HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: henk@pdsf.ssc.gov (Henk Uijterwaal)
Subject: Re: handling slow players
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:03:47 GMT

Eric Taylor writes:
+> S. Spencer Sun writes:
+> |> Now, what I'm wondering is, what sort of rules are there about
+> |> expediting play?  Are there penalties?  Does anyone have any ideas for
+> |> polite ways in which you could suggest to your opponents that they are
+> |> playing too slow?  

+> It is VERY bad form to suggest to a player that he is taking
+> too long (directly or indirectly). 

I agree with this while somebody is playing a hand. If, as in this case,
a player constantly takes forever, you can point this out to him BETWEEN
deals. 

B.T.W. How long did the match take?

Henk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                                      Email: henk@pdsf.ssc.gov 
SSC-labs, MS 2005.                                          46082::henk
Building 4, room F-428
2550 Beckleymeade Av.                                Phone: 1-214-708-6192
Dallas, TX 75237                                     Home:  1-214-283-6687
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jschuler@dcs.simpact.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Question for Kit Woolsey
Date: 17 Dec 92 14:23:44 PDT
Organization: Simpact Associates, San Diego CA

I have a question for Kit Woolsey regarding the defence to 1N, 
specifically advancers bids after

 (1NT)  Double*  (Pass)  ?

* 4 card major and 5 plus card minor

The Feb-Apr '92 South African Bridge Bulletin reported (probably incorrectly):
	2D for minor
	2H for major

The Bridge Today article describes:
	2C for minor
	2D for major
	
2 Hearts, 2 Spades natural. 


1. Is this clearly better than using all two level bids as "Pass or Correct"?
2. Has anyone done a computer simulation (BOREL, tec.)?

Thanks in advance,
John Schuler
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se (Lars Andersson)
Subject: To 4SF or not to?
Reply-To: ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:32:17 GMT

Reading some interesting arguments regarding 4SF in another tread I decided
to create a little query on how people on the net play "Standard American".
I will NOT collect all results and create a statistical survey, so just go ahead
and respond (and comment) on news. I might respond to email but don't bet on it.

My purpose of this is to understand how SA works (or not) and to find out if there 
is a concensus regarding the system.


Assumptions:
============
You are playing SA (no Flannery). Your partner opens 1H, you bid 1S and your 
partner 2D.

Questions:
==========
What do you do now playing
a. 4SF?
b. not 4SF?
c. Your favourite method?

(I assume you met your partner 10 minutes before playing time in a. and b.)

1. (I bet you recognize this one)
AQxxx/AQ/xxx/xxx
a.
b.
c.

2.
AQxxx/AQx/xx/xxx
a.
b.
c.

3.
AQxxx/AQxx/xx/xx
a.
b.
c.

4.
AQxxx/AQxx/Kx/xx
a.
b.
c.

5.
QJxxxx/x/xxx/Kxx
a.
b.
c.

6.
KQJTxx/x/Kxx/xxx
a.
b.
c.

7.
AQJTxx/x/KJx/xxx
a.
b.
c.

8.
AQxxxx/x/KJx/Axx
a.
b.
c.

9.
Qxxx/x/xxxx/AQxx
a.
b.
c.

10.
Axxx/x/Kxxx/Axxx
a.
b.
c.

11.
Qxxx/x/AKxx/AJxx
a.
b.
c.

12.
KJxx/Qx/Qxx/Kxxx
a.
b.
c.

13.
KJxx/Qx/AQx/Kxxx
a.
b.
c.

14.
AJxxx/xx/xx/AQxx
a.
b.
c.

15.
AQxxx/Qx/xx/AKxx
a.
b.
c.

16.
KJxxx/xx/xx/Qxxx
a.
b.
c.

17.
Axxxx/Kxx/Qxx/xx
a.
b.
c.

18.
AQxxx/Kxx/Qxx/xx
a.
b.
c.

19.
AQxxx/KQx/Kxx/xx
a.
b.
c.

20. 
AQxxx/xx/AKxxx/x
a.
b.
c.

21. 
AKxxx/KQxx/Axx/x
a.
b.
c.


--lars
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Another preempt problem
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:53:22 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

c85perwe@und.ida.liu.se writes:
> AKJ
> -
> 72
> KQT865432

You can just not believe how sick I am of reading articles with hands
containing random numbers of cards which don't happen to be equal to 13.

Maybe, just maybe, if it is worth posting your article all over the
world, it is worth proofreading??

                                        David desJardins
From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: How would you rule (was Re: Lead Problem)
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:34:04 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbootay.sw.stratus.com

In article <1gq7m9INNjpb@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk>, mbrgw@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk (R.G. Walters) writes:
> ...
> Hmmmm. Why not consider what would have happened without screens?

Gee.  When playing without screens, it sometimes helps to consider what would
have happened with screens.  This is the first time I've heard someone suggest
the reverse.

> North makes a bid which he considers should have been alerted, but South
> doesn't. At the end of the auction, before West leads, North announces 
> this to the world. EW are then alerted to the fact that someone has
> fouled up, making a spade lead more likely.

True.

> I would adjust the score.

Based on which Law???

West was damaged by the mistaken bid but not misinformed.  No adjustment.  [Law
75C]

East was misinformed but not damaged.  No adjustment.  [Law 40C]

EW are not necessarily entitled to the information that someone fouled up
[Law 75B], even though they would have gained that information had they been
playing without screens.
-- 
Tim Hill
Stratus Computer, Inc.                  tnh@vos.stratus.com
55 Fairbanks Boulevard                  508-460-2232
Marlborough, MA  01752                  fax 508-624-7488
From: rudy@netcom.com (Rudy)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: interesting hand
Date: 17 Dec 92 07:52:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Dec17.014840.27406@netcom.com> mss@netcom.com (Mark Singer) writes:
>In article <1gllafINNfn8@agate.berkeley.edu> asya@ux5.lbl.gov writes:
>>>>>--
>>>>>AJTx
>>>>>AKxx
>>>>>AKQxx
>>>>>2S  X  4S  5H
>>>>>P   ?
>>>>>    5N P   7H
>>>>>7S  X ----
>>I agree. The Queen of clubs is a thoughtless play designed to lay
>>the blame on partner (well, I thought you wanted a ruff or you
>>wouldn't have played the Jack).
>nice.

Hey, Mark, don't jump to your partner's defense here -- it was a thoughtless
play.  I'm not sure I was thinking "blame" but I'm not sure I was thinking.

>Rudy says it would be more beserk to reason with Scenario A.  My 47
>years of experience says that the whole concept of this sacrifice is
>so beserk, that I'd bet on B.

First of all, I said no such thing, Asya said that.  At the table *I*
didn't even consider the 7222 hand... and *you* don't have 47 years of
experience.

>>at all.  Would you not bid the same way with Kx KQxxxxx 9x Jx?
>See?  Note that this construction requires a specific spade holding
>as well as heart holding.  Besides, you sound like one of my partners
>who always anticipates "the nuts" in my hand.  C'mon, i'm not a
>"sie" (whatever the f*** that is).  I'm a testosterone carrier and
>I *love* to bid at the 5-level with a decent suit of minimum length
>and nothing outside.  Get real.

But what if you and your testosterone are dealt a seven-bagger? :)

>>Of course my point is that king of diamonds at trick 2 cannot cost.
>>Partner will play the 9.  Now you have to decide what to do.
>
>Of course, my point is that king of diamonds at trick 2 is not likely
>to cost, especially when partner plays the 9.  How about when he
>plays the 3 and the 2 is missing?  How about when he plays the 2 and
>you find declarer was 6-1-5-1 *after* you shift?

That seems pretty unlikely, no?  Not to mention that when you shift
(which you should not -- partner can't have 5 diamonds so cashing the
other high diamond is 100%) you would shift to the JACK of hearts which
partner will allow to hold with appropriate suit preference if need be.

>>the number of hearts that partner holds.  Maybe this was Rudy's problem
>>to work out after all.
>How did sie do?

I f&*ked up.  You were there.  But we were still above average.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: jkorpela@snakemail.hut.fi (Jukka Korpela)
Subject: Re: What does the RKCB abbreviation mean?
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: 16 Dec 92 07:52:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.151558.64@rcwusr> everettts@rcwusr.bp.com writes:

   - - RKCB is an acronym for "Roman Key Card Blackwood".  Sorry
   but I lack the details on its use, other than the trump king counting as a
   fifth ace.

Could someone please post a description of what can be regarded as
"standard" RKCB? I have heard so many interpretations of RKCB that
I hardly dare to agree to play RKCB. Some experts seem to think
that RKCB is much more than simple 5 aces Blackwood; they especially
have advanced (or at least complicated) conventions for asking
side suit kings and other secondary key cards.

My current understanding of RKCB is that under some assumptions - e.g. trump
suit has been agreed on (whatever that means in detail) - the 4 NT bid
asks for aces, counting trump king as an ace, with the following responses:
  5 C	0 or 3 aces
  5 D   1 or 4 aces
  5 H   2 aces, no trump queen
  5 S   2 aces plus trump queen

(What should one do with 5 aces? Change partner?)

This is not difficult to remember, but how to ask for side suit kings
(and trump queen, if the response was 5 C or 5 D) without having
too complicated agreements?

Jukka "Yucca" Korpela

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: altus@leland.Stanford.EDU (Steve Altus)
Subject: Re: ethics
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 23:45:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.222310.29611@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> tim@theory.lcs.mit.edu (timothy m wright) writes:
>An ethics query for you folks:
>
>West is an LM who should know better, East is a relative novice and pickup
>partner.  At a sectional swiss, 7th round, you sit South and pick up and
>hear:  
>
>None vul; W deals
>N    E    S    W     Tx
>--   --   --   3H    AKQ9
>p    p               KQxx
>                     AKx
>
>You ask East about their agreements on preempts, and are told that they have
>none; their card is sparsely filled out (NT openings, limit raises, weak 2s,
>and leads, nothing else).  You bid 3NT, to play, and wind up in 5S after
>poartner poulls to 4s, and shows one ace after RKC blackwood.
>
>West overcalled on:
>
>---
>876xxx
>Axxx
>xxx
>
>1) is a system that allows first-seat 3-level preempts like this systemically
>too destructive for the ACBL?
>

no, especially if they have no agreements.  preempt on whatever you 
want to at the three-level.  it's lots of fun, but for some reason
most people i know (including myself) who have done this for an extended
period of time grow out of it... then again this summer Gabriel Chagas
opened 3C in first seat with a four card major (including two honors)
TWICE against me in ONE QUARTER of our spingold match...

>2) assuming that this sort of preempting style is tolerated, what recourse
>do I have when not informed about it?
>

i'm confused;  what would you have done differently if told that the 
preempt could be undisciplined?  oh, that's right, you would have known
the AKQ of hearts were really in your hand and not a mirage... :-) 
seriously, what WOULD you have done differently?  you're certainly 
allowed to feel bitter that such a dicey bid by an opponents screwed 
you to the wall, especially if you yourself have tried those kind of
preempts and abandoned them;  but for what exactly do you want recourse?


and why is this an ethics problem?  if they have no agreement, they have
no agreement.  if they've never played together, they've never played 
together.  what do you mean by "should have known better?"  



and while i'm at it, were you in contention in the 7th round of a sectional
swiss?  and if not, that explains your problem;  certainly you know that
many people aren't exactly 100% serious at the end of a long day when 
they are out of contention, and I'M NOT NECESSARILY CONDONING THIS KIND
OF BEHAVIOR but you certainly should be prepared to deal with it...



Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao)
Subject: Re: interesting hand
Reply-To: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:03:41 GMT

rudy@netcom.com (Rudy) writes:

>Some interesting hands came up this weekend in Pasadena -- I might post
>a bunch of them later, here's one:
>--
>AJTx
>AKxx
>AKQxx

Whats the vulnerability??  I can guess red versus white based on the
auction, but it would be nice to be sure....

Is it IMPs or MPs?  Again, IMPs seem indicated, but this could happen
at MPs too.

>2S  X  4S  5H
>P   ?
>    5N P   7H
>7S  X ----

It would depend upon the level of the opposition.  In most cases, I
think a GSF (or a direct leap to 7H) would be fine.

But at IMPs against very good opposition, I would be concerned if we
were red versus white that perhaps we would not be able to play this
at all, and would bid 6H and hope to play it there.  Over 6S, I would
of course bid 7H.

However, with such a flat dummy --- where are the stiffs?

>What do you think of the auction?  You lead club King and dummy is:
>Qxxxx  xx  QJx xxx  Standard signals, partner plays the Jack.  Your plan?

Anyway, seriously, declarer ought to be highly distributional, but
stranger things have happened.  The CQ at trick 2 is marked...

As long as partner has at most 2 clubs, there is no problem with this
hand.  I simply make sure to take all my clubs and hearts; and hope to
get any of 3C, 2H, 2D for upto 1700.  As far as I can see, there is
nothing wrong with cashing all your clubs, then trying to get two
hearts and 2 diamonds (your tricks don't go anywhere and you can pitch
hearts in content).

One rare scenario is when RHO has gone berserk and has 4 clubs, then
there is a slim chance that partner has the SK and you can get a
promotion.  This is mostly academic, unless declarer has 7 spades (he
would have opened 3S white versus red) or is exactly 6-0-3-4 or has 3
hearts (virtually impossible); else he is short an entry to dummy So
partner should give you present count in the red suits and you can
figure out to get all your heart winners before giving partner the
uppercut.

Bharat


-- 
R. Bharat Rao                         E-mail: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu
AI Group, Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology
405 N. Mathews, Urbana, IL 61801   (217)-333-5978 (O), 337-6498(H)
Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: How would you rule (was Re: Lead Problem)
Date: 16 Dec 1992 15:24:29 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: muleshoe.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Dec16.203143.25673@netcom.com> rudy@netcom.com (Rudy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.233347.23729@ramon.bgu.ac.il> avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira) writes:
>>Now, What does the Net think the ruling should be?

>Well, this one would be easy in the Midwest -- NS didn't know their system,
>so give a procedural penalty to them and then you don't have to think about
>the bridge of the situation.

Time to chime in, I guess.

The best have occasional misunderstandings.  Check out Mike Lawrence's
_Play ... With Mike Lawrence_ books.  I can think of at least two.  In
one case he was asked the meaning of a bid and answered that they hadn't
discussed it.  Got to a lousy contract and went down one less than the
field did in a better contract, via a cute swindle.

Where there is an explanation that doesn't match the bidder's hand,
there are two possibilities: (1) the explanation is correct and the
bid was wrong, or (2) the bid was correct but the explanation was
wrong.  In the latter case there's grounds for an adjustment.  In
the former there isn't.  There are seldom notes that clarify which
has occurred because in fact *most* bidding situations must be
undiscussed.  (Even if there are guiding principles it is not always
clear which principle applies.)  Dishonest partnerships will therefore
always claim that (1) applies.  This has led many to advocate automatic
procedural penalties for explanations that don't match hands.  As far
as I know this has *not* been done since it is against the most basic
laws of bridge.  It outlaws psychs.

A problem remains, though.  I don't think there *is* an easy solution.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: How would you rule (was Re: Lead Problem)
Date: 16 Dec 1992 21:48:32 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbootay.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec15.233347.23729@ramon.bgu.ac.il>, avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira) writes:
> ...

Interesting story!

> The tournament director, who happened to be the national captain, ruled that
> given the alert West had 90% chance of leading a spade, and adjusted the score

This ruling "presume[s] Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Bid," which,
according to the footnote to Law 75, is the thing to do "in the absence of
evidence to the contrary."

> to 10 imps to the non-offending side. (90%*12 - 10%*12)

Not vulnerable, 6D down one versus 5D making six is 10 IMPs, so that seems right.

But what's this adjustment formula?  Law 12C2 says the non-offending side should
be assigned "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not
occurred."  The assigned result should have been 6D down one.  Period.  Not some
weighted average.

> ...
>
> To the second committee, NS brought a Bridge World article which described
> their system. It was clear from the article that 3D is the bid used to show
> a singleton club, and that 3NT indeed showed two doubletons. Therefore,
> NS claimed, South gave the right explanation, and North the wrong one. But as
> West was on lead, he was not damaged by the failure to alert.
> 
> The second committee ruled that West was not damaged by the failure to alert,
> and allowed the score to stand. (ie 6D made)

If the committee accepts that NS had agreed to follow the Bridge World article,
then this becomes a clear case of Mistaken Bid.  West was damaged, but not
misinformed.  No adjustment (Law 75C).  East was misinformed, but not damaged.
No adjustment (Law 40C).
-- 
Tim Hill
Stratus Computer, Inc.                  tnh@vos.stratus.com
55 Fairbanks Boulevard                  508-460-2232
Marlborough, MA  01752                  fax 508-624-7488
From: bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: 15 Dec 92 22:10:51 GMT
Subject: Re: The multi horror
Organization: Princeton University
X-Subliminal-Message: You can quit reading news anytime you want.

In article <1992Dec15.152215.1474@sunova.ssc.gov> henk@pdsf.ssc.gov (Henk Uijterwaal) writes:
|Janne Veikko Petteri Kallunki writes:
|
|+> Dealer North/N-S vulnerable/IMPs
|+> You as a south hold KJT9xxxx/7x/8/9x.
|+> Your partner starts with 2D which is multi 
|+> (6+card major -11 points or 21-22 points balanced).
|+> East pass.
|+> What's your bid?
|
|2 H. What's the problem here? If partner holds a weak 2, I don't mind
|playing 2H with a 8 card fit and less than 14 points. If partner has a
|strong hand, I can always show long spades in the next round.  The 
|alternative is 4 S (To play opposite any weak 2), but red vs white, I
|prefer a better suit for 4 S.

If partner has the weak 2H type of hand, then W has a huge hand, and quite
possibly a slam, and you don't want to bid something pusillanimous like 2H.

| 
|+> I did 3 spades.
|+> West pass and my partner's bid is 3 NT.
|+> Now, what should I do?
|
|3 S shows a desire to play either 3 S OR 4 H. As I definitely want a 
|correction to 4 H, the bid is wrong. I have no idea what to do next,
|none of my bids will show a mild slam invite with long spades only.

I would just bid 4S, despite the vulnerability.  Although I don't know
what the standard responses to multi are, this is the most descriptive
bid I can think of.

| 
|+> I did 6 spades and my partner raised it to 7.
|
|Seems like an overbid. You really want to play 6S opposite ANY 21-22 NT?
|
|+> Which cards had she?
|+> She had AQ8/AK/ATx/ATxxx so it was one down and we lost 17 imps.
|+> What should I have done?
|

Presumably partner's 3N implies a spade fit, and thus 6S is reasonable.
Partner, however, has absolutely no business raising to 7.  Presumably your
3S bid showed weakness; where are 13 tricks coming from?  And even if 7 is
there, the other tables probably won't get there.  (assuming a normal 2N
opening by North, how many people are going to get to 7S when it's there,
6S when it's there, and stay out of slam otherwise?  Hands like these are
problematic.)

If you bid 4S, though, things are much easier.  Partner presumably takes you
for 8 spades and little or no outside defense, and can count 12 tricks.  She
can bid something (e.g. 4N or 5C) in an attempt to get you to cue-bid an
outside honor, and when you show none, just bid 6S (or better, 6N).

ben
--

"Can't we all just get along?"
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: handling slow players
From: avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 01:44:41 GMT
Organization: Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

rudy@netcom.com (Rudy) writes:
: In article <1992Dec9.150236.10957@sunova.ssc.gov> henk@pdsf.ssc.gov (Henk Uijterwaal) writes:
: >Who is eligible to play in the Blue Ribbon Pairs? I can hardly believe that
: >55% won't be a good result in a serious, long match with the top 50 US pairs.
: >(No sponsors, no qualifying rounds with lots of weaker players).
:
: The first day elegibility is anyone who has won or come in second in any
: open regional event.  There is a cut of slightly more than half after
: the first day and another cut of about half the second day.  In the
: second final the pair that won had a 67.5% game.  Not unusual, really.

That is exactly Henk's point. The final session is only 26 board long. Now
had you taken the pairs that entered the final, and had them play 5 or 6
sessions, with everyone in the game, the winning pair is very unlikely to have
more then 60% overall. I estimate that it would be closer to 55%. Although the
winner of every single session is likely to have about 65%

Avi

--
Aviel Roy-Shapira, M.D.         Ben-Gurion University Medical School
Dept. of Surgery A.             POB 151, Beer Sheva, Israel
avir@chen.bgu.ac.il             AVIR@BGUVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: rudy@netcom.com (Rudy)
Subject: Who should be on committees? was Re: How would you rule 
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 08:07:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.010300.18443@sunova.ssc.gov> henk@pdsf.ssc.gov (Henk Uijterwaal) writes:
>+>Both sides protested. One of the three available committee members happened
>+>to have kibitzed the hand, and voiced his opinion immediately. Nevertheless,
>+>he sat on the committee, that further adjusted the score to 6 imps only.
>
>I don't think that this person should sit on the committee. A committee 
>should unbiased (=not have an opinion about the appeal before the hearing),
>this person is clearly not unbiased. A kibitzer might be a witness though but
>witnessses are not needed here as EW and NS agree on what happened during
>the bidding. 

This reminds me of the time I was sitting in on a committee at the Nationals
about 3:00 am when a Vanderbilt match was being decided.  The committee was
Rodwell, Hamman, Allison (Karen), Weinstein (Howard) and Bramley.  We
should all have such committees.  The case involved an unclear or possibly
mistaken explanation which was waved off and the person who offered the
explanation wasn't available to the committee (he had to go home and sleep
because he had to go to work in the mornings).  So when the committee
started deliberating, one of the members said: "Should we call X and ask
him what he said" and one of the committee members answered: "There is
no need for that, I was kibitzing that table and this is what happened."

Now, he had not stated or possibly even formed an opinion prior to hearing
the case -- should he have disqualified himself from this committee?


Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge