HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: You pays your money ...
Date: 11 Sep 1992 15:36:07 -0500
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In article <18qujcINNhv0@cs.utexas.edu> varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) writes:

>At unfavorable, third seat, IMPs, partner passes and RHO opens 4C,
>preemptive in clubs.  You hold
>
>S:KQT9xxx H:Kx D:QJ9xx C:--

Will anyone believe keybounce?  No?  How about stupidity?  Actually:

KQT9xx Kx QJ9xx --

I really try hard to get exactly 13 cards in the hands I post.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: satadd00@nx06.mik.uky.edu (scott andrew taddiken)
Subject: A curious question.
Keywords: ethics, laws
Summary: When has a pair 'adopted' a system?
Organization: University of Kentucky
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:18:17 GMT

The 'defenses to defenses to a strong 1c bid' thread has made me curious:
what if two pairs sit down to play in, say, the US Open Pairs competition,
and cannot agree on what system they are playing?

The simplest example I can think of is this:  One pair announces to the other
that they make VERY undisciplined use of weak two's (made illegal now, from
what I hear, but this is a hypothetical question).  The other pair say, ok, in
that case they will play the Fishbein convention, which allows the player over
the weak two bidder to double for penalties with the right kind of hand.  Now
the first pair look startled and say, well, they won't play those undisciplined
weak two's after all.  Then the second pair says they won't use Fishbein after
all.  Etcetera.

Of course I know this is silly.  But it seems to me that something like it
could happen.  In the knockouts, where I am told you are briefed about your
opponents' bidding system in advance, you might devise a defense to one of
their unusual sequences.  Upon being informed of your defence, they devise a
defense to your defense.  Upon being informed of their defense to your defense,
you devise a defense to... and you don't get to play in this lifetime.

Do the Laws or Proprieties have anything to say?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott A. Taddiken,  University of Kentucky
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler)
Subject: Re: Meaning of bids when rho reopens with a X
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:02:29 GMT



>Suppose you open 1D and the bidding goes

>1D-p-p-X



My partner and I have a lot of agreements, but none in the
situation that you mention. Here's my common sense answer.

XX: good hand, 16+
NT: nt hand, 18-20pts
2D: 6 diamonds, competitive
3D: 6+ diamonds, competitive
new-suit: weak 2 suiter
jump-shift:  strong 2 suiter


dennis
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Multi 2D
Date: 11 Sep 1992 14:52:32 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

The recent posting of difficulties US pairs have had in dealing
with Multi have led some to the conclusion that it is very
difficult to defend against and therefore *should* be banned,
and others to the conclusion that the American pairs just
weren't bidding very well.

My conclusion is that top US players don't get enough practice
playing against Multi.  This is a consequence of the ACBL's
very conservative approach to permissable conventions.  The
proper solution is to add Multi to the GCC.  Further, if top
US players are ever to get any practice playing against relays
and forcing passes, those should be added to the Superchart.

Seems clear to me.

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
From: kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler)
Subject: Re: Beginner's question: what do you bid?
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: 7 Sep 92 17:42:37 GMT




>In a recent matchpoint event, the following hand turned up:

>(S dealer, none vul)


>          KJT765
>          J7
>          842
>          83
>AQ98                32
>-                   AQ62
>T93                 AKJ7
>QJT972              AK4
>          4
>          KT98543
>          Q65
>          65


================
3 spades is correct.

p   1c (ugh)    2spades   3spades
p   4c          p         4nt
p   5d          p         6clubs, and very tempted to bid 7.


I would expect to make 6 clubs.

Assuming trumps aren't lead, plan to ruff two spades in dummy and
sluff one diamond on the heart A.

If trumps are lead, you can eliminate red suits from North and endplay him
in spades, making 6 again.

dennis
From: kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler)
Subject: Re: Bid these hands
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:44:52 GMT


>Matchpoints
>Vulnerable vs. Not
>Dealer East

>  N
>-----
>S KTxx
>H A
>D AJx
>C QTxxx

>  S
>-----
>S (void)
>H KQJ987
>D KQxxx
>C AK

No opposition bidding: (2/1)

   S    N
   1h   2c
   3d   4d
   5S*  6d    *Exclusionary RKC(diamonds)
   7D





>Hypothetical question:  If west were to open 2S, how should things proceed?
>(In reality, West was the dealer and opened at one table, after missorting

W      N         E       S
2s     2nt(i)    p       3d(ii)         i) natural: 15-17
p      3h        p       5s(iii)        ii) transfer
p      6d        p       7h             iii) ERKC(hearts)


dennis
From: taddiken@ms.uky.edu (scott taddiken)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: The value of quantitative sequences.
Summary: A response to an earlier question about inducing a bad lead.
Keywords: Kelsey, blasting
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:49:48 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

Some time ago somebody asked whether anyone had worked out the odds
of giving away a slam by telling the opponents too much about your
hand.  Or, conversely, the odds of making a "bad slam" because of
a bad lead induced by a quantititative bidding sequence like:
1h-3h-6h-p.

I doubt anyone could ever calculate such a thing, but in his book,
"How to Improve Your Bridge", H. Kelsey mentioned a study which had
been published in the 1969 "Annals of the International Academy of
Bridge" (whatever that is) looking at many hundreds of recent world
championship hands, which concluded that the most successful contracts
were those reached in the least number of bids.

It's not entirely clear what this means.  Does anybody out there have
the reference?  It seems to me that it might or might not be strong
evidence of the efficacy of blasting, depending on the quality of the
study.

Noone would argue that there are not some hands on which it is better
to blast, and noone would argue that there are not some hands on
which it is better to do a thorough exploration.  The question is
when, and how often.

If you want to bid a breezy style, you will not, I'm afraid, find much
sympathy on this net.  I shall only point out that there have been a 
few great champions in recent times who have had remarkable success
with very few conventions.  Chagas/Branco have done well with their
"nostalgic" system.  Zia Mahmut plays Y'ali (God is in charge).  And
Rixi Markus played in the highest level pairs competition with pickup
partners like Belladonna and Garozzo, and achieved good results,
playing her "non-system" (she calls it acol sometimes, and CAB others,
but it is considerably less encumbered than either).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Taddiken, a Phillistine of Bridge, University of Kentucky
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sater@cs.vu.nl (Hans van Staveren)
Subject: The daily bulletins are on their way
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 07:17:20 GMT

I have the daily bulletins from Salsomaggiore on disk. I will start
posting the WordPerfect files in raw format. The PostScript will follow
as soon as I have it figured out. Anyone that can send me a PostScript
file of the first bulletin that will print on all our printers and
wants the conversion job is welcome to the net.fame-and-glory.  I would
have to climb a learning curve first.

There are 15 daily bulletins and the naming convention will be as follows:

db##prt.tp
	db is fixed
	## is the number 01 up to 15
	prt is one of
		tot	The whole bulletin
		adm	Scores, next rounds etc
		rst	Rest of bulletin
		Each bulletin will have either a tot or (adm+rst)
	tp is one of
		wp	WordPerfect5.1 file
		ps	PostScript
		txt	7bit ASCII	(I do not know whether I can make that)

The WP files alone are compressed 1.5Mb so I will put some delay between
them as not to swamp the network.

Remember when you get these bulletins, they are Copyright WBF, and posted
by permission. Printing a copy for you and a couple for your friends or
bridgeclub is OK, merchandising them is not. Do not abuse this, please.

	Hans van Staveren
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: pynq@quads.uchicago.edu (George Jetson)
Subject: Re: Law problem
Reply-To: pynq@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: D. J. Dougherty & Associates
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:06:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.181620.3829@head-cfa.harvard.edu> willner@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) writes:

>The second is completely wrong.  Remember the general principle that
>opponents are entitled to a _full explanation_ of partnership
>agreements but to _no_ information about the actual hands.
>
>If your partner gives the opponents misinformation, you _must_ offer
>a correction after the hand is played.  It is to your advantage to
>offer a correction earlier _if_ you can do so without giving partner
>unauthorized information.  In practice, this means at the end of the
>auction if your side declares, but if your side defends, you have to
>wait until the end of the hand.

Can these problems be solved by asking your partner to leave the table?

It seems reasonable to me, although of course, the problem is that he
may draw inferences from the fact of being asked away.  Still, this seems
preferable to waiting until the end of the hand (when your side defends)

Also, on a related note: how does the net feel about the fact that you
can often draw inferences (most commonly on defense) from the fact that
declarer has not claimed?  I.e., I frequently find myself on defense,
saying, "Well, we can eliminate that hand, because in that case he would
have claimed", and it does make the analysis easier.  Of course, this is
really equivalent to saying "Well, we can eliminate that hand, because
in that case he would have all the rest of tricks - or, equivalently,
there is no hope anyway...", but, as a matter of fact, I had a partner
tell me during a game last week that you should never claim, because it
allows the opps to draw these inferences.

************************************************************************
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: likes@moose.cs.indiana.edu (Kevin Likes)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Bid these hands
Summary: Bidding question
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:03:20 GMT
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington

The following hands came up in a local duplicate game last week.  I am
interested in seeing how people think they should be bid.  Please feel free to
use your favorite system.  (I am especially interested to see a Romex auction,
if anyone can come up with one.)

Matchpoints
Vulnerable vs. Not
Dealer East

  N
-----
S KTxx
H A
D AJx
C QTxxx

  S
-----
S (void)
H KQJ987
D KQxxx
C AK

Hypothetical question:  If west were to open 2S, how should things proceed?
(In reality, West was the dealer and opened at one table, after missorting
his hand.  From what I understand, many Norths decided not to open (!), which
is why I state the problem with East as dealer.)

Thanks in advance,

Kevin Likes
Bridge Neophyte (but learning)
From: dej@qpoint.ocunix.on.ca (David Jones)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: The daily bulletins are on their way
Distribution: world
Date: 12 Sep 92 21:14:38 EST
Organization: Dejital Software

In article <BuCpKx.3sp@cs.vu.nl> sater@cs.vu.nl (Hans van Staveren) writes:
>	tp is one of
>		wp	WordPerfect5.1 file
>		ps	PostScript
>		txt	7bit ASCII	(I do not know whether I can make that)
>
>The WP files alone are compressed 1.5Mb so I will put some delay between
>them as not to swamp the network.

Aside from being possibly copyrighted, these files are just wonderful
to get via UUCP at 2400 baud.  Would it be better if you offered them
through mail?  I spent about 2 hours connected to my feed site to get
these...

I realize you are trying not to swamp the network, but over here,
I'm getting tsunami.

Comments, people?

--
 David Jones, 6730 Tooney Drive, Orleans, Ontario K1C 6R4 CANADA
       email: dej@qpoint.ocunix.on.ca    Fido: 1:163/109.8
 AMIGA: Advanced Multimedia with Interactive Graphics and Audio

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: rainbow@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rob Buchner)
Subject: Re: Law problem
Organization: St Barts
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 23:38:17 GMT
Keywords: mis-information


>N     E     S     W
>1S(1) pass  1NT(2)pass
>2C(3) pass  2NT(4)pass
>3D(5) pass  3H(6) pass
>3S(7) pass  3NT   pass
>pass  pass
>
>After bidding opponents asked about our bids, and we told:
>
>(1) 0-11 points, free hand
>(2) 15+ points, free hand
>(3) 0-7 points, free hand
>(4) no five card suits
>(5) my partner alerted this bid, and told that it is transfer to hearts
>(6) that bid I didn't alert
>(7) Partner told that I have 4-5 in majors
>
>I thought that I have no right to tell that my partner told my bids wrong
>
>West lead C3 and saw the board. Then he asked the tournament director
>to see the situation. He claimed that he wanted to lead hearts.
>
>After that game continued and defense made two mistakes and my partner
>took ten tricks. 
>
>After deal opponents asked the director what he decide.
>(in other board it was 3D 9 tricks)
>
>The tournament director said that it's 3NT 10 tricks.
>After that opponents made a protest to the Law Committee of 
>Finnish Bridge League.
>
>They have not yet given decision but I think it's not good
>for us.

It isn't good for you. First, partner's bidding is not consistent 
with his explanations. Opponents will automatically win this protest.

Second, assuming partner's bidding was consistent with his explanations,
your obligation as dummy before the opening lead is one of two things,
tell the opponents what you thought your agreement/system was (ie partner
misbid/misalerted), or indicate you just plain forgot and misbid the hand.
In other words the opponents are entitled to a corrected explanation
or some information stating that you don't have what you promised.
Failure to do either will obviously influence the lead/defense,
and if this could have possibly resulted in a different outcome,
then the opponents will clearly win the protest if they can show
that they were reasonably influenced into an alternative action.
Everything else which happened subsequently is not relevant.
It doesn't matter if they defended badly, they will be protected.
It is no longer possible to predict what would have happened with
an accurate explanation, and the law protects the mis-informed.

As declarer, you need only correct mis-information, if you don't hold
what you are suppose to hold (ie a misbid), you need not say anything.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: Professor WHO?
Subject: Re: Preemption and Interference overrated?
Summary: About Systems....
Originator: boyiny@kovalevskaya
Keywords: precision, big club, preempts, doubling.
Reply-To: maboyiny@ccvax.as.edu.tw (Dr. Weird)
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
X-Subliminal-Message: Speak softly and Carry a Big Club!
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 01:47:40 GMT

[Ben Wing to me responding to Alan Jaffray]
>|>It seems absurd to play a one-way big club when vulnerable against not,
>|>because of interference from opps and less gains from light openings,  
>|Seems presumptious to say that when the whole world's best pair in the
>|Americanocentric view plays Precision throughout.
>Of course, "the whole world's best pair" has extremely voluminous agreements
>about interference over a club opening.

Of course they do.  If I play a strong club I expect to NEED voluminous
agreements over interference.  Good ones, if I expect to show a profit.
The point is that such agreements are POSSIBLE and PRACTICAL.

>Didn't you make some comment earlier
>that a good pair can play an inferior system and still win?

Better bidders are not necessarily better overall PLAYERS.  But Rodwell and
Meckstroth ARE known as great bidders.

>Perhaps you're over-rating the efficacy of doubling pre-empts, esp. when the
>pre-empter is non-vul.  It's often quite hard to determine just how much
>the pre-empt is going down and whether your side has a game, and even getting
>a nice penalty when you open a strong club may not be good enough.  I've had
>decent enough results playing a fert, even against opponents who are
>interested in doubling.
>
I don't care particularly how just how much EACH preempt is going down.  I
DO double freely when I determine that the opponents are contracting for
more tricks than they have trumps in all likelyhood.

Sure, sometimes I don't get enough.  Sure, sometimes they make it.  It is a
game of PROBABILITIES.  I expect to win overall.  I also get a
psychological advantage because I am used to these disasters when things
don't work out, but catch them for 500 against nothing and opp's seldom
shrug it off easily.

No one is disputing that ferts in some manner or other is possibly winning
bridge.  What I am stating is that if you OVERpreempt you will lose.  For
the record, I think that one SPADE is definitely an overpreempt, and one
DIAMOND or perhaps one HEART non-vul seems likely to be the optimal fert,
if one is needed.

I mea
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: gerry@bluemoon.rn.com (Gerard M. Foley)
Subject: Re: Ethics problem.
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 08:39:22 EDT

sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Steve Myerson) writes:

> In article <3904@tivoli.UUCP> Eric Taylor writes:
> 
> * You (South) hold : xxx, Ax, x, KQxxxx
> * 
> * Bidding :
> * 
> * S      W       N      E
> * P      P       1S     P
> * 2C(1)  P       2D(2)  P
> * 
> * (1) Reverse Drury (but not alerted as such).
> * (2) Am I duty bound to alert this or treat it as natural?
> 
> This is simple.
> Assume your partner is behind a curtain
> and you don't know about any alerts or failure to alert.
> If 2D is alertable under normal circumstances,
> it's alertable now.  What is your agreement?
> 
> *          2D should show a full opener.
> 
> You must bid as if your partner has bid correctly,
> i.e., your partner has a full opener.
> 
> Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)

That's right. Sorry I said anything.

gerry@bluemoon.rn whose home bbs has trouble getting the 
mail out sometimes, so it may go here instead.
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: imp pairs slam bidding
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:09:44 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Eddie Grove <grove@triangle.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
>Q986      T
>AKQ6      J72
>JT5       AK763
>A9        KT63

>1D        3S * 
>4C        5C
>6D

5C seems perfectly correct.  Deny the other controls, show club control.
What could be simpler?

6D seems perfectly wrong.  You know you have a spade loser.  So partner
has to hold all of AKQ of diamonds for this to be right.  Do you have
any evidence that this is the case?

The play: cash the ace and king of diamonds.  If the queen falls and the
suit breaks 3-2, draw the third trump, cross to the heart jack, lead a
fourth trump throwing a spade, run the hearts.  If West throws a top
honor on the last heart and has writhed realistically up to that point,
play for West to have been trump squeezed without the count.  Otherwise,
cash the ace and float the nine of clubs.

If the diamond queen doesn't fall, four rounds of hearts throwing a
spade.  If South can't ruff, spade ruff, club ace, spade ruff, club
king, club ruff, spade ruff.  (Playing South for 3-4-3-3.)  If South
ruffs the fourth heart, pray for QJx of clubs, or QJxx with the AKx of
spades.

                                        David desJardins
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sater@cs.vu.nl (Hans van Staveren)
Subject: France wins
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 11:41:59 GMT

France won the finals in Salsomaggiore against the USA
with the score of 251 - 171 IMPS after 96 boards.

	Hans van Staveren
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Beginner's question: what do you bid?
Date: 7 Sep 92 21:50:14 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

>> AQ98                32
>> -                   AQ62
>> T93                 AKJ7
>> QJT972              AK4

Dennis Kibler <kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU> writes:
>3 spades is correct.

I don't agree at all with this.  The hand is exactly a negative double.
Most experts play that 3S shows a club raise.  But even if you don't,
then you should prefer making a bid which exactly describes your shape
to a bid which sends very little information about your shape.

>I would expect to make 6 clubs.

I certainly agree with this.

                                        David desJardins
From: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Optimal preempts? Depends on opponents.
Date: 10 Sep 1992 20:43:45 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Reply-To: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
NNTP-Posting-Host: ux5.lbl.gov

In article <1992Sep10.104746.3597@eua.ericsson.se> ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se (Lars.Andersson) writes:
>I guess South did not consider A9xx good enough to raise partner's
>suit anytime, especially when doubled (bad double!) in 6C. How
>could this guy Stewart ever get to play in the World Championships!?

I think this ridiculous comment is completely uncalled for.  Many
world champions have an one time or another had accidents.

Especially with screens.

Anyone can provide a double dummy analysis, however, Fred Stewart did
not have the benefit of having seen all four hands, and he must have done
a thing or two right to win two events that qualified him for this event.

Were you playing in the World Championships, Lars?
-- 
"In nature there are no rewards or punishments, only consequences"

Asya Kamsky	      e-mail: asya@ux5.lbl.gov                   Go Red Sox
"In order to command you must first learn to submit" - chinese fortune cookie
From: kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: illegal agreements
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:56:46 GMT

In the new book Tiger Bridge Revisited by Flint he writes:

 (paraphrase)

 although we [Pender and he] had explicit convention, we assume that
when partner passes a 1nt opener [weak], he has at least 5 points.

Whether they have written this down or not, I believe that any such
understandings or treatments have to be alerted. Not alerting
these understandings is, IMHO, cheating  and is rampant.

dennis