HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Professor WHO?
Subject: Re: Restricting Conventions
Summary: Ah, here we arew again!
Originator: boyiny@kovalevskaya
Keywords: conventions, regulations
Reply-To: maboyiny@ccvax.as.edu.tw (Dr. Weird)
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
X-Subliminal-Message: It is FUN to play against strange methods!
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 01:04:01 GMT

>>:(Chip Martel) writes: 
>>:> it is wrong for a pair to gain a substantial advantage by playing a
>>:> convention due to its SURPRISE EFFECT.  The surprise effect is the
>>:> gain which comes purely because the opponents have not had a
>>:> reasonable chance to prepare to play against the convention.
> 
>>(Bob Silverman)
>>Please tell me why Roman, which has been around for at least 30 years,
>>published in books, and used extensively in international competition
>>has been banned by the ACBL.  One cannot claim 'surprise'. This is an
>>old and well published system.

Just a matter of history, please note that Roman is at least as old as
Eastern Scientific and survive to this day with very few modifications.
Other systems of similar vintage include the Vienna/Bankok/Polish/New South
Wales (the five-card diamond style).

(Alan Jaffray)
>Well... No-Name, a bizarre forcing pass system that I've played against
>a couple of times, has been around for at least ten years, has been 
>published, and has been used in international competition multiple times.
>Clearly one cannot claim surprise, since it's an old and published system.
>Right?

Polish Forcing Pass systems have been published since 1968, which makes it
at least  as old as Western Scientific (Walsh).

>No.  The surprise effect is caused not by the unfamiliarity on a world level,
>but by personal unfamiliarity, by never having played against the system
>before.  And this is what's wrong with barring conventions just because 
>the opponents haven't seen it before.  There always has to be a first time.
>
It is nearly impossible but I agree completely!

As usual, I find hard to be in a diuspute with someone as awe-inspiring AS
CHIP MARTEL (not in person--I just mean his fame and so on) but just a week
or so ago I was being regaled with the story of balicki-Zmudzinski (World
Open Pairs thrid place 1990, bermuda Bowl second place 1991, thrid 1989)
finding the idea of a semi-natural and non-forcing one club opening
outlandish to such an extent that they forgot to prepare against it, from
Chip himself!

I am not advocating that we ban non-forcing 3-card club openings just that
there ARE things that any given person may find either strage or familiar.
take for example the Standard 2-bids in Taiwan-- 2D= H or 5S+5m/2H=S or
5H+5m/2S= Majors or minors.  yes, believe it or not it is played by a
majority of players until American influences tried to stamp it out!

[Apologies for my speelling]



Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: taddiken@ms.uky.edu (scott taddiken)
Subject: Re: Restricting conventions
    <burt.718400066@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> <6hsztr#@rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:21:49 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

In article <6hsztr#@rpi.edu> sperbr@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu (Ron E Sperber) writes:
>burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Burt Voorhees) writes:
>
>>Seems to me that a forcing pass system is an open invitation to frequent
>>psyches.x
>
>Do you mean psyches by the opposition? I don't understand why that would be
>so. I certainly would not really want to psyche after a strong pass on
>my right. If I were to play a forcing pass I might well consider the auction
>P(1)-1S-X to be a penalty double. certainly its just as easy to double
>for penalty after a forcing pass as it is over any other opening bid.

It certainly is easier to stick someone with a penalty double if your side
has made one or more natural bids.  That auction is just as vulnerable as
the strong one club to semi-psychic or psychic action, either for lead-
direction or just plain mischief.

Actually, I don't see any reason why 3rd seat psychics would be a bad idea in
a fert auction: 1s (fert) p 2h (to play) with a garbage hand, not vulnerable,
and a singleton heart sounds plausible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott A. Taddiken, University of Kentucky
From: jaffray@oreo.berkeley.edu (Alan Jaffray)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Restricting Conventions
Date: 3 Oct 1992 00:22:01 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
NNTP-Posting-Host: oreo.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct2.193944.10380@linus.mitre.org> bs@mendel.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.173132.18978@head-cfa.harvard.edu> willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) writes:
>:In article <17675@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, martel@spider.cs.ucdavis.edu
>:(Chip Martel) writes: 
>:> it is wrong for a pair to gain a substantial advantage by playing a
>:> convention due to its SURPRISE EFFECT.  The surprise effect is the
>:> gain which comes purely because the opponents have not had a
>:> reasonable chance to prepare to play against the convention.
 
>Please tell me why Roman, which has been around for at least 30 years,
>published in books, and used extensively in international competition
>has been banned by the ACBL.  One cannot claim 'surprise'. This is an
>old and well published system.

Well... No-Name, a bizarre forcing pass system that I've played against
a couple of times, has been around for at least ten years, has been 
published, and has been used in international competition multiple times.
Clearly one cannot claim surprise, since it's an old and published system.
Right?

No.  The surprise effect is caused not by the unfamiliarity on a world level,
but by personal unfamiliarity, by never having played against the system
before.  And this is what's wrong with barring conventions just because 
the opponents haven't seen it before.  There always has to be a first time.

-- Alan
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Forcing Pass (was "Bid these hands" and "Competitive Decision")
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:36:59 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Eric Taylor <taylor@logan.tivoli.com> writes:
>>>>>> BTW, if you're in the habit of opening strong two-suiters (hands
>>>>>> like, say, -,AKJxx,AKQxxxx,J, from the November 1990 ACBL charity
>>>>>> game) with 2C, you'll find this sort of preemption much harder to
>>>>>> handle.

> As a tactical bid, why not open this hand 1 diamond even in a big club
> system?  You will not get passed out and there will little doubt as to
> the nature of your hand when you jack up the bidding to 4 or 5 hearts
> later?

There will be little doubt that you hold some different hand, because
you have systemically denied holding this one.

Your comment makes about as much sense as saying that you will open your
balanced 16 count in a minor instead of with a strong NT for tactical
reasons, because when you bid strongly later partner will figure out
what you have.  If you have a system, and you make a bid in that system,
then there are generally not subsequent bids which have the meaning, "I
lied on an earlier round."

                                        David desJardins
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: My fault ?
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:44:00 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Chip Martel <martel@spider.cs.ucdavis.edu> writes:
> East's defense of overtaking is definately a mistake (though not
> because partner might have Kx!).  As argued before, this should show
> a stiff club.  It would also be costly if declarer had something like
> x, K9xxxx, AJx, AJT by removing his guess for the club queen.

Can you explain why overtaking and leading a club should show a
singleton, and signaling for a club shift should show a doubleton?  It
seems technically just as sound to play the reverse.

I agree that it would be (very!) nice to have an agreement.  I just
don't see how to deduce one or the other from common sense principles.
The benefits of shifting to clubs and the risks are the same in both
cases (you gain if West has the ace and lose if you eliminate a guess).

> (note that the opponents could have gotton 3S down 3 on the acual
> hand, and if partner was 5-2-3-3 it could be worse)

A minor point, but I don't see how you can go down more than two.  If
the opponents don't lead trump, you score a heart ruff (possibly with
the king), four trumps, and two aces.  If the opponents lead trump, you
score five trumps and two aces.

The opponents have nine tricks in hearts, which puts the total-trick
count one over.  I think this is not surprising, given the 3S bidder's
hand.

                                        David desJardins
From: teague@stc.lockheed.com (Alan Teague)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Negative Doubles and Required Alerts
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:54:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: arthur.TEAGUE.92Sep28165734
Organization: Lockheed Software Technology Center

When playing 5 card majors and Negative doubles through some level (say 2S),
Which of the following are required to be alerted?

   1) 1C 1H 1S -- Where the 1S promises 5+ spades

      Note: Does anyone playing negative doubles not promise at least 
            5 spades on this auction?

   2) 1C 1D 1S -- Where the 1S promises 5+ spades (X shows at least 3-4)

   3) 1C 1D 1S -- Where the 1S promises 4+ spades (X shows 4-4)

   4) 1C 2D 2S -- Where the 2S promises 5+ spades (X shows one+ 4 card major)

Until yesterday, I do not remember hearing any of these sequences alerted. 
Wnen responding, please indicated the source of the information (e.g., opinion
or director ruling).  Thanks for any light you can shed on this topic.

Alan
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ted@sage0.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying)
Subject: Re: Law questions
Organization: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:04:57 GMT

jpnicol@eng.auburn.edu (Jean-Paul N. Nicol) writes:

> For what kind of hands would it be considered good bridge judgement to
> accept insufficient and/or out of rotation calls?  In a long standing
> partnership, does partners awareness of your usual action (good bridge
> judgement) in these situations constitute an 'agreement', and if so,
> are you now barred from exercising the aforementioned 'good judgement'?

	I will accept an insufficient bid if it will allow me to make
	a weak lead directing bid that I otherwise wouldn't have been
	able to make.  For example, holding  xx,Txx,AKxxx,xxx and
	hearing the auction:

	Pard     RHO     Me     LHO
	---------------------------
	1S       1C      ?

	I will accept and "overcall" 1D to allow me to get my lead
	directing bid in.  Otherwise, if partner is on lead, I'll
	never be able to show my diamonds over 1S-2C...

	This is legal and allowable.  If I have no reason to want
	to come into the auction, then I'll require that RHO correct
	the bid.  There aren't too many times to accept the insufficient
	bid, but there are some.

	Ted Ying			ted@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov
	Hughes/STX			Goddard Space Flight Center
From: geppo@dworkin.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: bidding problem after support redouble
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:57:16 GMT
Organization: Washington University,  St Louis MO

In article <29287@olympus.wustl.edu> geppo@dworkin.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi) writes:
>A friend gave me the following problem:
>
>  You hold AJx, xx, AKQxxx, Ax unfavorable at IMPs
>
>             1D   P  1S  X
>             XX   3H  P  P
>             ?
>
>  What do you do if 
>     a) redouble was a support redouble
>     b) redouble showed general strength
>

I forgot to mention that support redouble implies:
   1) exactly 3 card fit
   2) nothing is said about the strenght and distribution of
      the hand

(don't flame me for such convention ... is not mine, and I don't like it
too ...)

Giuseppe
From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Scoring program.
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:22:50 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Sep29.142451.4423@sunova.ssc.gov>, henk@pdsf.ssc.gov (Henk Uijterwaal) writes:
> ...
> Before you buy [ACBL Score], check whether it can handle score sheets in 
> the European way, e.g. 0, 2, 4,... with odd numbered points for tied 
> results and Neuberger's formula for artificial scores. The Americans use
> 0,1,2.. with half points for tied scores (and don't seem to use Neuberger).

Actually, many U.S. directors also used double matchpoints in pre-computer
days.  It's just a computational convenience.  (Another common shortcut was
not complementing the matchpoints for EW, so the lowest EW score won.)
Since rankings and percentages come out the same whether either of these
shortcuts is used, does anybody really care?

What's Neuberger's formula?


                                      Tim
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: hamilton@robin.rtp.dg.com (Eric Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Forcing Pass (was "Bid these hands" and "Competitive Decision")
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 15:39:06 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <1992Oct1.213017.7390@rayssd.ssd.ray.com>, sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Steve Myerson) writes:

[Discussing -,AKJxx,AKQxxxx,J, from the November 1990 ACBL charity game, which
 I posted as an example of a hand which is vulnerable to preemption if opened
 with a strong 2C - the discussion has shifted to what to do with it when
 playing a strong 1C system].
|> 
|> The reason you don't open this hand 1D if you are playing a strong club
|> system is that the opening bid of 1D DENIES this strong a hand.
|> If I tell my partner that I have less than 16 points,
|> he would never EVER believe that I hold this strong a hand,
|> so matter what I bid later.
|> 
|> Furthermore, opening this hand 1D borders on a psych.
|> How many times do you think you can open this type of a hand
|> with a bid other than 1C, and expect to get away with it?
|> 
|> Perhaps someone with directing experience could tell us
|> what would happen to someone playing a strong club system
|> who regularly opened something other than 1C when holding
|> a hand that should have been opened 1C?
|> 
|> I know it is illegal to psych a strong artificial opening bid,
|> but I've never seen any discussion of this somewhat opposite situation.
|> 
I don't think the issue is psyching a strong club here, but whether one should
have a (necessarily disclosed) agreement to bid strong two suiters by opening
them at the one level and rebidding the second suit at the appropriate level.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Hamilton				+1 919 248 6172
Data General Corporation		hamilton@dg-rtp.rtp.dg.com
62 Alexander Drive			...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!hamilton
Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Steve Myerson)
Subject: Re: Forcing Pass (was "Bid these hands" and "Competitive Decision")
Organization: Raytheon Company, Portsmouth, RI
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 21:30:17 GMT

I can't follow all the attributes so I'll try to reformat
without inserting any incorrect info.

We were discussing this hand:

> BTW, if you're in the habit of opening strong two-suiters (hands like, say,
> -,AKJxx,AKQxxxx,J, from the November 1990 ACBL charity game) with 2C, you'll
> find this sort of preemption much harder to handle.

Someone asked:

> BTW, you strong clubbers, would you open such a hand 1C?
> You are likely to run into the same problems as someone who
> opens it 2C.

I answered (as a member of the strong clubbers):

* Absolutely this is a 1C opener. In fact, over any limited point count
* showing response, I would make a bid that is forcing to game.
* And yes, the spade void suggests possible opponent preemption,
* but there is no alternative opening bid.

In article <4621@tivoli.UUCP> Eric Taylor writes:

- As a tactical bid, why not open this hand 1 diamond even in a big
- club system?   You will not get passed out and there will little
- doubt as to the nature of your hand when you jack up the
- bidding to 4 or 5 hearts later?
- 
- You WILL get preempted if you open this 1 club and you might be able
- to show one of your suits.   (You might even get doubled at the 3 or 4 level
- and make a few overtricks ala Zia)

The reason you don't open this hand 1D if you are playing a strong club
system is that the opening bid of 1D DENIES this strong a hand.
If I tell my partner that I have less than 16 points,
he would never EVER believe that I hold this strong a hand,
so matter what I bid later.

Furthermore, opening this hand 1D borders on a psych.
How many times do you think you can open this type of a hand
with a bid other than 1C, and expect to get away with it?

Perhaps someone with directing experience could tell us
what would happen to someone playing a strong club system
who regularly opened something other than 1C when holding
a hand that should have been opened 1C?

I know it is illegal to psych a strong artificial opening bid,
but I've never seen any discussion of this somewhat opposite situation.

Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)
From: burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Burt Voorhees)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Restricting conventions
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:34:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: aupair.burt.718400066

adam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Adam Hamilton) writes:


>    Starting a change of thread here.

>    I have never played against a forcing pass system or fert bid system
>and would not like to do so without chance to prepare a defence.  Would
>some kind soul out there be prepared to post or make available by ftp or
>mail some "known" defences against these systems.

>    I think there will be a LOT of interest in this.

>         Adam
Seems to me that a forcing pass system is an open invitation to frequent
psyches.x
From: c60b-1fy@e260-4d.berkeley.edu (Avi Pfeffer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Restricting Conventions
Date: 5 Oct 1992 23:22:04 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: e260-4d.berkeley.edu
Keywords: Heresy


At the risk of sounding like a heretic, I will say that I think surprise
is a valid advantage to try to take.  It is just like an unusual, possibly
theoretically weaker variation on a chess opening.  Noone would ever think
of banning that; the point is, if you're bamboozled the first time, you can
always work out a defense and get back the next time.  A loss in one game is
NOT a disaster.  If the opposing system has merit, it should certainly be
given a chance to develop; if it doesn't, and it's perpetrators are just
doing it to make trouble, they'll end up the bigger losers in the end.

I agree that at a lower level of competition players should be protected
from strange systems, but at the top level anything goes.  In fact, weaker
players should probably be protected from a pair who can competently play
the FP, whatever they're playing.

Bridge, like chess and football, has to be allowed to evolve.  Give it a
chance, and the best systems will invariably come through.

Avi
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: zhang@me.utoronto.ca (Xiaodong Zhang)
Subject: Re: play problem
Organization: UofT Mechanical Engineering
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:47:56 GMT

jose@math.duke.edu (Greg Lawler) writes:

>Here is a hand I played last night.  I am interested in
>other opinions on the play (I guessed wrong!)


>A Q J 8 x
>x
>J 4
>A K Q x x



>9 x
>A K x x x
>A 8 5 3
>x x

>(The club and heart spots are very small.)  At matchpoints, you get
>to the unfortunate contract of 4NT by the following auction:


>1H      1S  (showing five)
>1N      2C  (forcing)
>2D      3C
>3N*     4N  (extra values, invitational)
>P

>(*I probably should have bid 3S here but this is not the question.)

>The opponents remained silent through the entire auction.  The lead is
>the two of diamonds.  The opponents are playing attitude leads (the lower
>the spot the more the leader likes the suit).  

>Plan the play.

Duck the first D, win the second D with ace. 
Then play s9 to the Q.

If the SQ hold, cash CAKQ, if C doesn't split, cash HAK and play
SX to SJ, hope RHO has Sxxx or STx.

If the SQ lost and the opponents cann't cash four tricks, finess S again.


>On the first two diamond leads (if you duck the first round), 
>RHO will play the ten and the queen (in
>which order depends on your play from dummy at trick one).

>In this case defenders are not particularly strong players.  Would that
>affect your decision?

May be duck one more D and hope the RHO continue a third D.


>Suppose you were playing 3N instead of 4N.  Would that change your
>decision?

Yes, in 3nt I will try deep S finess at third round.

>Greg Lawler
From: kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler)
Subject: Questions
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: 6 Oct 92 15:40:23 GMT


1. Under what circumstance does it make sense to
play Rosenkrantz doubles and redoubles. For example,
what about after partner opens the bidding with
a pre-empt.

  e.g.  2h  2s X=Rosenkrantz.   This doesn't seem to cost
                                very much with some advantages.


2. Are cue bids alertable?  Auction at a club game:

     1c   1d     1h   pass
     1nt  pass   2d*          *Alert.

      I claimed that 2d should not be alerted as it was a cue.
  The director and opponents claimed that it needs to be alerted
  since the cue had a non-standard meaning. I didn't know that
 low cue bids had standard meanings.


3.  Red against white.

 You are dealer with     J, Axxx,Kxxx,Qxxx
 and you start with a pass. The auction proceeds:

    pass 1h  1s  1nt
    ??

Now what? The auction continues

    pass pass 2s  pass
    ??

I passed again.

dennis
From: geppo@dworkin.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Lead problem
Date: 29 Sep 92 07:31:16 GMT
Organization: Washington University,  St Louis MO

I found an interesting problem that I'd like to propose to the net. Expecially
I'd like to know the opinion of some expert player about the most technical
lead.

This hand was dealt last september at the international tournament of Venice, 
one of the most important tournaments in Europe.

you are, in north, one of the strongest players of Italy, with the following
cards:

   AKT95
   4
   KT9643
   A

Team match (for the very first positions of the tournament), open room, 
NS vulnerable, dealer W. The bidding:

W     N     E     S
-------------------
P     1S    2C    3S
4H    4S    P     P
5H    5S    P     P
6H    x     -     -
-

what is your lead?


Does you lead changes if you are the north in closed room, with the following
bidding:

W     N     E     S
-------------------
2C*   2S    P     3S
P     4S    5C*   5S 
6H    X     -     -
-
  *) 2C = solid preempt in a generic suit
  *) 5C = for playing in partner's generic suit



In a couple of days I'll post what happened at the tables. Thank you for
any answer.

Giuseppe
From: geppo@dworkin.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: bidding problem after support redouble
Date: 27 Sep 92 23:12:11 GMT
Organization: Washington University,  St Louis MO

A friend gave me the following problem:

  You hold AJx, xx, AKQxxx, Ax unfavorable at IMPs

             1D   P  1S  X
             XX   3H  P  P
             ?

  What do you do if 
     a) redouble was a support redouble
     b) redouble showed general strength

He proposed this problem to 5 people and, for the case a), he received 5 
different answers. 

He cannot read r.g.b, so I decided to post this, thinking that the problem is
quite interesting and hoping to get some other considerations.

Somebody cares to answer? 

Thx

Giuseppe.

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge