HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Ethics was Re: Cheating?
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:27:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: overload.1992Apr16.212706.11442
Reply-To: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

In article <1992Apr16.001554.22976@m.cs.uiuc.edu> bharat@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>ted@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu (Ted Ying) writes:
>Let me jump in and say that I don't think it is unethical to ask if
>the double shows hearts.  What *is* unethical is if his partner infers
>that he has hearts, and takes any such action.

I agree.  If you didn't get a full explanation (and I can't remember
the last time _I_ did) then you can ask away.

>Ted Ying sez...
>>	Asking if the negative double shows hearts is IMHO definitely
>>	unethical, since I can't think of a version of negative doubles
>>	that doesn't show the opposite major.  

Nevertheless those exist.  Example: 1m-1H-X denying 4 spades, Negative
free bids, etc.

>Our opponents sit down and they play Precision or some complex relay
>system ... it goes 1C(alert)-P-2D(alert)- at this point we request no
>more Alerts, since its going to help the opponents more... now the
>more interesting question is (with you and pard silent) RHO bids 4H;
>you hold AQxx and would love that suit lead against a slam .. however,
>for all you know hearts may be their agreed upon suit and they may be
>signing off 4H.  So, if its conventional (as you suspect it is), you
>want to double to get partner to lead hearts...

>Of course you are *entitled* to ask for a full explanation (unless you
>forfeited that right by requesting no Alerts - Asya?)

No, you haven't forfeited that right, however, you're placing yourself
and partner is a very awkward spot -- where s/he will have to bend over
backwards in order not to take advantage of your questions.

>But is it ethical to do at exactly this point...

Of course, it is.  You need the information to make your bid now.
-- 
"In nature there are no rewards or punishments, only consequences"

Asya Kamsky	      e-mail: asya@ux5.lbl.gov                   Go Red Sox
"In order to command you must first learn to submit" - chinese fortune cookie
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: skataba@pbhyf.PacBell.COM (Sam Atabaki)
Subject: Re: Reverse Redux
Reply-To: skataba@PacBell.COM (Sam Atabaki)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 00:06:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.210325.18054@newshost.lanl.gov> ttw@beta.lanl.gov (Tony Warnock) writes:
>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         ???
> 
South has a minimum responding hand and should not encourage partner by
bidding 2NT. The only available and the most descriptive bid is 3c.

-Sam.
From: tac6189@hertz.njit.edu (Tom Carmichael)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: hesitating with a singleton
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:06:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

I am almost sure that you are completely wrong.  I believe that the ACBL 
law book indicates that the proper time to plan the defense is before you have
played to the first trick.  You should therefore hesitate before _every_ hand, 
regardless of your holding.  If you normally hesitate and for this hand you do
not, you are giving away unauthorized information.

Tom

-- 
"Sleep is a poor substitute for caffine."|  Tom Carmichael
	- The Wizardry Compiled		 |  tac6189@hertz.njit.edu
-----------------------------------------|  tomc@shock.njit.edu
#include <stddisclamer.h>		 |
From: doug@cm.deakin.OZ.AU (Douglas Newlands)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: *My* Thoughts on the Jihad and ACBL
Date: 9 Apr 92 11:47:17 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computing & Mathematics, Deakin University, Australia

In article <1992Apr6.180648.11308@linus.mitre.org: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
:In article <1992Apr3.173629.20707@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> milord@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Milord) writes:
: 
:I hope NOT!!!!!!!!
:
:There is too much cheating now that goes on in ACBL tournaments.
:
:Can you imagine what it would be like with cash prizes???

Hearing Bob say this and having had some interesting email
discussions with others I am coming to realise that US
players accept that pairs cheating is a normal part of
competition play.
This is difficult for me to comprehend and for , certainly
Europeans and Australians as we do not expect anyone to be
cheating. Sure the odd pause gets read but there is no expectation
of malpractice from ones opponents.
I am slowly becoming aware of why the US teams of 50's and 60's
could level cheating accusations regularly and also why the US
could not understand why the Europeans could not understand
what it was all about.
It seems to me the ACBL has a bigger problem to deal with than
system regulaions.
Do other US correspondents agree about the amount of cheating?


   __
  |  \     __             __   _     __     __
  |   \   /   \   |   |  /  \   |    __\   (
  |   /   |   |   |   |  \__/   |   /   |   \
  |__/    \__ /   \__/|   __|  _|_  \__/|  __) o
         
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: secan@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Erik Secan)
Subject: Revoke
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 22:42:05 GMT

Since there has been such a big discussion about ethics I have
a question.  I was playing in a club game last night when in
the middle of a hand I realized that I revoked.  I ruffed a diamond
even though I still held two diamonds (I started with 4).  What is
the right thing to do?  I didn't realize until 2 tricks later.

I thought that it is not my responsibility to declare a revoke but
I did not want to conceal my diamonds and put them in the box when
declarer claimed so I played them as discards at my first opportunity.
Amazingly enough NOBODY at the table noticed.  Diamonds were never 
lead again.  I can't explain that ........
not one person counted out the diamond suit but these are the facts.


Did I do the right thing??

Toucan
From: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Cheating?
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:29:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: overload.1992Apr16.212908.11529
Reply-To: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

In article <20278@castle.ed.ac.uk> adam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Adam Hamilton) writes:
>In article <1992Apr16.001554.22976@m.cs.uiuc.edu> bharat@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>:Our opponents sit down and they play Precision or some complex relay
>:system ... it goes 1C(alert)-P-2D(alert)- at this point we request no
>:more Alerts, since its going to help the opponents more... now the
>	In Britain, at least, you may not change your alert/don't alert
>request in the middle of a hand.


Same in the States -- but the question isn't about an alert, it's about
getting an explanation, which you can ask for whether a bid was alerted
or not.
-- 
"In nature there are no rewards or punishments, only consequences"

Asya Kamsky	      e-mail: asya@ux5.lbl.gov                   Go Red Sox
"In order to command you must first learn to submit" - chinese fortune cookie
From: davidm@rutabaga.Rational.COM (David Moore)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Cheating?
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:06:03 GMT

valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty) writes:

[stough deleted]

>Here's another common one:

>	1S - 2C - X(*) - ?

>(*) Duly alerted as negative, etc.

>At ?, righty asks if the negative double shows hearts or not.  Guess how
>many hearts he has?  Guess what suit he wants led?

Asking about another suit like this is illegal. I had an occasion where
the bidding went (us silent) 1S 4C (Swiss). Before leading, I asked what
the 4C was and was told Swiss. When I asked "what does it show" I was told it
was Swiss! Exasperated, I then asked "what would it have meant if partner
had bid 4D instead of 4C, and the declarer called the director! The director
sided with her because I had mentioned another suit. 

My request that they tell me what their convention was fell on deaf ears. 
Unfortunately, we were not damaged so I could not take the matter further; 
I do not consider this director was doing his job given that he did not ensure
full disclosure. This was at a sectional, too, where normally the directing
is of a high standard.
Organization: Freshman, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 09:17:21 -0400 
From: Julian D Lighton <jl8e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Not another Jihad (some EVIDENCE)
	<4660@cluster.cs.su.oz.au>

danny@cs.su.oz (Danny Yee) writes:

>In article <1992Apr8.152338.18345@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu>
>ted@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu (Ted Ying) writes:
(stuff deleted)
>>If we added a few things at a time (like starting with *ALL* transfer bids
>>now...since people are familiar with Jacoby Transfers already) then people
>>would be able to cope with the changes.
>
>Now that sounds like a good idea.  

agreed

>Some other posibilities for relatively simple things are:
>	canape openings 

canape openings are already allowed, with the limitation that you can't
canape out of a three card major

>	relay systems (*)
>
>(*) it is suprising how rarely full relay auctions occur, and relay
>auctions are *always* constructive.
I can understand the reasons for banning relay systems. Even if full
relay auctions are rare, they will still probably slow down the game in
the hands of all but the fastest pairs.

_______________________________________________________________________________
|Julian Lighton     jl8e@andrew.cmu.edu |   :-)   | No, really, I'm not 
     |
|---------------------------------------|---------| paranoid. The only reason |
|"Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, you all know what | that you say I am is that |
|I mean. What's the use of a cry for help when    | you're out to get me.     |
|no one hears your screams?"                      |                           |
|Motorhead "No Voices in the Sky"                 |                           |
|_________________________________________________|___________________________|
From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Jihad and other things
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:01:10 GMT
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


In a poorly proofread article
<1992Apr12.215515.5886@cfa.harvard.edu>, I meant to write:
> Use of the 4NT ace-asking convention was in fact considered
                                                              cheating
>                                                                  at first.
> So was the takeout double.  Nowadays the latter wasn't even mentioned
> in the Naturalists-Scientists match, though it was allowed.

Sorry about that.
-- 
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: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: Bid these hands
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:59:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.161858.2457@otago.ac.nz> murat@otago.ac.nz writes:
>In article <2300@accucx.cc.ruu.nl>, vlucht@accucx.cc.ruu.nl (vlucht) writes:
>> In <ktfehkINNiq0@bovina.cs.utexas.edu> varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) writes:
>> 
>>>Both vulnerable, South dealer, matchpoints:
>> 
>>>North:    S    H    D    C
>>>          ----------------
>>>          A    A    A    x
>>>          K    x    x    x
>>>          x    x         x
>>>          x    x
>> 
>>>South:    x    K    x    A
>>>               Q    x    K
>>>               x         Q
>>>                         J
>>>                         T
>>>                         9
>>>                         x
>> 
>> [stuff deleted]
>>>I don't claim this was a great bidding sequence.  I just don't 
>>>know how to improve on it, and would like to see what others 
>>>think.
 
OK, OK, I give up!

I posted an opinion that this hand wasn't very interesting and that
reaching the grand was easy. I will now give an auction from one of
my favorite systems: ROMAN.
 
1H (1)   1NT(2)
3C (3)   7NT

(1) Yes, the opening bid is 1H. Roman frequently opens with 3 card
    majors.

(2) Showing 12-15 HCP and no 5 card suit and no singletons.

(3) Showing at least 6 good clubs and **exactly** 4 losers.
    [canape]

7NT is now obvious.

Can anyone else find a shorter auction to 7NT?? (2 bids apiece!!!)
--
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: bs@faron.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: What to bid?
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 13:04:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.223231.8220@pencom.com> eric@pencom.com writes:
:South, You hold :
:
:KJ109xx
:-
:AK10xxx
:A
:
:Bidding has proceeded :
:W       N       E      S
:2H      P       P      3H(1)
:P       3N(2)   4H     ???
:
:1)  Michael's
:2)  Natural
:
:Constructive bids anyone?
 
This is close. Normally I would say pass and leave it to partner,
because your 3H call has already shown a strong 2-suiter, but here
you have extras. I would try 5H and correct 6C to 6D.
 
On the other hand, 3NT promised duplication in the heart suit.
Partner's values might also be in clubs. 

However, there are too many hands for him to hold where 6D or 6S 
makes. I feel the risk must be taken.

Interesting problem!!!!

--
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"
From: barth@bcse.enet.dec.com (Karl Barth)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Problems from Pasadena
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:36:49 GMT
Reply-To: barth@bcse.enet.dec.com (Karl Barth)
Organization: Bridge-o-matic, Inc.

In article <1992Apr9.015830.20494@linus.mitre.org>, bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
|>Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 01:58:30 GMT
|>
|>In article <1992Apr6.011329.15094@pencom.com> eric@pencom.com writes:
|>:I have noticed that in the following sequence :
|>:
|>:1H  P  2D  4C
|>:P   P  4S
|>:
|>:That almost everyone thinks 4S is non-forcing.
|>:
|>Yes. Of course it is.
|>
|>:What does parner have to do to get you to bid when he has 6-5
|>:in diamonds and spades?  Get out his cattle prod?
|> 
|>The jump to 4S shows a minimal 6-5. With a STRONG hand, the rebid would be
|>2S followed by bidding spades again.

Hey Bob, 2S is insufficient.  After 4C, 4S is not a jump.  

The preempt has really gotten in the way.  It seems to me that now 4S is "mostly forcing."
Meaning that opener gets to use a big chunk of judgement in deciding how high the bidding
could go.  With some sort of bad holding in the pointed suits (1-2 or something) then opener
might choose to pass in the hope of going plus.  That seems most likely when opener's got
a lot of non-transferable values:  quacks in the round suits, for example.

Responder has shown a pretty darn good hand by bidding 4S.  Bottom line:  yes, that sounds
forcing to me.

Karl B.
From: eric@pencom.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Problems from Pasadena
Date: 9 Apr 92 22:16:06 GMT
Organization: Pencom Software

In article <1992Apr9.015830.20494@linus.mitre.org> bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert  
D. Silverman) writes:
> In article <1992Apr6.011329.15094@pencom.com> eric@pencom.com writes:
> :I have noticed that in the following sequence :
> :
> :
> :1H  P  2D  4C
> :P   P  4S
> :
> :That almost everyone thinks 4S is non-forcing.
> :
> 
> Yes. Of course it is.
> 
> :What does parner have to do to get you to bid when he has 6-5
> :in diamonds and spades?  Get out his cattle prod?
>  
> The jump to 4S shows a minimal 6-5. With a STRONG hand, the rebid would be
> 2S followed by bidding spades again.

It is kind of hard to bid 2S with 4C interference.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sperbr@vccnorthd.its.rpi.edu (Ron E Sperber)
Subject: Re: A few questions
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 23:30:45 GMT

shankar_k@mscf.med.upenn.edu writes:

>Just a few questions for the bridge pundits:


>1)  There was some recent discussion on what to lead with three low cards. 

>2)  Is there any good book (or any other way) of learning how to play card
>combinations? (You know, like "How do I play AQx opposite xxxx for the most
>tricks" sort of thing).

There are several "play of the hand" books all of which discuss card
combinations to some degree. Also the Encyclopedia of Bridge lists
just about all card combinations and the percentage plays for various
numbers of tricks.

>3)  I've been told about the "within three if you're non vul, two if you're
>vul" rule of thumb for preempts, but I don't understand how this works in
>practice, especially at the 3 or higher level.  (I just never preempt :-) )
Well,to "be within 3 tricks" of your bid means if you preempt at the 3
level that you should have about 6 tricks in your hand barring very abnormal
breaks. so something like KQJTxxx xx Jxx x would be within 3 tricks of a 
3-level bid

>Is :  QJT9xxx Qx xxx J a good preempt?  At all vulnerabilities?  If not, what
>is?

What a "good" preempt is is open to debate. Very few players I know follow the
rule of 2 and 3. Personally I would open the above hand 3-spades not-vulnerable
and I might open it 1st seat (not 2nd) red vs red 3 spades. If I'm in third
seat I would open it 3S at ANY vulnerability.

a good preempt at unfavorable might be something like:
KQT9xxx x QJx xx. (Well,I consider it worth a 3-level preempt at any 
vulnerability,anyway)

>Kalpana SHankar
>What about four low cards or more?

-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"
From: tac6189@hertz.njit.edu (Tom Carmichael)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Can you beat 3 NT ?
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:00:41 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <davidm.702778970@rutabaga> davidm@rutabaga.Rational.COM (David Moore) writes:
>A very nice squeeze, which i did not see "at the table". I see that here
>it is INCORRECT to cash your winners when threatened by an end-play
>because you then rectify the count for a throw-in squeeze. So, I've
>just added another plate to my defensive armament.
>
>Of course, partner is following to clubs like a man with only two (no
>mention was made of playing present count), so declarer may be
>1345. So now when you lead your small spade, declarer must play the
>king and another spade. Your partner must rise with the Q and return
>a heart. If he allows you to win the second spade, you are squeezed again.

True, there was no mention of present count, but I think that it is still 
"standard" to unblock in this situation.  I think that you have to hope for
the best in any event.


>Altogether an interesting hand.

Agreed.

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: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: Problems from Pasadena
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 01:58:30 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.011329.15094@pencom.com> eric@pencom.com writes:
:I have noticed that in the following sequence :
:
:
:1H  P  2D  4C
:P   P  4S
:
:That almost everyone thinks 4S is non-forcing.
:

Yes. Of course it is.

:What does parner have to do to get you to bid when he has 6-5
:in diamonds and spades?  Get out his cattle prod?
 
The jump to 4S shows a minimal 6-5. With a STRONG hand, the rebid would be
2S followed by bidding spades again.
--
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"
From: davidm@rutabaga.Rational.COM (David Moore)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: A couple of hands.
Date: 17 Apr 92 18:11:14 GMT

desj@idacrd.UUCP (David desJardins) writes:

>Where did, "East is clearly a weak player," come from?  Are you

Consider what East has got. He passed the first time round then found 4S
the second. He must have a two suited hand and was awaiting developments.

(I know, there are other explanations, such as the opponents  play some sort of
special requirements for pre-empts, but I am sure the original poster would 
have mentioned any special relevant agreements being used by the opponents) 

So now he is coming back in with a unilateral 4S. Why isn't he giving himself
the chance to play in his other suit. He could bid 4H or double at this
point followed by retiring into 4S if he does not like the proceedings. Instead,
he's bolting the horse after the gate's been closed.

I am perfectly aware that sometimes the double will be wrapped around my
throat. However, even at teams you should double here. You are risking
5 imps to protect 8 (if 4S is down 2 v 4H making).
From: davidm@rutabaga.Rational.COM (David Moore)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: A couple of hands.
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:57:53 GMT

eric@pencom.com writes:


>If I had a sack in mind, why would I allow the opponents to
>exchange information at the 3 level?  When my partner preempts,
>I bid to the level of the trump fit immediately.   I do not
>wait around for the opponents to exchange information.
>A double here is to indicate safety of a heart lead.

I do not believe this is a good use for the bid. How often are you going
to want to show honours in partners suit with shortness. If you had length
you would be sacrificing. I think a double here should show a hand with
heart support and some defence (say 2-3 tricks). 

The other reasonable way would be to play it as asking partner to not lead
his suit, since usually his suit is going to be his natural lead anyway,
however, in this case you probably have length in his suit and defence
elsewhere, so we are back to our original method.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: 1S, 2S, or 2NT?
Date: 13 Apr 1992 12:23:23 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: bovina.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Apr10.195134.28250@ramon.bgu.ac.il> avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira) writes:

>I wonder how you play 1C - 1(RED); 2NT 3C. Will you consider passing?

The usual rule in this country 30 years ago was that *any* bid over
a 2NT rebid was forcing.  That's one of the major differences
between the American and British branches of Culbertson.  I presume
Bobby Wolff first made the suggestion to use 3C here as a preparation
to sign off (although it was a part of 1963 K-S).  It's called a
"Wolff Signoff".  Opener is supposed to bid 3D, and responder can
either sign off in 3(RED) or pass.  (Note that this works a bit
better when the opening bid was 1D.)

Wolff Signoffs have been used widely in the U.S. for at least 25 years.
Without having discussed the situation with a partner I would assume
that all bids by responder here are forcing.  I would never assume
3C was checkback, nor 3D NMF.

In answer to the question posed, no.  I would not consider passing.
I would consider investigating a club slam.  That's the default
meaning of 3C, at least in this country.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)