3
>	6
>	K 8 7 5
>	J 9 8 7 2
>	K 9 2
>
>Both Wests played 3 NT. The Irish North led the 10S after which declarer
>had no problems. 

    I don't understand. I see the following happening:
1. spade 10 ==> J
2. club A
3. club Q
4. diamond ==> A
5. club  ==> K
6. heart ==> Q
    and the defense always takes 3 hearts, spade A and club K for down one.

    But perhaps NS did not find this defense...

-- 
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Con Holzscherer | phone +31-40-744431 | Internet: holzsche@prl.philips.nl  |
| Philips Research,  PO-box 80000, 5600 JA  Eindhoven, The Netherlands       |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: grabiner@math.harvard.edu (David Grabiner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: report 8 from the EBL juniors
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:01:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: zariski.GRABINER.92Jul22190207
Organization: Harvard University Dept. of Mathematics
In-reply-to: sater@cs.vu.nl's message of 21 Jul 92 18:25:29 GMT

In article <15511@star.cs.vu.nl>, Hans van Staveren writes:

> This was with Iceland NS, and Denmark EW. North opened 1C,
> alerted(strong), East overcalled 2C, not alerted(natural), and when the
> tray went to the other side South alerted the 1C, but West did not see
> it, West thought the 2C was Michaels for the majors, so alerted and
> explained, and now NS stranded in 3NT, when they can make 7S.

> I ruled that the onus of responsibility(A phrase I once read and hope to
> be correct) for alerting lies with the alerter, that South failed to
> properly alert 1C, that this was the third board of the match, with no
> 1C openings on the previous two boards and let the score stand. 

I'm not sure about this (although you may know the facts better); did
South fail to alert properly, or did West not notice it?  I had a
similar situation at a regional last weekend.

N   E   S   W(me)
1D  1NT X   2H*

Partner alerted the 2H, which I heard, but neither opponent claimed to
have heard the alert.  There were some complaints from the opponent, but
neither one wanted to say anything to the director, so nothing happened.
But if the opponents had been damaged by not hearing the alert, would
partner be responsible for not alerting loud enough?


--
David Grabiner, grabiner@zariski.harvard.edu
"We are sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary."
"Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again."
Disclaimer: I speak for no one and no one speaks for me.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Yet another slam bidding problem
From: avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 22:21:05 GMT
Organization: Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing) writes:
: In article <1992Jul16.145321.28379@ms.uky.edu> satadd00@nx25.mik.uky.edu (scott andrew taddiken) writes:
: |In article <mlg.711133883@volvo> mlg@siemens.com. (Michael Greenberg) writes:
: |>Dealer S
: |>
: |>North   J,AKJxx,Txxx,Kxx
: |>South   AK,void,AKxx,AQTxxxx
: |>
: |
: |Ely Culbertson is turning in his grave.  I believe he would bid it thus:
: |
: |South  North
: |-----  -----
: |2C(1)  2H(2)
: |3C(3)  4C(4)
: |4N(5)  5N(6)
: |7N(7)
: |
: |1) Natural, game forcing.
: |2) Natural, positive.
: |3) Natural.
: |4) Natural.
: |5) I have three aces, or two aces and the king of a bid suit.
: |6) We have all four aces.
: |7) How did he know that?  Aha!  Signoff. :)
: |
: |It is even easier if North is dealer.  You must all learn Culbertson.
: |
:
: Ha-hrmph.  I don't know Culbertson ...  but does 5N say anything about kings?
: If not, you can't possibly bid 7N.
:
This is the beuty of the Culbertson slam bidding method. Let me dot the i's
for you.
5NT says "we have all four aces" , 4NT says "I have three aces OR two aces
and the king of a bid suit".  For the 5NT bidder to know that the partnership
has all four aces he must either have 2 aces himself, or one ace and the kings
of all bid suits. Since you are looking at 3 aces, partner must have the kings
of all bid suits. Aha! Signoff :)

Culbertson's 4/5NT convention combined with his asking bids are probably the
finest slam methods in existance.  They never caught on, because, as attested
by this post, they are intricate, and rely heavily on negative inferences.
The level of imagination required is beyond the scope of most bridge players.

Note that both players must be on their toes. North, hears 4NT, and should
be able to infer that partner must have three aces, since he has the kings
of all bid suits; south's job is more complex, as it involves 2nd degree
inference.

Culbertson himself said that the bids were his greatest technical achievment,
and his greatest psychological error. Since Blackwood was so much easier to
grasp, it quickly became much more popular. There was also a famous incidnet
where the Culbertsons bid a bad slam because Josephine forgot the convention.
(It might have been Eli himself, but it makes no difference) The end result
was that Culbertson's bidding methods were abandoned in favor of Goren.
Goren's endoresment of the Milton Work point count in lieu of Culbertson's
quick tricks was also a boost.

The Acol system retained a lot of Culbertson's style, and the 4/5 NT
convention used to be a standard part of Acol well into the fifties.

Avi
From: doug@cm.deakin.OZ.AU (Douglas Newlands)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Problem Solvers' Panel 15.3
Date: 22 Jul 92 02:32:52 GMT
Organization: Deakin University, Geelong, Australia

on AKQx Axxx AQJx 9 after 3C(vul) pass to you:-

:Submitter's Comments
:--------------------
:
:I suspect that a fair number of people will call 3N.  
:

I cannot comprehend how one could want to bid 3NT. One should try to play a
hand before you bid it - in this case you know the clubs are not running
unless partner has AKJ and the first round finesse buys and they split well.
If you don't have the AC there is no way of coming to 9 tricks. If it's the KC
which you are missing you might get 2 club tricks, 3 spades, 1 heart and 2
diamonds on a succesful finesse and that's still only 8 tricks.

This should be an automatic 6C bid if partner just plays it out in his mind
before he bids - when an expert goes into a huddle in the auction (s)he's
usually playing various contracts out before making a final bidding decision.
This is a most valuable habit to develop!

As a problem this richly deserved a WTP tho I suppose it has some didactic
value.

doug.
From: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Myerson)
Subject: Re: Bidding of Hand, is there a good way to do this?
Organization: Raytheon Company, Portsmouth, RI
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 11:51:12 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.013035.16002@pbhyf.PacBell.COM> Sam Atabaki writes
about the following hands (rearranged for easier reading):

* North   S - Axx, H - void,  D - xx,  C - Q J 10 9 6 5 3 2 
* South   S - x,   H - Axxxx, D - KQx, C - AK84
* 
* bidding opens with West, who opens 1H  (using Std. American 5 Card Maj)
* 
* This is how I would bid it:
* 
* W     N      E      S
* 1h    2c(1)  p(2)   2h(3)
* p     3c(4)  4n(5)  5d(6)
* 6c    p      p      p
* 
* (1) Suit length and void justify this bid at any vul.
* (2) You did not mention if East made a bid, but I assume not- if West's
*     bid is genuine East can not have much anyway.
* (3) Strong cue-bid; forcing at least to game.
* (4) I only have clubs and am not strong.
* (5) Blackwood. Partner probably has a singleton heart or is void, so
*     combined hands can not have more than 2 losers.
* (6) One ace- that is what I want to hear. If pard bids 5c I pass.

I think not.

(5) East, who could not bid after 1H-2C, now has a good enough hand
    to ask for aces from a partner who got out of the bidding after 
    one round of bidding?

(6) I like this convention. East asks for aces, and South responds!
    Now if I could only force *my* opponents to tell me how many
    aces they hold. By the way, South holds *two* aces.

6C. Given that I can see that NS hold 12 clubs, is this a cue bid
    showing first round control?

Interesting bidding system you have.

Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge