HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: geppo@dworkin.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Different opening meanings in different positions
Date: 3 Oct 92 23:18:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: olympus.29684
Organization: Washington University,  St Louis MO


Recently, in a low quality club game, I played against a pair which was using
the following agreement:

	1NT = 10-12 p. in 1~ and 2~ position
	1NT = 15-17 p. in 3~ and 4~ position.

This was of course not a problem for us (we decided to defend differently
agains the two openings).


Today, reading the latest italian bulletin, I found a letter-complain written 
by a very strong pair, complaining for a decision of the director during a 
final match in the italian nationals held some months ago.
They were playing a system with different point count for the 1NT opening
in 1-2~ and 3-4~ position, and the director made them change the system 
for the second half of the final match.

The answer to the letter gave reason to the director reporting the actual 
EBL rules, something like:

*) The opening in 1~, 2~ 3~, 4~ position cannot have different meanings. 
Thus both point range and distribution MUST be the same in all positions
for ALL(?) the openings.
[... while it's possible to have different meanings vulnerable or non 
vulnerable ...]


I have now a couple of questions:

1) (for ACBL people): ACBL allows different point count in different position?
If yes, for ANY opening? (see the previously cited 1NT bid or, as a second
example, a  weak 2 bid in 1~, 2~ 3~ pos. and 12-16 points, in 4~ position)

2) what aboit vulnerability and different meanings? It's possible, for example,
to play strong club when non vulnerable agains vulnerable, and standard-like
in the other cases?


2) (for EBL people): this rule applies to ALL the opening bids or only
to the 1NT? It's possible to play the previous example of weak two / 12-16
in 4~ position?


Thanx for any helps in clearing this fog.

Giuseppe Bianchi.

PS: If the ACBL allows this, it is the first time that I find ACBL less 
restricting than EBL :-)
From: henk@pdsf.ssc.gov (Henk Uijterwaal)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Examples of Neuberg's formula
Date: 4 Oct 92 16:24:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: sunova.1992Oct4.162405.4673
Reply-To: henk@pdsf.ssc.gov (Henk Uijterwaal)
Followup-To: rec.games.bridge
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory

A number of people asked for an example or 2 of Neuberg's formula. Here
they are:

Neuberg's formula reads:

                 N
      MP' + 1 = --- (MP + 1)
                 n

With
           
MP       : The number of matchpoints given on a 0, 2, 4.. basis to
           the pairs that have played a certain board with a given layout. 
n        : The number of tables that have played this board
N        : The total number of tables in play.
MP'      : The number of matchpoints actually awarded to a pair.

1. Suppose we have 14 tables. At 13 of them a board has been played without 
   any problems, at the last table an artificial score was awarded (for 
   example NS 60%, EW 40%). Now N=14 and n=13. 

   The top score in the group of 13 tables is 24. This is converted to MP' = 
   25.9 (= 14/13 * (24+1) -1). 25.9 is almost equal to 26, the top if there 
   had been a regular result at the last table. An average result in the 13 
   table group (12 MP) is converted to MP'=13, the average without an 
   artificial score (which is what you expect). 

   Of course you don't have to use Neuberg for the 14th table, you just award
   0.6*26 = 15.6 MP to NS, 10.4 MP to EW.

2. Now suppose we have 2 sections of 10 tables, using duplicated boards and
   score the boards across the field. In section #1 the EW hands have been
   switched w.r.t. to board used in section #2. You obviously cannot compare
   the scores in both sections anymore. Again Neuberg is applied to convert
   the scores in both sections using:

   MP' = 20/10 (MP + 1) - 1.

   The average score is transformed from 9 to 19 in both sections. If we had
   had 2 sections with 9 and 11 tables respectively, the scores would be 
   converted using

   MP' = 20/11 (MP + 1) - 1     for the 11 table section
   MP' = 20/ 9 (MP + 1) - 1     for the  9 table section

Henk.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                                      Email: henk@pdsf.ssc.gov 
SSC-labs, MS 2005.                                          46082::henk
Building 4, room F-428
2550 Beckleymeade Av.
Dallas, TX 75237                                     Phone: 1-214-708-6192
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: geppo@dworkin.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Different opening meanings in different positions
Date: 4 Oct 92 06:55:10 GMT
Organization: Washington University,  St Louis MO

In article <lcsqg6INN2lk@bovina.cs.utexas.edu> varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) writes:
>In article <29684@olympus.wustl.edu> geppo@dworkin.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi) writes:
>
>|*) The opening in 1~, 2~ 3~, 4~ position cannot have different meanings. 
>|Thus both point range and distribution MUST be the same in all positions
>|for ALL(?) the openings.
>|[... while it's possible to have different meanings vulnerable or non 
>|vulnerable ...]
>
>Wow!  Strange, if true.  You aren't allowed to open light in 3rd
>position, or open flaky 3rd-seat preempts, or very sound 2- and 3-bids
>in 4th seat or ...  That seems a bit much to believe.
>

I think that the idea of a light or sound opening is not in contrast with
this principle, that is a more frequent light opening nevertheless doesn't
describe a different hand than the solid one. 
For example in case of 1 level opening, you must follow (in Italy) the 
rule of 19 (the sum of the length in the two longest suits + the total 
HCP must be greater or equal than 19), as a matter of fact, in first and 
second position, lots of people don't open ALL the "19" hands, while in 3~ 
and 4~ they probably do.
Another example is that a weak two in first of third position is structurally
always a weak two, although partnership agreements can guarantee more solidity
in the first and second seat.

The openings that should be in contrast with this law seems to be ALL THE 
OPENINGS THAT RADICALLY DESCRIBE A NEW HAND (like a 2 opening with 12-16 
points, or a NT opening with a differen point count range), that, according 
to this law, should be banned. 

Anyway, the examples of Donald are reasonable, that is there is an EFFECTIVE,
ALTHOUGH SUBTLE, DIFFERENT AGREEMENT IN DIFFERENT POSITIONS FOR MANY OPENING 
BIDS and, according textually to such law, such (absolutely normal) agreements
should be interpreted as out of law!! If those stilish differences at different
position could be interpreted as DIFFERENT OPENINGS, practically everybody
in Europe should be illegal!

I'm personally surprised from this law and from the decision of the
director at the italian nationals final, expecially after some postings
and answers about the ACBL ruling (In which it seems clear that this stuff
is allowed).

May be some EBL player can clear those doubts and (maybe) cite the exact 
law (that I reported summarized as I found it in the answer on the journal).
May be, in fact, that such rule works only for the NT opening ....

Giuseppe.
From: henk@pdsf.ssc.gov (Henk Uijterwaal)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Neuberg's formula (was Re: Scoring program.)
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:14:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: sunova.1992Sep29.201404.14417
Followup-To: rec.games.bridge
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory

In article <6851@transfer.stratus.com>, tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill) writes:

+> What's Neuberg's formula?

This is a method to calculate scores as soon as there is an artificial score
on the list. Suppose you have a total of N tables. At n something irregular 
happened and the director had to award an artificial score (such as 40% or 
60%, not 3H,+1, +170 instead of the actual result). 

Without Neuberg you would score this board n, n+2, n+4....N-n. This has 
the disadvantage that a pair that had a 0 suddenly gets n points. With 
Neuberg you score the board 0, 2, 4... Now you get a lower top. Then
you apply this formula to the scores:

             N
  MP' - 1 = --- (MP - 1)
             n

Where MP is the original number of matchpoints and MP' the number that
is actually awarded. 

If you work this out you'll see that a 0 becomes (almost) a 0 again and a
top becomes a top again. 

The same formula is used if a misduplicated board is used in one of the 
sections of large tournament. With N the total number of tables and n the
number of tables in a section. With the old method it would not matter what
you did on the misduplicated board since you would always get a score of
close to 50% (you would count N-n, N-n+2,...N+n, if N>>n, this is almost
N for everybody).  With Neuberg the results do matter again.

Neuberg's formula is almost always used in European pair tournaments and 
I think in world pair championships as well. 

Henk.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                                      Email: henk@pdsf.ssc.gov 
SSC-labs, MS 2005.                                          46082::henk
Building 4, room F-428
2550 Beckleymeade Av.
Dallas, TX 75237                                     Phone: 1-214-708-6192
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: qed@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (Peter Gober)
Subject: Scoring program?
Organization: Techn. University of Berlin, Germany
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:45:59 GMT

Does there exist a public domain or cheap program for scoring Mitchell and
Howell tournaments? A friend of mine is president of a bridge club, they
have bought a computer and a commercial program, but have many problems 
with it.

Thank you for your help -

Peter (qed@cs.tu-berlin.de)
From: taylor@foraker.tivoli.com (Eric Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: My fault ?
Date: 4 Oct 92 19:57:19 GMT
Organization: TIVOLI Systems, Inc.

|> |> |>   my partner had		declarer had
|> |> |>  S Kx				S Qx
|> |> |>  H xx				H KQ.xxx
|> |> |>  D xxxx				D AJxx
|> |> |>  C Axxxx			C QJ
|> |> |> 
|> |> |> -- Kiyoshi ASAI
|> |> |> 	Electrotechnical Laboratory, Japan
|> |> 
|> |> I admit I would have expected more from your hand with your 2 spade bid
|> |> and I do not blame your partner for raising.
|> |> 
|> 
|> The 2S bid by East is automatic (it is in fact a semi-balancing
|> bid in this situation). Many experts would consider it right even
|> without the diamond queen.
|> 
|> The raise to 3S is wrong. It will violate the law of total tricks
|> unless partner is 7-2 or 6-1 in the majors, and will usually lead
|> to a minus score (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)

I agree that 3s could have gone done pretty badly, but I would
disagree that 2S is automatic.   Partner has a balancing bid coming.
With 2H, he will make one if he has anything.


LTT is right most of the time, but like HCP, you shouldn't let
it be your master.  Only your tool.

Here is an auction you might find interesting that occurred
at the LV regional.

You, South, hold :
AQ10xx
Kx
xxx
xxx

The bidding proceeds :

W          N          E         S
1D         1H         X(1)      1S(2)
2C         2H         P         P
3C         P          P         3H
P          P          X

(1)  Negative
(2)  Natural

Making 6.  4 was unbeatable when partner showed up
with KJx of spades.  She had misinterpreted 1S as a cue-bid
in support of hearts.  (2D would have been such a bid)

There is no substitute for cover-cards when you can
diagnose them.  LTT is an approximation of cover cards.

In the original posting.  West has 2 clear cover cards.
If partner has a fit for clubs as well, then you will
have certainly made a good decision.
Besides,  it is easier to play than to defend.
Organization: Masters student, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Law questions
From: ckincy@mcs213c.cs.umr.edu (Charles Kincy)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:55:17 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla

In article <1a7tnsINNlqr@agate.berkeley.edu> fogel@wish-bone.berkeley.edu (Micah E. Fogel) writes:
>
>	I have two questions about law that hopefully someone can clear up
>for me...
>
>	The first one is about the rule that a revoke at trick twelve must
>be corrected, and revoker's partner can be required to play either of his
>two cards if both are legal.  So if spades are trumps in this diagram
>
>        --
>        --
>        23
>--      --      A2
>2               --
>--              --
>2       3       --
>        3
>        --
>        --
>
>and South leads the heart and west plays the club instead of following,
>can South require East to ruff with the ace, and magically win a trick in
>a no-win situation?  Seems a little unfair to me...

Well, in bridge, you also have things called proprieties.  If it's the
48th board on the 5th day of a tournament, W is probably a little
sleepy and was not trying to gain anything by revoking.  South should
*not* require east to ruff with the AS.  He could under the law to 
gain an advantage, but that is improper.  It's a matter of being a good
sport.  If S misses out on a few matchpoints because of his good
sportsmanship, he won't lose any sleep over it. 

Now, it's a bit different if W had a situation where he could convey
information to his partner by revoking.  In this case, he could require
a play by East that would grant him a high board because all the other
Easts took a wild guess and made the right play anyway.

Laws are always enforced on grounds of intent, just like in real life.
*8)

>	Secondly, I know that when the opponents make a mistake that gives
>you several options under the law that you should take the one that you think
>will give your side the greatest advantage.  But is it allowable to have a
>set of understandings/conventions that takes advantage of the situation?  For
>example, the auction goes
>
>You   LHO   Pard  RHO
> 1H    1S    3H    2S
> ??
>
>are you allowed to have a set of agreements about what it would mean to accept
>the insufficient bid vs. what bids might mean if you require RHO to correct
>the bid?  Similar situations would be calls out of rotation and untimely or
>incorrect alerts, where you might be allowed to change your call.

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!

It is legal under the law, but is a massive violation of proprieties.

People should just play the game, and quit using the laws to weasel
around.  *8)

Now, gather hands, and chant the ACBL mantra:
"Always disclose,
Never Abuse,
Don't Intimidate,
Practice Active Ethics."

cpk
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Play this slam
From: avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:46:47 GMT
Organization: Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

geppo@dworkin.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi) writes:
: In a IMP match we bid the following criminal slam:
:
:     KQxxxx
:     Axx
:     x
:     Axx
:
:     xx
:     KQJxx
:     AQJxx
:     x
:

: netter analysts, the best line of play with the lead of small club (the
: opponents are strong players)?
:
Play quickly after the first trick huddle.

Win the Ace of clubs, ruff a club and lead a spade to K. regardless who holds
the the A, you will be allowed to win, but you should know who has the A.

If you think that the Ace is right, draw two rounds of trumps, with the
KQ of trumps, and lead another spade. You are home, if both major suits break.

If you think that the ace is wrong, finesse in diamonds, ruff a diamond,
ruff a club, ruff another diamond with the Ace, draw trumps and claim.

E made an attacking lead, so IMO he will not have all the cards, that is
he will not have both KD and A of spades. An attacking lead is more attractive
when you hold an Ace, or no outside high cards. So the chances for either line
to work are quite good.

The alternative line is to finesse in diamonds immediately, this seems to
work even if the majors are 4-1, but it does not, since you still have
to negotiate a spade trick, and you need to ruff a club in order to be able
to ruff diamonds twice so you will lose control.

Avi
From: mikeehli@cie.uoregon.edu (Mike Ehli)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: MPs and IMPs--novice question
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:33:31 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange

First off:  How are IMPs calculated?  The procedure for matchpoints
looks pretty straightforward, but IMPs look a little more difficult.
 
Second, and more important:  People often respond to a question:
"If we're playing matchpoints I'll do X, but at IMPs I'll do Y."
How does the scoring system being used affect the line of play in
these cases? (Does a general answer exist, or is it more complicated
than that?)

--Mike, alias Tholian
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: altus@leland.Stanford.EDU (Steve Altus)
Subject: Re: Novato corrections
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 22:42:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.222151.4639@head-cfa.harvard.edu> willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) writes:
>
>> Match Points    North                     Novato-3 Board 7
>> Dlr: North      schulle
>> Vul: Both       S 95                      West     North    East     South
>>                 H J8762                   kasle    schulle  stansby  wolff
>>                 D KT32
>>                 C K6                      --       pass     pass     1H
>>     West                   East           2C       2H       3H       X
>>     kasle                  stansby        pass     4H       X     (all pass)
>>     S K742                 S QJT8
>>     H 9                    H A3           Opening Lead: S2
>>     D 86                   D Q54          Result: -4
>>     C AQT752               C J983         Score: -1100
>>                 South
>>                 wolff                        1  2  3  4
>>                 S A63                     W S2 H9 S4 C2
>>                 H KQT54                   N S5 H2 S9 C6
>>                 D AJ97                    E S8 HA-SQ-C3
>>                 C 4                       S SA-HQ S3 C4
>> 
>
>How could this go off four?  It looks as though it is off one at
>most, and that only if declarer misguesses diamonds.  And if trick
>four is correct, it should always make.  Anybody know what really
>happened?

yes, i know what happened, since i was the "vugraph typist" for this hand...
after EW got their two black suit tricks and the trump ace, Wolff came down
to all red cards in both hands... he paused for quite some time and then 
played an extra round of trumps, and Stansby discarded the 5 of diamonds.
now Wolff played the jack of diamonds towards dummy and played dummy's king,
and Stansby's queen showed up when a low diamond was led from dummy...the
result was MAKING four, not down four.

--steve altus
From: olle@astro.uu.se (Olof Morell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: bidding problem after support redouble
Date: 28 Sep 1992 09:46:48 GMT
Organization: Uppsala University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solaris.astro.uu.se

In article <29287@olympus.wustl.edu>, geppo@dworkin.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi) writes:

|>   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

*** I suppose this means THREE card support. Would this:
AJx, x, AQJxx, Axxx qualify as such? Or would one still bid 2C on that one?
I would like to play 3S forcing. If partner has something like:
Kxxx, Kx, Jx, xxxx, then 3NT is the only make...


|>      b) redouble showed general strength

3S. Forcing!

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

Snail Mail - Astronomical Observatory, Box 515, 751 20 Uppsala, Sweden
From: isc30194@nusunix1.nus.sg (LEE CHEW HUNG)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Novice new to group
Date: 26 Sep 92 15:04:23 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

David W. Vorbrich (dwv@cs.brown.edu) wrote:
: Ok, I just started playing bridge 2 weeks ago, and just discovered
: this group today... questions:

     Hello and welcome to the game

: 
: 1) Is there a helpful FAQ for this group somewhere?

     Not sure about that though.

: 
: 2) Can you recommend a good book for a novice... especially something
:    to catch me up with the vocabulary?

     My initial bridge book was "A fun way to serious bridge" by harry
lampert, which I found very useful.  Another book that comes to mind is
"5 weeks to winning bridge" by alfred sheinwold.

: 
: 3) Can you recommend a good bridge game on the Macintosh so I can
:    practice what I learn on my own at home?
 
     I haven't seen any good bridge computer game yet but how about
playing with okbridge ?  I think you can get just as good a practice 
playing with people than to play with the computer.


: 
: Thanks much,
: David V.
: dwv@cs.brown.edu

Mortis Lee
isc30194@nusunix3.nus.sg
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge