HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: grove@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Eddie Grove)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Which inference is better, WAS - "finesse or play for the drop"
Date: 18 Nov 1992 20:27:00 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: triangle.berkeley.edu

In article <BxwHCq.55K@irvine.com> adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) writes:
 
>Your side has the exact same 26 cards on both hands, and so do the
>opponents.  The distributional probabilities of the opponents' 26
>cards will be exactly the same in both cases;  in no way does it

This is wrong, of course.  Unless you use a perfect random source for
your shuffles, the conditional distribution of the opponents' cards
will tend to depend upon your cards.

If the cards are shuffled by hand, the distributions are definitely
related.  A good pseudo-random generator will come close enough to
perfect you don't need to worry, but there are a lot of bad generators
out there.  Does anyone know that the generator(s) used in ACBL events
are good?

Eddie Grove
From: geppo@dworkin.wustl.edu (Giuseppe Bianchi)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Problems from Portland
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:08:46 GMT
Organization: Washington University,  St Louis MO


In article <1992Nov17.213628.11446@leland.Stanford.EDU> altus@leland.Stanford.EDU (Steve Altus) writes:
>More than one person has written something to the effect of:
>>>> 1. None vul. East dealer. You are West: AJ9542, T, Q7, AT32
>>>>
>>I would have opened 2S and avoided much of this mess.
>>
>
>you people are all either the worst bunch of result merchants i've
>ever seen or the worst bunch of bidders i've ever seen.  hell, the
>ACBL Club Series tells people who haven't played a hand in their
>life to open this hand ONE spade!  i mean, if you want to play in
>2S cold for six clubs, i suppose that's your right...

Those are the observation of one of the worst bidder you've (n)ever seen
(I don't say result merchant because results are not known in this
hand. Of course if you give me also the results, maybe I'd open this 
hand 4S...)

1) How many times in your life you'll play 6C opposite a passed hand with
   this hand, expecially with a *guaranteed* opening hand on your left?

2) The ACBL Club series tells to open 1H with Kx, AQJTx, QTx, KJx. 
   What does Steve Altus do with this hand? I don't think he follows 
   the Club series rules ... or, as usual, am I wrong? 

3) we live in a real unperfect world. Given that hand in third 
   position, I'm sure that most of the time the hand belongs to my 
   opponents, or, if it belongs to me, I don't expect to play more 
   than a partscore. Furthermore, at MP, I don't think that play in 
   my clubs will lead to a good result. So, why not open this hand
   at the level I expect to play, and in the while, preempt my
   opponents? Sorry if, as usual, I'm missing something.

Anyway this is the opinion of one of the lower average players that usually 
covers this newsgroup with crap. I'll try to learn something with the help 
of your constructive suggestions. Thank you.

Giuseppe.
From: martel@spider.cs.ucdavis.edu (Chip Martel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: hard play problem
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:40:03 GMT
Reply-To: martel@spider.cs.ucdavis.edu (Chip Martel)


The following hand was published by Krysztof Martens in Przeglad
Brydzowy, 1/92. Since it took me some time and has a neat
solution, I thought I would pass it on:

S: K 8 7 2      S: A Q T 9
H: A 4          H: K J 8 2
D: Q 6 4        D: A K T 9
C: A K Q J      C: 6

Give a line guaranteed to make 7NT by West on the club 10 lead.

I plan to post the answer Sunday before leaving for Orlando.
I suggest people send me answers by email if they want to be listed
on the honor role and to 
not deprive others of the "fun" of struggling over this.

Two hints (one of which is a warning): The correct line
clearly guarantees the contract and can be simply described in 5
lines. Answers which do not satisfy this should not be submitted.

Chip Martel

PS: sorry if this is a duplicate post. My system went crazy the 
first time I tried to post it.
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: henk@pdsf.ssc.gov (Henk Uijterwaal)
Subject: Re: A spectacular hand from the Israeli Round Robin Team Championship
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:41:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.031039.5662@ramon.bgu.ac.il> Avi Roy Shapira writes:

+> All hands are Imps, and the opponnents are fairly strong players.

+> You are South.
 
+> N dealer all red.
+>    p 2H ?
+>    AKT9xxx, -, AQx, AQx
 
+> What do you call, and how do you plan the rest of the auction?.

I usually play over weak 2's: 
  
   X   = take out with a 2NT response Lebensohl.
  2NT  = 16-18, natural.
  Suit = 5/6 cards, +/- 12 to 16/17 Hcp (e.g. not strong enough for 
         2 M - X - P - 2NT, P- anything but 3C).

Using this style, I would double 2H, then:

a) partner bids 2NT: I bid 3 S (strong hand, long spades). I'll pass a simple
   raise to 4S (could be on xxx, xx, xxx, xxxxx or something like that) and
   try a cuebid of 4H over 3NT/4C/4D. 

   If partner cannot do more than 4S of 5 of a minor over 4H, I'll pass. He 
   should realise that I have made 2 strong bids opposite his possibly very weak
   hand. If we have a slam, (say with Qxx, xx, Kxxxx, Jxx), he should make some
   positive sound over 3 S and/or 4H.

b) partner bids 3 C/D: I bid 3S(forcing), followed by 4 or 5 H. Unless partner
   bids lots of NT's, I won't pass below 5S or 6m. (And even versus
   xx, AQx, Kxxxx, xxx 6D/6S has a chance).

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: daveshao@leland.stanford.edu (David Shao)
Subject: Re: Freak hand. YBTJ
Originator: daveshao@leland.Stanford.EDU
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 01:16:24 GMT

In article <6220@tivoli.UUCP> taylor@foraker.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Eric Taylor) writes:

>When you jump shift, you should have a 4 card fit for partner
>AND/OR a suit that can play well opposite a void.  

Depending on one's system this is a correct statement.  However, if
one is merely trying to clarify agreements within the framework of
Standard American, there seems to be alternative requirements that
one can impose on the strong jump shift for which others have made
good arguments.  I am thinking in particular of Truscott and Alder's
updated version of Morehead's On Bidding where the authors devote
an entire chapter arguing for different requirements for a strong jump
shift.  To quote:

"There is no good reason to debate the subject any longer because a
forcing jump shift so seldom occurs:  no one has a good enough hand
to make one anymore.
   ...it is still true that European players make jump
responses on all hands that seem likely to go to game, and when they
do so they often disgrace their American opponents...
   From the meetings between teams from the United States and
Europe in international competition during the 1960s, most of which
ended disastrously for the Americans, it is possible to pick out
at least five cases in which European use of the more liberal jump
response resulted in a serious loss to the Americans, and no case in 
which American use of the minimum response can be held to have
given them an advantage over the Europeans.  And there would have
been a sixth except that on one occasion Terence Reese dropped
the ace of hearts on the floor...
  Most bridge players, including American experts, used to do exactly
the opposite of what is right.  They would make the game-forcing
jump response only on hands strong in playing strength; they would
make minimum responses (or occasionally jump notrump responses)
on hands with little to recommend them except their high-card
content.  They demanded strong support for partner's suit, or a
solid suit of their own, before they would make the jump response."
From: rudy@netcom.com (Rudy)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Would you re-open?  (Problem from Jeff Rubens' book)
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:50:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Nov19.005001.4614
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Nov18.204648.18476@midway.uchicago.edu> pynq@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Matchpoints, none vul.  You hold: T9xxxx,x,-,xxxxxx
>The auction:
>
>LHO	P	RHO	Y
>===	=	===	=
>1D	p	1H	p
>3H	p	p	?

>	2) Do you bid 3S in:
>		a) A very weak field (your usual club game)
>		b) A weak field (say, a sectional)
>		c) A good field (regional)
>		d) A very good field (one of Asya's home games)

On this type of hand I would very much like to bid 2NT at my first turn
(assuming it's for the unbid suits).  We are white and it takes off the
pressure to decide the second round of the auction.

[Boy, I sure hope this gets me invited to one of Asya's home games! ;-)]
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Which inference is better, WAS - "finesse or play for the drop"
Date: 18 Nov 92 07:12:25 GMT
Organization: Irvine Compiler Corp., Irvine, California, USA

In article <lsimonse.722011812@vipunen.hut.fi> lsimonse@vipunen.hut.fi 
(Kenneth Simonsen) writes:

> Easly Blackwood (I think) came with the following rule: If your shortest suit
> is divided 3-1 or worse (I mean 3-1, 4-0, 2-1, 2-0, 1-1 or 1-0) then finesse.
>
> In all other situations play for the drop. 
>
> This of course when there are no other indications. It was tested on many 
> givs, and with a remarcable result.
 
Mathematically, this makes no sense at all.  Look at these two hands:
        
                    (1)                        (2)
Dummy -->  KJ63    A76   A53  A65   |  KJ63   A76  A3  A765  
You   -->  AT742   K42   4    8742  |  AT742  K42  54  842

Your side has the exact same 26 cards on both hands, and so do the
opponents.  The distributional probabilities of the opponents' 26
cards will be exactly the same in both cases;  in no way does it
depend on how your side's 26 cards are divided.  So whatever is the
best play on hand (1) (in the absence of other information) must also
be the best play on hand (2).  Yet the "Symmetry Principle", as I
believe this is called, says you should finesse with hand (1) and play
for the drop with hand (2).  

I really have to dispute the validity of any test that confirms this
principle.

                                -- Adam
From: doug@cm.deakin.OZ.AU (Douglas Newlands)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: bidding question
Date: 15 Nov 1992 21:50:45 GMT
Organization: Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sauron.cm.deakin.oz.au

I was playing okbridge yesterday when this hand came to afflict me.
We were playing 2/1 and this dropped me right into an unfamiliar area and I
didn't know how to bid it, so any suggestions which explain clearly what to do
and why are welcome.

     QJ2       KT73               W        E
     AKJ5      T6                1D        1S
     A985      J                 2N        3C
     AT        KQ9874            3S        3N

I don't think there are any problems with the first 3 bids but I was unsure
how to introduce the clubs. I just took a sure plus eventually but how should
I continue here. Bid more clubs? How does partner know my clubs are longer?
Why should 4C not be a cue since we might have agreed spades?
Since partner has opened 1D, is this a place where I can bid 2C and rebid 3C
non-forcing and give away the spade suit?

doug.
From: grabiner@math.harvard.edu (David Grabiner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Which inference is better, WAS - "finesse or play for the drop"
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:24:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: boucher.GRABINER.92Nov19121848
 <lsimonse.722011812@vipunen.hut.fi><BxwHCq.55K@irvine.com> <1ee8ukINN8ij@agate.berkeley.edu><1992Nov18.224411.4092@u.washington.edu>
Organization: /etc/organization
In-reply-to: fujimoto@carson.u.washington.edu's message of 18 Nov 92 22:44:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.224411.4092@u.washington.edu>, Bryant Fujimoto writes:

> grove@triangle.Berkeley.EDU (Eddie Grove) writes:

>>In article <BxwHCq.55K@irvine.com> adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) writes:
>> 
>>>Your side has the exact same 26 cards on both hands, and so do the
>>>opponents.  The distributional probabilities of the opponents' 26
>>>cards will be exactly the same in both cases;  in no way does it

>>This is wrong, of course.  Unless you use a perfect random source for
>>your shuffles, the conditional distribution of the opponents' cards
>>will tend to depend upon your cards.

> Would someone please explain this last point more fully? I am afraid
> it isn't obvious to me.

If a deck is perfectly shuffled, then all opposing distributions are
equally likely.  However, when humans play rubber bridge, the deck will
tend to have large clumps of one suit.  If it isn't well shuffled, the
clumps will stay together, and the suit will thus be split among the
four hands.

This explains Culbertson's theory of similarity of distributions to some
extent.  If you have a void, the deck was probably well shuffled, so the
mathematical probabilities of opposing breaks should be reasonable.  If
your hand is balanced, the deck may not have been adequately shuffled,
which would make suits more likely to break evenly.

However, it doesn't justify the resulting conclusion that you should
play for the finesse if you have a short suit on one hand.  The drop is
a slightly better play than the finesse even if the deck is perfectly
shuffled, and it becomes an even better play if the deck is not well
shuffled.

Also, all of this depends on the fact that the deck was just used for a
game of rubber bridge, so that suits will be clumped together.  In a
club duplicate game, the suits will already be randomly arranged, since
the hands are still in the boards.

--
David Grabiner, grabiner@zariski.harvard.edu
"We are sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary."
"Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again."
Disclaimer: I speak for no one and no one speaks for me.
From: ahollander@dcs.simpact.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: HELP: E-Mail to Chip
Date: 19 Nov 92 07:23:15 PDT
Organization: Simpact Associates, San Diego CA

Chip,

I've tried to e-mail stuff to you in the past -- all attempts unsuccessful.

I've tried all of the permutations from the address that your messages show

	ex. 	X-Vms-Mail-To: uucp%"martel@spider.cs.ucdavis.edu"

I just keep getting a message along the lines of "message is 
undeliverable".

Can you let me know a workable e-mail address???

Al Hollander
Simpact Associates
9210 Sky Park Ct.
San Diego, CA 92123
(619)565-1865 x1256
(619)565-8196 FAX


P.S	 Good luck in Orlando
From: hargrove@nobelium.asc.slb.com (Jim Hargrove)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Freak hand. YBTJ
Date: 19 Nov 92 14:38:38 GMT
Organization: Schlumberger Austin Systems Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: nobelium.asc.slb.com

In article <davidm.721693161@voltaire>, davidm@voltaire.Rational.COM (David Moore) write
|> >At Table 2:
|> 
|> >   N        S
|> >   1C       1S
|> >   3C       3D
|> >   3S       4S
|> >   Pass
|> 
|> How could South meakly say 4S over 3S? Partner has shown a
|> big club hand with 3 card spade support and you've got a 
|> minimum of 15 points in support (even discounting the club shortness)
|> Its just about impossible to not be in slam with this hand. You
|> can cue 4H, use Blackwood or just plain jump to 6S. Typical bidding
|> might be
|>     1C   1S                       1C  1S
|>     3C   3D                       3C  3D
|>     3S   4H or, the LOL way,      3S  4NT
|>     4S   5D                       5D  6S
|>     5H   6S
I that the cue bid is reasonable, but I think the posting ignores the fact that the raise could be made without the Q of spades. If the spade support is, say 10xx, then the slam depends on a 2-2 spade break.

Personally, I prefer a simple auction for these hands:

     5C	    6C, as suggested by (I think) Eric Taylor. 
-- 

        -- jwh
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bidding over preempts - assess the blame
Date: 20 Nov 92 21:58:17 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbootay.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov20.152935.27683@rayssd.ssd.ray.com>, sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Steve Myerson) writes:
> Bidding over preempts is always a challenge.
> What would you do here? Assess the blame.
> 3N makes for NS. 3D went down 4. East opened 3D on T987x of diamonds.

> Matchpoints. NS vul. West dealer.

> North: KQ7xx,  86x,   KQ6,  J7
> South: Ax,     AKJx,  xxx,  A8xx

> West  North  East  South
> pass  pass   3D    pass
> pass  pass

Well, having been shown both hands and told what's up, I may as well say that
South, with no good call, should pass, North should protect with a double, and
South, with fine defense, should make a penalty pass.

Seriously, a good partnership must be highly sceptical of any opening bid,
especially a preempt, made by an enterprising matchpoint player in third seat
with favorable vulnerability.  They must be prepared to risk this sort of
auction.


                                    Tim
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: m36150p@kaira.hut.fi (Janne Veikko Petteri Kallunki)
Subject: Some problems from the Finnish Pair Championships
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 08:14:48 GMT

Results:
1. Backstrom-Backstrom 61.6 %
2. Kivipensas-Koistinen 58.8 %
3. Ukkonen-Viitasalo 57.9 %
----
35. Kallunki-Lehtonen 47.6 %

Problem 1
N/NS
W (you)
KJ8
KQJ8
AJ4
J85

N   E   S   W
p   p   2S  ?

2S=weak 6 cards
What do you bid?

Problem 2
E/EW
E (you)
QT
A9532
KJ5
KJ4

N   E   S   W
    1H  2D  D (take out)
2S  p   p   D
3C  p   3D  D
p   p   3H  D
p   p   3S  D
p   p   p

What do you lead?

Problem 3
E/-
N (you)
KQ5
AKQJ
5
Q8643

N    E    S    W
     1S(1)p    p
D    2D(2)D    p
?

(1)=0-11 points, free hand
(2)=5 cards

What do you bid?

Problem 4
E/EW
S (you)
K732
98
QT64
752

N   E   S   W
    1C  p   p
D   3NT p   p
D   p   p   p

What do you lead?


----
Janne 'Jake' Kallunki m36150p@kaira.hut.fi jkallunk@otax.hut.fi
p. home 4553831, work 1545182
"One-Two-Three-Four"
	-Dee-Dee Ramone 
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Steve Myerson)
Subject: Bidding over preempts - assess the blame
Organization: Raytheon Company
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:29:35 GMT

Bidding over preempts is always a challenge.
What would you do here? Assess the blame.
3N makes for NS. 3D went down 4. East opened 3D on T987x of diamonds.

Matchpoints. NS vul. West dealer.

North: KQ7xx,  86x,   KQ6,  J7
South: Ax,     AKJx,  xxx,  A8xx

West  North  East  South
pass  pass   3D    pass
pass  pass

Steve Myerson (sgm@sgfb.ssd.ray.com)
From: burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Burt Voorhees)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Can you make it?
Date: 21 Nov 92 18:27:23 GMT

szhang@brahms.udel.edu (Shangyou Zhang) writes:

>I played this hand on okbridge (A hand of GPS, if wrong
>                   please correct me):
>S AKx
>H KTx
>D xxx
>C A98x

>S xx
>H AQJxxx
>D Qxx
>C Tx

>Pass(east)-p-1d-1N(*)  -p-4H-all pass.  (*) precision 1N, 16+ with D stoper.

>The lead is CK.  Tell me your line of play.  Thanks.

First off I wouldn't be too happy with partner
for the 1NT overcall.  So, "Thank you, parther."
Looks like my only chance is if west has KQJ of clubs and AK of diamonds.
So I would hold up on the first club lead.
If a second club is led (i.e., the Q) I'll take it
and hope to ruff out the J for a diamond pitch.
If that doesn't work I'll play AK of spades,
fu    ruff a spade (oh yea, I've pulled a couple of
rounds of trump by now)
and exit with the final club.
If it works I should get either
a sluff and ruff or a diamond
lead from the AK.
bv
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: varvel@cs.utexas.edu (Donald A. Varvel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: bidding question
Date: 16 Nov 1992 14:02:12 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: cypress.cs.utexas.edu

In article <9211161749.AA16512@calvin.irvine.com> adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) writes:

>>     QJ2       KT73               W        E
>>     AKJ5      T6                1D        1S
>>     A985      J                 2N
>>     AT        KQ9874



>What you're saying makes sense.  I think 4C is definitely Gerber on
>this auction, unless you have a specific agreement that Gerber applies
>only over 1NT and 2NT openings or something like that.

>By the way, in my partnerships, I could not bid 3C---that would be New
>Minor Force showing 5 spades.

While these two agreements seem widespread, I find both revolting.
And how do you know opener doesn't have AQJ QJxx Axxx AJ?  Even if
4C is Gerber you don't have the right hand for it.  In fact, you
hardly *ever* do, which is why it shouldn't be Gerber.

This hand is also an excellent example of why 3C shouldn't be New
Minor Forcing.  With 5 spades you can simply bid 3S.  With 6 you
can bid 4S, or with a stronger hand, 3S and then 4S.  With 5 spades
and 4 hearts you can bid 3H.  New Minor Forcing is not needed for
a choice of games.  (Something of the sort *can* be useful to show
slam-try values below game, but that's a different matter.)

You can simply bid 3C with this hand, whether it's Wolff Signoff or
not, and bid 4C over partner's next bid.  In systems where you are
known to respond 1S in preference to 2C with less than game-going
values that can only show a hand like this one.  Then if partner can
cuebid hearts you can try Blackwood.

I'm confused.  If 3C here is NMF and 4C is Blackwood, how *do* you
express an unbalanced hand with long clubs?  By bidding 3NT and
playing it there, or using Gerber as your only slam try?

-- Don Varvel (varvel@cs.utexas.edu)
From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: yellow card system (was Re: Freak hand. YBTJ)
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:20:19 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbootay.sw.stratus.com

In article <davidm.721693161@voltaire>, davidm@voltaire.Rational.COM (David
Moore) offers a sound analysis of two auctions that failed to reach slam with
fourteen top tricks in the black suits and only one ace to lose.

However, David takes some pot shots at the yellow card system, starting with:

> >The pairs at both tables were playing the "yellow card."
> 
> Why? Were they after points for difficulty?

while indicating that he doesn't actually know the system:

> ... (even if the yellow card
> says bid 4 card spades before 4 or even 5 card diamonds).

It doesn't.  After a 1C or 1D opening, "bidding at the one level is
up-the-line in principle."

> If they are playing yellow card because they have never played [together]
> before, ...

A very good reason for playing the yellow card.

> ... (4th suit forcing) but I expect yellow card doesn't know about that.

It does.  "A new suit response (other than after a 1NT rebid by opener) is
a one-round force.  If it is a fourth suit in the auction, it may be
artificial."

The yellow card system was designed "to provide a simple, modern method which
will lead to a good, solid understanding in a partnership when both players
have read" the 8-page system booklet.  I think it accomplishes that goal
quite well.  (It doesn't claim to be the best system for an established
partnership, and it isn't.)

Two months ago, Morris Jones was good enough to transcribe and post the
system booklet.  I've taken the liberty of reposting it below.


                                    Tim


Article: 7757 of rec.games.bridge