HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: henk@pdsf.ssc.gov (Henk Uijterwaal)
Subject: Re: The multi horror
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:22:15 GMT

Janne Veikko Petteri Kallunki writes:

+> Dealer North/N-S vulnerable/IMPs
+> You as a south hold KJT9xxxx/7x/8/9x.
+> Your partner starts with 2D which is multi 
+> (6+card major -11 points or 21-22 points balanced).
+> East pass.
+> What's your bid?

2 H. What's the problem here? If partner holds a weak 2, I don't mind
playing 2H with a 8 card fit and less than 14 points. If partner has a
strong hand, I can always show long spades in the next round.  The 
alternative is 4 S (To play opposite any weak 2), but red vs white, I
prefer a better suit for 4 S.
 
+> I did 3 spades.
+> West pass and my partner's bid is 3 NT.
+> Now, what should I do?

3 S shows a desire to play either 3 S OR 4 H. As I definitely want a 
correction to 4 H, the bid is wrong. I have no idea what to do next,
none of my bids will show a mild slam invite with long spades only.
 
+> I did 6 spades and my partner raised it to 7.

Seems like an overbid. You really want to play 6S opposite ANY 21-22 NT?

+> Which cards had she?
+> She had AQ8/AK/ATx/ATxxx so it was one down and we lost 17 imps.
+> What should I have done?

Bid 2H. Then use any sequence that shows a mild slam invite in S.

Henk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                                      Email: henk@pdsf.ssc.gov 
SSC-labs, MS 2005.                                          46082::henk
Building 4, room F-428
2550 Beckleymeade Av.                                Phone: 1-214-708-6192
Dallas, TX 75237                                     Home:  1-214-283-6687
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: everettts@rcwusr.bp.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: What does the RKCB abbreviation mean?
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:15:58 -0600
Organization: BP Research, Cleveland, OH (USA)

In article <9212141356.AA26537@deepthought.cs.utexas.edu>, CHRISW@OWGVM6.VNET.IBM.COM (Chris Wyse) writes:
> I am relatively new to bridge, so I am not familiar with all the terminology
> that is used in this newsgroup.  Could someone tell me what RKCB means?
> I believe it is related to Blackwood, or a variation of it, but I haven't
> seen it in any of my books.
> 
> Thanks,
> Chris

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

Tim Everett	(everett@rcwcl1.dnet.bp.com)
BP Research	(standard disclaimers apply)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan)
Subject: Re: bunch of slam hands from pasadena
Organization: Irvine Compiler Corp., Irvine, California, USA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:59:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.212608.16993@netcom.com> rudy@netcom.com (Rudy) writes:

>   K8      AQ93
>   AKT     J53
>   QJ83    A972
>   AQ65    K4                6NT, heart to the Ace, QD, low, low, K, and now
>                             two possibilities: heart OR club.  WHat's your 
>                             plan?  On the diamonds should you cash them now 
>                             RHO pitches 1 spade, LHO 2 hearts.

While you're looking at this one, please also answer:  how would you play 
with the JS lead?  I won with the king and ran the QD to the king.  LHO
returns a club.  Now what?  
                                -- Adam
From: mbrgw@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk (R.G. Walters)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: How would you rule (was Re: Lead Problem)
Date: 17 Dec 1992 15:51:37 -0000
Organization: Daresbury Lab., Warrington, U.K.
NNTP-Posting-Host: seqnet.dl.ac.uk

In article <1992Dec15.233347.23729@ramon.bgu.ac.il> avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira) writes:
>I hope I am not spoiling the fun. But I was really interested in the ruling
>on this hand. I actually got several responses to the lead problem, and most
>responders realized the threat of dummy's hearts, and the need to make an
>attacking lead. This excludes the red suits. Since South is marked with the
>black aces, a spade lead works when partner has KQ or KT with the Q in dummy.
>A club lead works if partner has the Q.  So the meaning of the 3NT call is
>crucial.
>
>Let me go over the scenario again, before I show all 4 hands.
>
>The scenario is as follows: An extended match, IMP's opps are vul. Screens
>are used with South and West on the same side of the screen. South deals.
>NS are playing 5CM and weak (12-14)NT with gedgets.
>
> The bidding (E-W silent throughout)
>
> S  1D(0)   1N(1)      2H         3C      4D      6D
>
> N       1H     2D(2)      2N(3)      3N*      4H     pass
>
> 0) better minor
> 1) 15-17
> 2) transfer
> 3) shows 5H & 4D and requests opener to bid 3C, after which N should show
>    a feature, usually a singleton
>
>The irregularity occured on the 3NT call.  On SW side of the screen, 3Nt was
>not alerted. The bid was described as natural in reply to West's Querry.
>
>On the NE side of the screen, 3NT WAS alerted, and explained as showing
>a singleton club. North added that this was the first time the bid occured
>since they started playing the system, and that he were not sure South would
>remember.
>

[stuff deleted]

>Now, What does the Net think the ruling should be?
>
>Avi

Hmmmm. Why not consider what would have happened without screens?
North makes a bid which he considers should have been alerted, but South
doesn't. At the end of the auction, before West leads, North announces 
this to the world. EW are then alerted to the fact that someone has
fouled up, making a spade lead more likely.

I would adjust the score.

Robin Walters.


Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Assign the blame
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:36:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: irvine.Bz3yCr.Fu7
Organization: Irvine Compiler Corp., Irvine, California, USA

>   Hand 1: Unfavorable, South deals.
>
>   N:     S: A Q x x x         Opponents passing throughout:
>          H: A Q
>          D: x x x             1H    1S
>          C: x x x             2D    3C
>                               3S    4S
>   S:     S: K x x             All pass
>          H: K J T x x x
>          D: A K x x           Making 7.
>          C: --

I've enjoyed reading all the comments on this hand [except the ones
which criticized my earlier posting, of course  :-) :-)].  Seriously,
there's been a lot of food for thought here.

Some comments:  Several posters have said that North should cue-bid 4H
over 3S, since South has shown club shortness and diamond strength,
making this a good-fitting hand.  This makes sense, IF 4H is an
unambiguous cue bid.  I agree with several opinions that it's not
unambiguous.  3C, to me, is an artificial game force that either shows
(1) doubt about what strain to play our game in, or (2) a hand that's
too strong to bid game directly, and wishes to explore further for
slam, or (3) both of the above.  So while 3C could be made with a
5-card spade suit, it doesn't *promise* 5 spades, so 3S doesn't set
the trump suit.  Without an agreement to the contrary, therefore, 4H
shouldn't be a cue bid, since we haven't agreed on a trump suit yet. 

So in an experienced partnership, should 4H be a cue bid setting
spades as trumps?  You could make a good case for this.  The other
thing it could mean would be a game hand in support of hearts, that's
too strong to bid 4H directly over 2D (see (2) above).  The auction
1H-1S-2D-3C-3S-4H could show a hand like AQxx, AQxx, xx, AQx.  How
else would you bid this hand?  Well, I'd probably bid 2NT (Jacoby)
over 1H, and there are lots of other artifical ways to show a
game-forcing raise.  So there's a good case for making 4H a cue bid,
but only if this has been discussed.

Some posters would have bid 3H instead of 3S with the South hand, and
bid 4S later to show their distribution.  The only comment I'll make
is that according to Hardy, after a 4th suit bid, opener's first
priority is to show 3-card support for responder's first-bid suit if
it's a major.  In Rosenkranz, the first priority is to bid notrump
with the 4th suit stopped, and the second is to show 3-card support.
So if you're playing with either of them, bidding 3H and then 4S may
*deny* 3-card spade support.  They might expect you to have 2-6-4-1 or
2-6-5-0 distribution.  Whether this is the most effective way to play,
I don't know, but if you have this agreement, I believe you should
abide by it and bid 3S.

                                -- Adam
From: mbrgw@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk (R.G. Walters)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: How would you rule (was Re: Lead Problem)
Date: 17 Dec 92 22:59:21 GMT
Organization: Daresbury Lab., Warrington, U.K.
NNTP-Posting-Host: seqnet.dl.ac.uk

In article <1gqa5sINN120@transfer.stratus.com> tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill) writes:
>In article <1gq7m9INNjpb@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk>, mbrgw@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk (R.G. Walters) writes:
>> ...
>> Hmmmm. Why not consider what would have happened without screens?
>
>Gee.  When playing without screens, it sometimes helps to consider what would
>have happened with screens.  This is the first time I've heard someone suggest
>the reverse.

Here's another one. Consider what happens if the screen was the other way!
West gets North's interpretation of the bid, and gets the lead right.
>
>> North makes a bid which he considers should have been alerted, but South
>> doesn't. At the end of the auction, before West leads, North announces 
>> this to the world. EW are then alerted to the fact that someone has
>> fouled up, making a spade lead more likely.
>
>True.
>
>> I would adjust the score.
>
>Based on which Law???
>
A

On the law which says (not having a rule book to hand, I don't know which):
Where there has been a failure to alert, or an incorrect explanation of a bid
given, the declaring side should correct the error before the opening
lead is selected.

Since at least ONE of these was the case, as far as North was concerned 
(granted, only half the defending side was "misinformed"), then he was
required to tell the defence. The fact that he possibly wasn't aware that 
either offence had occurred is interesting, but I suspect irrelevant. West
was entitled to the views of the auction of BOTH North and South.

EW were damaged by not knowing that North considered his bid to mean that
he had a singleton club.

>West was damaged by the mistaken bid but not misinformed.  No adjustment.  [Law
>75C]
>
>East was misinformed but not damaged.  No adjustment.  [Law 40C]
>
>EW are not necessarily entitled to the information that someone fouled up
>[Law 75B], even though they would have gained that information had they been
>playing without screens.

Of course, if North DELIBERATELY made the mistaken bid, in an attempt to push
his partner into/keep his partner out of slam, then there is no recourse. Any
takers?

Robin Walters.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: c85perwe@IDA.LiU.SE (Per Westling)
Subject: Another preempt problem
Reply-To: c85perwe@und.ida.liu.se
Organization: CIS Dept, University of Linkoping, Sweden
Distribution: rec
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:46:19 GMT

Resently someone posted a problem where partner bids 5D over a 4H
opening.  Yesterday playing IMPs the following occured:

Sitting East, vul vs non-vul you have:

42
AJ753
AT63
J7

And bidding goes:
SOUTH   WEST   NORTH  EAST
3H       5C     Pass   ?

What do you bid?

I raised to 6C on which all passed, and north lead a heart.  Partner
held 
AKJ
-
72
KQT865432

He discarded a diamond on Heart ace and played three rounds of spade
ruffed on table.

At the other table they only reached 5 so we won that board (and the
full match with 25-1).

Anyway, let's say instead that you get lead of Club 9 on which you
play small to South Ace.  He returns a small club.  How do you
continue?

Full deal was:

              Q9763
              8
              KQ9854
              9
AKJ                      42
-                        AJ753
72                       AT63
KQT86543                 J7
              T85
              KQT9642
              J
              A2

You have two alternatives.  The simple one is to finesse in spades
(which won't succeed in this board).  The other needs North to have
6-7 diamonds or KQJ in that suit.  
As North has length in spades I would choose the second at the board,
and you will also make it then if South has Q at most second in
spades.

So win club return in dummy and play heart ace, discarding a diamond.
Enter hand with small spade to Ace (or heart ruff).  The end position
will be:

              Q
              -
              KQ
              -
J                        4
-                        J
7                        AT
8                        -
              -
              KQ
              J
              -

You play C8 and discard spade 4 on table.  North can't discard
anything.


--
Per Westling              |
Mardtoprsgatan 15         |  c85perwe@und.ida.liu.se
S-582 48 LINKOPING        |  In praise of Idleness -- Bertrand Russel
SWEDEN                    |
Stuff regarding DPP may be sent to x90perwe@ida.liu.se instead.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: doug@cm.deakin.OZ.AU (Douglas Newlands)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: two missed slam
Date: 14 Dec 1992 00:46:09 GMT
Organization: Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: sauron.cm.deakin.oz.au

In article <1992Dec4.214826.8131@wuecl.wustl.edu: geppo@spot.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi) writes:
:2) N/S vuln. West dealer.
:
:     AKJT752     Q843
:     52          AKQJ3
:     K652        A8
:     -           K9
:
:     At the table west opened 4S followed by 4NT - 5H (RKCB) - 6S. 
:     7 spades is of course lay-down. A part from the *criminal* 4S opening
:     in first seat (does some net.expert opens 4S in first seat with 
:     that hand?) there is a way to bid 7 after the 4S? 
:     And how do you bid the hand without the 4S opening?


This is not a great preempt but the problem is the lack of sensible mechanism.
Over a preempt there is little point in cuing because the only control partner
can have is a shortage somewhere. Therefore to proceed responder must have two
suits firmly controlled and should bid the one he does not have controlled.
Opener can sign off in 5S with 2 losers, 6S with 1 loser and make some trump
quality showing bid btween these two bids with no losers. Using such a simple
and well-known mechanism, this slam should have been easily bid.

doug.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: baseggio@deshaw.com (Franco Baseggio)
Subject: Re: Help my partner play this hand
Organization: D. E. Shaw & Co.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 17:29:15 GMT

In article <Bz3z13.Fwy@irvine.com> adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.194741.15831@rayssd.ssd.ray.com> sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Steven G. Myerson) writes:
>
>>   Matchpoints. None vul. North dealer.
>>
>>   North:  KJT,    A5,    K953,  AT76
>>   South:  AQ954,  QJT3,  4,     KQ8
   [4S by south]
>>   West led the ace of diamonds. East played the 7 (high encourages).
>>   West continued with the ten of diamonds. Plan the play.
>
>Basically, I take the heart finesse early.  If it wins, I can ruff my
>third heart, and the fourth will go on the diamond king, making 6.  
>
>It appears safest to ruff the second diamond and lead the heart queen
>at trick 3.  Assuming it wins, cash the heart ace, trump to hand,
>heart ruff, cash another trump, club to hand, draw trumps and claim.
>This will make 6 even if trumps are 4-1 and clubs are 5-1.

This takes a substantial risk, though.  What if the heart finesse
loses and a diamond comes back?  Now there is a substantial chance (in
light of the lead) that you will only make 4.  See my earlier post for
a better line.

>                                -- Adam

Franco

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: rudy@netcom.com (Rudy)
Subject: Re: How would you rule (was Re: Lead Problem)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:32:49 GMT

In article <1gstp5INNc0f@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk> mbrgw@s-crim1.dl.ac.uk (R.G. Walters) writes:

Quote's Tim's ENTIRE article to add this:

>North made a bid, we assume that he thought he knew what he was doin.
>South then failed to alert his bid, and gave an explanation which was at
>variance with North's apparent understanding.
>As far as North is concerned, South has incorrectly described his bid, and
>has failed to alert when he should. He is not allowed to be reminded of
>his system by South's action, and therefore should correct any explanation
>by South which is at variance with what he at the time believed to be
>his partnership agreement.
>In other words, EW _are_ entitled to North's opinion of his bid.

So, you failed to read in that entire quoted article you included
that screens were being used.  In case you don't know what those are--
a partition divides up the table (screens) so that East and North
can see each other and talk to each other and South and West can also,
but each partner can't see or hear what his partner and his partner's
screenmate are doing/saying.
From: asya@remarque.berkeley.edu (That's Mistress Asya)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: good bye, for now
Date: 15 Dec 1992 08:59:14 GMT
Organization: The Great White North
Reply-To: asya@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky)
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

As many of you already know, I have accepted a job which will take
me to Toronto Canada for the next four months.  My net access here
will still exist, but my free phone dial-in access will be highly
unlikely, and with that I bid a temporary farewell to most of the
net.  RGB will be one of the groups that I will still skim once a
week or so, but certainly I won't have time to engage in those
lovely flame wars which have given me so much pleasure over the years
and kept me amused through those long compiles.  To all those who
have contributed I say thank you and to those who have wasted the
net's bandwidth and my time I say nothing.

This does not mean that you can start saying nonsense on the subject
of the laws (which is so near and dear to my heart if not my primary
profession anymore) -- I have left my agents behind to alert me if
this place gets out of hand with mis/dis/bad information.

Oh, and I guess that Mistress Asya'a Bidding Discipline School is 
in recess.  ;)
From: nstraguz@atl.ge.com (Nick Straguzzi)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Assign the blame
Date: 11 Dec 1992 14:41:16 GMT
Organization: GE Aerospace, Advanced Technology Labs
NNTP-Posting-Host: dinsdale.atl.ge.com

In article <1992Dec9.134532.13714@linus.mitre.org> bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.065654.25486@eua.ericsson.se> ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se writes:
>:In article 1g37tmINNeai@im4u.cs.utexas.edu, varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel) writes:
>:>Hand 1: Unfavorable, South deals.
>:>
>:>N:     S: A Q x x x         Opponents passing throughout:
>:>       H: A Q
>:>       D: x x x             1H    1S
>:>       C: x x x             2D    3C
>:>                            3S    4S
>:>S:     S: K x x             All pass
>:>       H: K J T x x x
>:>       D: A K x x           Making 7.
>:>       C: --
> 
> [...many analyses advocating 4H by N showing secondary support...]
>
>Over 3S I would bid 4H.
>Despite what others have said this is *unambiguously* a cuebid.

Well, this has my vote for "Self-Contradicting Sentence Of The Year."
:-)

Perhaps it *should* be a cue bid.  Seems to me to be a matter of
style, "fast arrival" or not.  Personally, I play it as showing
secondary support, as apparently do many other RGB'ers.  BTW, my
partners and I have an agreement that "fast arrival" only applies when
the final strain(s) are clear to both parties.

Bob, if you want to make an argument why 4H is better played as a
cue-bid in this auction, I'm willing to listen.  But please, not
"argument by proclamation".  Thanks,

>Bob Silverman

Nick
-- 
 Nick Straguzzi / GE Advanced Technology Labs / Moorestown NJ / (609) 866-6646
---------- nstraguz@atl.ge.com ----------- #include <stddisclaimer.h> ---------
                "Got no use for the tricks of modern times..."
							- Al Stewart
From: taylor@foraker.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Eric Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: cue-bid or clubs?
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:08:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.180513.26050@wuecl.wustl.edu>, geppo@spot.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi) writes:
|> I'm sorry if I'm posting too much, but I'm curious to know what the 
|> net.experts think of this hand.
|> 
|> MP; vulnerability unknown; spots small;
|> south:
|>     -
|>     Jxx
|>     AKxxx
|>     AJ9xx
|> 
|> E     S     W     N
|> p     1D    1S    2H(*)      (forcing)
|> p     ???

I hate to feel apologetic for a hand and partner might blow his/her
cool with only 3 trumps.  I will bid 3C which is still forcing and
bid 4H over partner's next call.  Spade shortness and 3 trumps
are now implied.  Partner is captain now.

|> 
|> I decided to jump to 3S, and we landed in the following 6H, with north:
|>    Axx
|>    AK8xx
|>    x
|>    K8xx
|> 
|> As you see, 6C is a *much* more superior slam (at least at IMPs it should be
|> found). After my 3S bid it was impossible to discovery the 5-4 club fit.
|> 
|> those are the questions:
|>    1) what do you think of the 3S bid?
		Yuck.
|>    2) what do you bid?
		3C.
|>    3) which is your follow-up?
		I will correct to hearts and cooperate fully in any
		slam try by partner.  I will not make any slam try
		myself unless partner shows snything better than
		required by his first call.

|>    4) does your bid/follow-up change if playing IMPs?
		Nope.  Getting to shaky slam with poor trumps is
		bound to be a disaster.   I might be slighly more
		conservative at Matchpoints, but not much.
|> 
|> 
|> At the table, 6H went down 1: lead of spade, partner ruffed immediately, 
|> and cashed AK of trump (misplay? in this case which is your line?). 
|> Opponent hands:

West does not have enough cards.

But anyway, I would go for the 3-2 split in hearts and
2-2 split in clubs since the opponents are
not competing their 10 card fit.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: rudy@netcom.com (Rudy)
Subject: Re: interesting hand
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: world 
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 21:41:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.212817.24773@leland.Stanford.EDU> daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.210057.13459@netcom.com> rudy@netcom.com (Rudy) writes:
>Perhaps I'm missing something--is this IMPs or MPs and what is the 
>vulnerability?  What is the level of the opposition?
>While this may have little to do with the play,
>I would like this information to assess the auction.
>
This is Matchpoints.  Why does it matter?

Your opponents are breathing.  Your RHO saved because *you* are a known
expert opponent and if you bid the grand, your RHO knows you are likely
making it.  The vulnerabilty is white on white so against 1510 only
1700 is topping it.
>