HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sater@cs.vu.nl (Hans van Staveren)
Subject: Thursdays results from Salsomaggiore
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 07:27:43 GMT

Semifinals open:

US - Sweden		202 - 137
Netherlands - France	115 - 149

Semifinals women

GB - Germany		175 - 149
France - Austria	121 - 135

Final after 64 of 96 boards

GB - Austria		158 - 156

For the bronze
France - Germany	 52 -  26

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: Re: How would you rule?
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:37:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.103139.1@kean.ucs.mun.ca>, I wrote:
> In article <1992Aug27.043935.7118@midway.uchicago.edu>, pynq@quads.uchicago.edu (George Jetson) writes:
>> Playing in a club game tonite, we were being kibitzed by one of the
...
> I mean, if you want to sit around and wait until someone makes a 
> mistake, and then expect to profit from that mistake, then you are 
> a bit of a sleveen. 
...
> I think you were injured, at birth. I mean, would it have been such
> a great concession to have told her yourself that it was not her lead?
> Or has this great game turned into a pastime for sharks?

Sorry if this sounded too much like a flame. Perhaps my caffeine was
too strong this morning. But it just reminds me of a situation I saw
in a baseball game a couple of months ago. Roger Clemens was on the
mound for the Red Sox, against ??, and he threw a pitch high and 
inside, almost beaning somebody. The batter ducked and while doing so
his bat appeared to move in the direction of home plate. Clemens, 
after almost killing someone, immediately put up his arm pointing to
the base umpire, asking for a strike to be called on appeal because 
the bat may have crossed the plate.

|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
| If we had an index file, we could    | "In fact, except for protecting  |
| look it up in the index file under   |  individual rights, no valid     |
| "Index File".                        |  reason for government exists."  |
|           -- Teegan in "Castrovalva" |       ... Dr. Frank Wallace      |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Bill Garland = bill@kean.ucs.mun.ca  | Commercial : Send me your money. |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: teague@stc.lockheed.com (Alan Teague)
Subject: Wanted: Description of Mexican 2D
Reply-To: teague@stc.lockheed.com
Organization: Lockheed Software Technology Center
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 21:59:17 GMT

Would someone please send me a description of the Mexican 2D convention?

Thanks,

Alan
From: brl@kopasker.is (Bjorgvin Runar Leifsson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Last news from Iceland on Salsomaggiore
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:26:38 GMT
Reply-To: brl@kopasker.is (Bjorgvin Runar Leifsson)
Organization: Kopasker Primary, Iceland

In my last article to rgb I asked if some people out there wanted me to
post news from the olympiad although they are rather Iceland oriented.
As I've had some positive replies, this is what I know now (evening 27.08):

Today, Iceland won Germany 17-13 and lost to Russia 14-16.  Now we are 
playing against Pakistan.
Top 4 in the group after the day's first 2 games:
Holland
USA
Iceland
Pakistan

I don't know about the other group but I've heard that bridge powers like
Gt.Britain and Polland are not doing well (they were below top 4 yesterday).

BTW, mr. Baldurson's BOLS advice:

Don't be easy on your opponents - bid your cards!

Bjorgvin R. Leifsson
brl@kopasker.is
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: esutherl@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (EC Sutherland)
Subject: Problems with OKBridge
Keywords: help
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 18:02:19 GMT

Hi there. I have a problem. I am trying to get OKBridge to run on my machine,
but there is a problem of not enough memory. I have 1.5 Megs available. 
Can someone out there please help me get all the necessary files so I can 
run it?

Any help appreciated

(Please send me the address where I can ftp it from too, as I have lost all 
that stuff)

Thanks..

ERIC

-- 
I was here but now I'm gone.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: rainbow@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rob Buchner)
Subject: Re: bidding
Organization: St Barts
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 19:48:03 GMT
Keywords: 2/1 and 2NT


> One point that should be mentioned. In Lawrence's system a 2 level response
> forces the auction up to (but no further than) 2NT. It is not "almost" game
> forcing. Therefore, it seems to me that you are both right. Lawrence
> certainly knows how to bid but the system that he describes as 2/1 is
> arguably closer to standard than to what many of us think as 2/1.

Well, not so fast. The only 2NT bid that can be passed is 1D-2C-2D-2NT.
That specific exception is pointed out to handle a problem hand.
While that is his preferred treatment, he also presented the alternate
style where it becomes forcing (ie 1D-2NT would be invitational) and 
stated that this is a partnersip decision which must be made.
Lawrences 2/1 bidding system is still far different from standard
and very close to where everything is forcing to game in 2/1.
From: bpwing@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ben Wing)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:44:04 GMT
Subject: Re: Try this one
Organization: Princeton University
X-Subliminal-Message: You can quit reading news anytime you want.

In article <1992Aug26.162310.20713@Princeton.EDU> spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) writes:
|
|I think if you had to pick one or the other, it would be better to err
|on the side of commenting too much.
|
|I also think you are completely missing Ben's point.  Ben is not
|complaining that Bob didn't comment GSF.  Ben is complaining that Bob
|was gratuitously belligerent.
|

Thanks, Spencer.  This was indeed the point of my posting (which Avi seems to
have completely missed), and it's good to see that someone else realized this.

ben
--

Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ding@msc.cornell.edu (Gary Ding)
Subject: Re: WC Problem - Full Hand
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:54:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.113202.6410@cs.mu.OZ.AU> bjpt@mulga.cs.mu.oz.au (Ben Thompson) writes:
>
>		AJ92
>		KQ7
>		864
>		A75
>	Q107		8654
>	A82		10965
>	K975		QJ103
>	QJ8		10
>		K3
>		J43
>		A2
>		K96432
bidding deleted, contract 3NT.
>West led D5.  Johannsson won D10 and played back back DQ.  Lasocki
>just played clubs from the top and went one off when they didn't break.
>If he believes that diamonds are 4-4, he should play hearts first.
>After setting up/scoring two heart tricks (and them probably cashing
>2 diamond tricks), he can test clubs and if (when) that doesn't work,
>he can fall back on the small extra chance of the spades coming home
>for 4 tricks - which they do.
>
>And that of course was the real question - do you believe that diamonds
>are 4-4?  In principle, I think that you should believe that defenders
>have carded honestly in these sorts of situations.  Defenders are of
>course much more likely to signal honestly than dishonestly.
>
>I was surprised because the analyst in the world championship book
>didn't mention the missed chance.  BTW, the Icelanders with these
>cards got to 5C - a much better contract which they had no trouble
>bringing home.
>
>Ben

	Your line gains only when W has S QTx, which is probably a less- 
than-5% probability, while the chances of opponent diamond 5-3 is probably
still larger than 5%, despite east producing DT then DQ.  After all, the
bidding indicated some interest from the S in at least one of
the major suits, assuming 2D is an asking bid.  W might easily attempt to
lead from D Kxx, I would if I do not have a better choice.
	Unfortunately I suspect my regular partner and I would land in the
same contract in exactly the same bidding route sequence, go down in the same
fashion, maybe it does take more to be a world champion. :-)

Gary

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: jrk2v@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (John Robert Klein)
Subject: jumps over preempts
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:04:15 GMT

What's the standard meaning of a jump over a preempt.  For example
4D over 3C or 4H over 3C.  I've always played both these bids to show
stong handsand strong suits but lately I've found out that some people
play them (or at least play 4H) as "to-play".  Does it make a difference
if partner has opened or passed? eg. 1S - 3C - 4H, or pass - 3C - 4H as
compared to just 3C - 4H.  Does bws address this question?  

JK
From: jaffray@oreo.berkeley.edu (Alan Jaffray)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Precision, anyone?
Date: 28 Aug 1992 21:24:33 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
Reply-To: jaffray@zippy.sonoma.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: oreo.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug27.220624.11867@leland.Stanford.EDU> altus@leland.Stanford.EDU (Steve Altus) writes:
>    Some people i know play everything completely
>    natural after the first round of big-club auctions.  They STILL have
>    an advantage with REALLY strong hands, that they keep the auction low
>    and often know more about responder's hand;  but they don't have as much
>    of an advantage as the pairs that have a lot of special little gadgets
>    or even just more developed agreements about what EXACTLY their bidding
>    on the second or third or fourth round of a club auction shows.

This is true.

And I think this is a major reason why people play silly conventions,
regardless of whether or not they work.  In an artificial auction
you are *forced* to have detailed agreements, and playing a system
you understand, even if it's a foolish system, is better than playing
one that you don't understand.  (It's possible to construct a system
that is effective but also easier to discuss all the special cases
with, so this advantage is real rather than bogus, but it's usually
bogus.)

An example: Using Flannery (which I consider highly silly, do a simulation
on it if you disagree), there is no ambiguity after, say, 2D-2NT-3C if
you've done a minimum of discussion.  You *have* to discuss this auction
if you use Flannery.  But in std, do you know *exactly* what all the bids
mean after 1H-2D-2S-?  Are you sure?  The nuances, also?

-- Alan
From: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Precision, anyone?
Date: 28 Aug 1992 00:19:00 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Reply-To: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ux5.lbl.gov

In article <Btnz90.1Hn@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> bharat@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>Now, I do agree that calling 1C the "weakness" of a strong club system
>is extreme, but IMveryHO the greatest strength of a strong club system
>occurs when you DON'T open 1C, enabling you much greater latitude and
>judgement in the part-score battles.  What you say is certainly true,

Now, this goes against everything I've ever seen and heard about club
systems.  First of all, just the fact that some limited hands are
opened 2C  (Two! that's 1NT and 2 of any suit that you are not likely
to be able to play) is already a major bummer (even to me and I have
a lot more agreements and IMHO better system over 2C than many).

Your 1D opening is pretty loose as well.  I won't even comment on
the various silly 2D bids against which I recomment trump leads.

Maybe I'm a sample size of 5 (me and the partners I've played Big Clubs with)
but part score battles have not been much of strong points of a big club.
By definition, I would think a natural system would prevail.
-- 
"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: pynq@quads.uchicago.edu (George Jetson)
Subject: Re: Bid these hands
Reply-To: pynq@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: D. J. Dougherty & Associates
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:10:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.165520.16891@linus.mitre.org> bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:

>
>1NT would show 6-9 points, a balanced hand, the unbid suit (probably) 
>stopped, and 4 or 5 hearts. This is what you have. Why is rebidding
>1NT a problem? Partner is free to bid 2H over 1NT if he has 3 and thinks
>it is right. 
OK.  I have no problem with this argument.

>On the actual hand, with a weak doubleton in clubs, the hand is
>probably worth a trick more even in a 4-3 heart fit, so as opener
>I would prefer to hearts over 1NT. 

That is, in fact, what happened.  I bid 1N and he bid 2H.
I did not know if this was the way it should have happened.

************************************************************************
A note to new readers:  the weasely :-) symbol is frowned upon in this
group.  Any questions, see Phil Gustafson who will gladly rearrange your
diodes for you.
			- From the AFU FAQ -

	- pynq@quads.uchicago.edu, who is still costing the net
	  hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars, every time he posts -
************************************************************************
From: holzsche@prl.philips.nl (Con Holzscherer)
Subject: Re: This weekends results from Salsomaggiore
Organization: Philips Research Laboratories, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 11:37:15 GMT

  Final results of the preliminaries:

                   Ladies:
       A:                    B:
1. Germany     632        1. France      623
2. China       596        2. England     622
3. Austria     596        3. Sweden      616
4. Netherlands 581        4. Denmark     602
------------------        ------------------
5. USA         556        5. Canada      594
6. Japan       543             etc.
     etc.


                    Men:
       A:                    B:
1. Israel      522        1. USA         564
2. Poland      508        2. Netherlands 544.5
3. Egypt       503        3. France      544
4. Denmark     502        4. Sweden      529
------------------        ------------------
5. Austria     498        5. Turkey      524
6. Italy       496        6. Iceland     504
7. HongKong    495        7. Pakistan    483
     etc.                      etc.


               QuarterFinals:

                   Ladies:
              (final results!)
Germany - Denmark        158 -  82
France  - China          161 - 107
England - Netherlands    201 -  81
Austria - Sweden         180 - 129

                   Men:
USA     - Egypt
Israel  - Netherlands
France  - Denmark
Poland  - Sweden


              SemiFinals:                  
               Ladies:
Germany - England
Austria - Sweden
-- 
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Con Holzscherer | phone +31-40-744431 | Internet: holzsche@prl.philips.nl  |
| Philips Research,  PO-box 80000, 5600 JA  Eindhoven, The Netherlands       |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: h75@nikhefh.nikhef.nl (Henk Uijterwaal)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Wednesday's results from Salsomaggiore
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:38:53 GMT
Reply-To: h75@nikhefh.nikhef.nl (Henk Uijterwaal)
Distribution: world
Organization: Nikhef-H, Amsterdam (the Netherlands).

Men               
===

    Group A                              Group B
    =======                              =======
 1. Israel             11-211 VP's    1. THE NETHERLANDS  11-219.5 VP's *
 2. Belgium               209         2. Sweden              206
 3. Austria               206         3. Iceland             205.5
 4. Denmark               204         4. USA                 204
 5. Hong Kong             197         5. Norway              202
 6. Egypt                 196         6. Spain               194
 7. Greece                195         7. France              192
 8. Poland                188         8. GIS (Russia)        191
                                    
* The Appeals committee still has to decide on an appeal from the match between
  The Netherlands and Indonesia. The Dutch lost that match 13-17 but if they
  win the appeal they win 19-11.

Women
=====

   Group A                               Group B
   =======                               =======
1. Austria             15-280 VP's    1. France           15-294 VP's
2. China                  264         2. Sweden              285
3. Japan                  261.5       3. Great Britain       276  
4. Germany                256         4. Canada              269 
5. THE NETHERLANDS        249            Denmark             269
6. Israel                 244         6. South Africa        253
7. Bulgaria               234         7. Australia           240
8. USA                    232.5       8. Greece              235
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bjpt@mulga.cs.mu.oz.au (Ben Thompson)
Subject: WC Problem - Full Hand
Organization: University Of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 11:32:02 GMT


		AJ92
		KQ7
		864
		A75
	Q107		8654
	A82		10965
	K975		QJ103
	QJ8		10
		K3
		J43
		A2
		K96432

Bermuda Bowl/Venice Cup Final 1991
Bd. 19.  Dlr South, Vul E/W

West		North		East		South
Arnthorsson	Gawrys		Johannsson	Lasocki
						2C
P		2D		P		2NT
P		3NT		All Pass

West led D5.  Johannsson won D10 and played back back DQ.  Lasocki
just played clubs from the top and went one off when they didn't break.

If he believes that diamonds are 4-4, he should play hearts first.
After setting up/scoring two heart tricks (and them probably cashing
2 diamond tricks), he can test clubs and if (when) that doesn't work,
he can fall back on the small extra chance of the spades coming home
for 4 tricks - which they do.

And that of course was the real question - do you believe that diamonds
are 4-4?  In principle, I think that you should believe that defenders
have carded honestly in these sorts of situations.  Defenders are of
course much more likely to signal honestly than dishonestly.

I was surprised because the analyst in the world championship book
didn't mention the missed chance.  BTW, the Icelanders with these
cards got to 5C - a much better contract which they had no trouble
bringing home.

Ben
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: jhaywood@ms.uky.edu (Joel D Haywood)
Subject: Re: Try this one
    <1992Aug24.223338.14575@ramon.bgu.ac.il> 
    <1992Aug26.162310.20713@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:36:54 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

In article <1992Aug26.162310.20713@Princeton.EDU> spencer@phoenix.princeton.edu (S. Spencer Sun) writes:
>
>2. Have you ever fucked up?  Even experts have a bad day.  I have
>considerable experience with projection booth equipment (35mm is vastly
>more complicated than 16mm or 8mm) and I've still done some stupid
>things.

I didn't realize that when I posted this problem that I would get but one
response (and that a belligerent one) to the problem itself and many responses
to the one spade call.  I could have mentioned the reason why my partner bid
one spade, but didn't really think that it was necessary.  Silly me.

You see, contrary to what everyone seems to think about my partner's abilities,
her only fault is that she is blind in one eye, and had the queen of clubs in
her spades.  (KQxxxx - Ax AKxxx)  Now that I think about it, the answer was
rather obvious, especially if I had said what is your next call (instead of
what is your bidding plan).  That, Mr. Silverman, is why I said that phrase in
the first place.  Yes, she did bid 5NT, and, yes, we got a cold top when I
held AQJx xxx KQxx xx opposite her Kxxxx - Ax AKQxxx.  It seems that most of
the field preempted in hearts or opened my hand with a weak notrump.  That
would sort of obscure the way to 7S.  Of course, I would say the problem is
a lot harder when you notice that you have rather solid clubs AFTER you hear
the raise rather then before, but I was trying not to draw attention to that
fact, which I think would make the answer even more obvious.

Oh well, I'm terribly sorry if my post was not of the quality that is expected
in the newsgroup.  It really never occurred to me that virtually no one
would answer the problem as stated.  Sorry for the inconvenience.
(Notice that there is no smiley; that's my point.)
-- 
********************************************************************************                                                                                Joel D. Haywood                         jhaywood@ms.uky.edu                     (606) 231-9083                          jhaywood@ukma.bitnet                                                                                                    ********************************************************************************
From: pynq@quads.uchicago.edu (George Jetson)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Bid this one for me (Yet another...)
Summary: We flirted with disaster on this one...
Date: 29 Aug 92 18:43:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Aug29.184357.18268
Reply-To: pynq@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: D. J. Dougherty & Associates

Pard: Q,AKxx,xxx,KJxxx
You: Axxx,Qxx,x,AQxxx

Matchpoints, white on red.  You deal an open 2C (Precision)
Lefty bids 2S.

Our auction:

2C (2S) 3S
3N

Diamond led to the ace, spade switch (whoosh!)

My comment (made immediately after I saw the spade switch): "The good
news is we are making 3N.  The bad news is we could have made 6C".
We were the only pair in 3N, and +430 was next to top
(somebody had played 5C+7 for 440)

************************************************************************
A note to new readers:  the weasely :-) symbol is frowned upon in this
group.  Any questions, see Phil Gustafson who will gladly rearrange your
diodes for you.
			- From the AFU FAQ -

	- pynq@quads.uchicago.edu, who is still costing the net
	  hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars, every time he posts -
************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: rainbow@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rob Buchner)
Subject: Re: jumps over preempts
Organization: St Barts
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 07:47:03 GMT
Keywords: it depends on auction


> What's the standard meaning of a jump over a preempt.  

Is there really anything which is standard anymore?

If partner hasn't opened (passed or not passed), a jump
should show a good long suit about two tricks short of 
making. This would apply to 2H-3S or 3C-4H, etc. The longer
the suit is, the less strength you will have, but it will
be a pretty good hand. Partner will need about three cover 
cards (or maybe two aces) to think about bidding some more.
The jump bid tends to be "to play", but not unilaterally so.

If partner has opened the bidding, a jump to a major suit game 
over a preempt is based on a long suit with minimum game values,
ie perhaps a 7 card suit with about 10 points. It is "to play".
But a jump in a minor suit is a splinter in support of partner.

Of course you can agree to play anything else which you like.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: olle@astro.uu.se (Olof Morell)
Subject: Re: bidding problem
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala, Sweden
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 09:22:14 GMT

In article <1580@idacrd.UUCP>, desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins) writes:
|> Robert D. Silverman <bs@gauss.mitre.org> writes:
|> >(2) Pulling 4H to 5C is crazy, however. Partner's jump to 4H shows a good
|> >6 card suit.
|> 
|> I don't understand this at all.  What would you bid over 1S-X-P with
|> xxx/KTxxx/Ax/AQx ?  I can't imagine bidding anything but 4H.

I don't se the reason to blast 4H on this hand, why not bid 2S and follow-up
with 3H, giving partner a chance to describe his hand, 3NT may well be
the right spot.

I would also overcall 2C with the actual hand, though, it's a little bit
too weak to double.

*** Olle ***
----------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail - Olle.Morell@astro.uu.se

Snail Mail - Astronomical Observatory, Box 515, 751 20 Uppsala, Sweden
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge