HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: barryp@otago.ac.nz
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Subject: Re: Large and small, a problem in a go game
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:40:48 +1300
Organization: University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

In article <1992Nov8.085858.2101@klaava.Helsinki.FI>, cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
> In article <BxDqJt.2rA@nic.umass.edu> s9874203@titan.ucc.umass.edu (s9874203) writes:
>>
>> This is taken from a game I played on IGS. I played black and it is
>>black to move. There are two places I like to play: a or b. The question
>>is: which one is larger? I played b, but I prefer a now -- partially
>>because I don't know how to handle the upper-right corner after white
>>played c. Shall black play K17 if white play c?  c is dreadful to me.
>>Another reason I like a is that I want to give some pressure
>>on upper left white stones. But are the two b stones on right side light
>>enough that wouldn't be my burden later?
>>
>>
>>
>>    A B C D E F G H J K L M N O P Q R S T 
>>19 |. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| 19
>>18 |. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| 18
>>17 |. . . # . . . . . . a c . . . . # . .| 17 
>>16 |. . # + O . O . . + . . . # . # . O .| 16
>>15 |. . . # # O . . . . . . . . . . . . .| 15
>>14 |. . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . O . .| 14 
>>13 |. . . # . O . . . . . . . . . . . . .| 13
>>12 |. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . .| 12
>>11 |. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| 11 
>>10 |. . . # . . . . . + . . . . . # . . .| 10
>> 9 |. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|  9
>> 8 |. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|  8 
>> 7 |. . . . . . . . . . . . . . b . # . .|  7 
>> 6 |. . # # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|  6 
>> 5 |. . O # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|  5
>> 4 |. . O + . . . . . + . . . . O + O . .|  4 
>> 3 |. . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . .|  3 
>> 2 |. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|  2
>> 1 |. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|  1
>>    A B C D E F G H J K L M N O P Q R S T 
> 
> 'b' is certainly big, in the sense that by attacking these two stones,
> White can build a large moyo on the lower side. Furthermore, Black can
> live easily with S17, so 'c' isn't really horrible - EXCEPT that it
> strengthens White's stones in the upper left.
> 
> I can't escape the feeling that the game is already difficult for Black.
> Maybe something was wrong with the sequence played, or maybe Black has
> erred earlier.
> Or maybe my feeling is wrong. :-)

This is a good problem.  My feeling is that b is an excellent move and gives
black a good game.  a Is a good point and black can then aim to attact the 
upper left white stones later.  BUT a is less important as the upper side
is open at the edge for white (hard for white to turn into territory).  After
black b, and white c I would attach at L16 (white is too strong on left to
invade at K17). If white defends the left black can live with S17.  White 
will probably defend at S10 whereby black invades the lower side at N3 or
L3.

Barry Phease
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: GO on The Sierra Network
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 13:49:46 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <765290d7683010t12@anton.infoserv.com> "Anton Dovydaitis" <anton@anton.infoserv.com> writes:
>IGS can't pay for Pros to play online, but The Sierra Network can
>and will.

So? The IGS is free, and world-wide and up and running. 
And has already had pro title games. Live.

I'm not knocking TSN, but its not TSN that will be paying for pros to play
on it, it'll be the users of TSN that will be paying.
r.
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay)
Subject: Re: Go History Books...
Organization: NASA-Ames Biocomputation Center
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:28:29 GMT

Most of the first half of the Go book from The Charles Tuttle Publishing
Co., I think it is called The Game of Go, contains history and culture
background on the game. I think it is still available new, and I often see 
it in used bookstores.

David		doshay@soma.arc.nasa.gov

The thought police insist I tell you:
my thoughts, not NASA's
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: yychen@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca (Youyi Chen)
Subject: Re: The Mysteries of Weiqi (part 4)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 04:33:38 GMT

I notice two typos right after I send out my part 4.

In article <BxMyz1.A98@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> yychen@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca (Youyi Chen) writes:
>...
>The number 3 golden rule by the ancient legend Ji-Xing Wang is:
>...

Ji-Xing Wang should be Ji-Xin Wang.

>...
>Pu-Liu Zhong [13P], (Song Dynasty, 960 - 1279) 
>(actually, North Song, around 1078 and who Jialin Zhong may say is 
>...

Pu-Liu Zhong should be Zhong-Pu Liu whose last name is Liu which has
nothing to do with "Zhong".
Terrible to sorry to Jialin :-)


Youyi
Newsgroups: rec.games.go
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Go History Books...
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:21:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.005113.1221@oswego.Oswego.EDU>, kinne@oswego.Oswego.EDU writes:
>	I am wondering if anyone knows of any English books written
>about the history of the game Go. [..]

Here is what I know:
"Appreciating Famous Games", Ishi Press
"Invincible.  The Games of Shusaku" by John Power

Both books contain old games, a bit of history, and some stories, "Famous
Games" giving a broad overview of Go history in Japan, while "Invincible"
concentrates on the 19th century, or Shusaku's lifetime.

Then of course there is the "Go World" magazine with the "Page from Go
History" and the detailed explanations of the Japanese art they have on the
front page.

I also have a book containing mostly Chinese Go anecdotes, but it's in
German...

--
thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
...and then the dragon ate the princess and the knight, and he lived happily
ever after.   -- Grandma Addams telling Wednesday a story (paraphrased)
From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bidding problem
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:24:18 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbootay.sw.stratus.com

In article <davidm.721522583@voltaire>, davidm@voltaire.Rational.COM (David Moore) writes:
> adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) writes:
> 
> >Finally, nobody discussed whether strong jump shifts would be better
> >or worse on this hand.  If the auction had started 1S-3C (strong),
> >would we stand a better chance of reaching the slam?
> 
> The problem with a jump shift with this hand is you have neither a nearly
> self-sufficient suit of your own, nor excellent support for partner. Rather,
> you have a good suit of your own plus decent support for partner.
> 
> On this hand, you may belong in 6 of either black suit, and you need partner's
> help to decide which, so I think 2C would still be correct (especially at 2/1)
 
I too would respond 2C (with KTx xx Axx AKQxx) if playing 2/1.  We don't need a
strong jump shift because we can still convey slam interest after 1S-2C,2S or
1S-2C,2N by rebidding 3S (on these auctions, 4S would be fast arrival).
However, if not playing 2/1, 1S-2C,2S-3S and 1S-2C,2N-3S aren't forcing, and
we'd rebid 4S without one of those aces, so what do we do?  Not playing 2/1,
I'd start with a strong jump shift.
 
> Incidentally; somebody was suggesting that weak jump shifts were more common in
> the US than strong ones these days.

They certainly are among Boston-area 2/1ers.

> I find that a surprising statement. Who else
> out there is still using strong jump-shifts?

I prefer SJS, at least when the first suit I want to bid ranks higher than
the suit partner opened.  (If I can start with a game forcing 2/1, things
usually work out okay as described above.)

Suppose partner opens 1H and I have 16+ with good spades and heart support
or else a self-sufficient spade suit.  If 2S would be weak, I have to respond
1S.  Suppose partner rebids 2D.  Now I suppose 3H or 3S wouldn't be forcing,
so I'm stuck with an artificial 3C.  Now partner comes up with 3H or 3N and I
finally get to clarify my shape, but I still haven't conveyed that I have 16+
rather than 12+.

If I can start with a strong 2S, than when I rebid 3H or 3S I will have told
my story and we'll still have room to explore slam.

(As I recall, Lawrence makes the case for SJS quite eloquently in his Workbook
on 2/1.)
 
> I have only used weak jump shifts once or twice, and they were a complete
> disaster, but this may have had more to do with my partner's over-liberal use of
> them rather than any defect in the general method.

I have played WJS, and I don't recall any WJS disasters (but I've had a couple
of how-do-we-decide-on-slam-if-I-can't-start-with-a-SJS disasters).  WJS just
doesn't come up often enough to be worth it, even at matchpoints.  It's only
significant value is when partner deals and opens, RHO passes, and you have a
6-card suit with 3 or 4 HCPs concentrated in that suit and feel compelled to
preempt LHO.


                                    Tim
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao)
Subject: Re: Bidding problem
Reply-To: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:33:34 GMT

olle@astro.uu.se (Olof Morell) writes:

>In article <1dmjrqINNgt8@transfer.stratus.com>, tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill) writes:
>|> In article <9211090824.aa21965@Paris.ics.uci.edu>, kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU (Dennis Kibler) writes:
>|> > No opposition bidding, 2/1 with WJS.
>|> > North deals and opens 1 spade. South responds 2 clubs.
>|> > Now what?
>|> > 
>|> >   North: QJxxxx, AKQx, xxx,--
>|> > 
>|> >   South: K10x, xx,Axx,AKQxx
>|> 
>|>     1S   2C
>|>     2H   2S
>|>     3C   3D
>|>     3H   4C
>|>     4H   5N
>|>     6S   P

>Please explain more thoroughly. What's 3C supposed to be? You're
>cueing on the three level or what? I would take 3C to be fit
>showing or something, but then I'm not to familiar with 2/1.
>*** Olle ***

Yep, 3C should show a double fit -- something like 5-4-1-3 or even
6-4-0-3.  As for the above auction, I would bid it something like..

1S-2C(1)-2H-2S(2)-4S(3)-6S(4)-P

1. 2/1 GF
2. 3 card spade support
3. Not interested in slam (with void in pards first suit)
4. But I am.

South's reasoning is pretty simple -- he can win the first diamond and
partner can pitch diamond losers on clubs.  Also, if you like you can
trot out the old Blackwood as well, but it seems unnecessary -- you
seem to have sufficient tricks, and opposite something like
AQxxx,QJxx,Kx,Jx you will make 6 anyway on the marked diamond lead
(only semi-fecitiously... this is a 75% slam:-)
 
Bharat 
--
R. Bharat Rao                          E-mail: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu 
AI Group, Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology
405 N. Mathews, Urbana, IL 61801  (217)337-6498(H)
Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana
OFFICE: (217)244-0292, 333-5978 (NOTE new numbers)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From:  (martino@courier6.aero.org(Nick Martino))
Subject: Re: Committee Ruling - Opinions?
Followup-To: rec.games.bridge
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:20:27 GMT

> > Hand 1:  all white, E dealer
> > 
> > 	Qxxx, Axx, xxx, KJx
> > Axx                           K
> > KQx                           JTxxxx
> > AQJxxxx                       Kx
> > -                             xxxx
> >         JTxxx, x, x, AQTxxx
> > 
> > The bidding went:	
> > 
> > E
> > 2C*  p 2S** 3C
> > 3d   p 3H   4C
> > 4d   p 5d   all pass
> > 
> > North led the CK and EW made the obvious 12 tricks.

Did someone say that 6H can be made? 

On a normal Club lead, it could make double dummy (Ruff, Heart King ducked,
Spade to King, Club ruff, Spade Ace, three rounds of Diamonds).  However,
it seems more likely to be set at the table (Ruff, spade to K, Club ruff,
Spade Ace, Spade ruff, ruff last Club, Diamond to King... losing two trumps
assuming J10xxxx does not include the 9-spot).

As for the ruling, I'd give A+/A- (assuming that improves the NS result)
and add a procedural penalty to EW.  I don't know if the present rules
proscribe (or even allow) the procedural penalty, but having been burned by
several alert system atrocities, I doubt I can be objective.  I'd like to
see a crackdown on what I see as a system gone awry.  If it were feasible,
how about keeping a record of alert-related offenses at each tournament
(sectional, regional or national).  First offense gets a procedural penalty
(say 1/2 board).  On the second offense, the offenders get a full board
penalty AND, they are not allowed to play any alertable bids for the rest
of the tournament !!!  (Yes, I know a lot of people would not consider that
a penalty.)

The A+/A- score adjustment raises a question in my mind.  Say, you're
having your average 70% game and the offenders are having their average 29%
game.  In such case, a 60/40 score would be disappointing result for you
(not to mention being a positive boon to the incompetents).  It sounds
silly, but I could see an instance where A+/A- isn't enough.  Are there any
provisions in the rules which might allow leeway in awarding adjusted
scores?


On HAND 2 (the second hand slow), I find little merit in declarer's line of
play. Nevertheless, I'd vote to adjust the result.  I don't think there's
any question that the East player, regardless of ability, should have known
that the long hesitation might lead declarer astray.

*************************************************************************  
       
                                                                           
                                                                           
                         
    martino@courier6.Aero.org (Nick Martino)                            
   
    The Aerospace Corporation                                            
                                                                        
*************************************************************************
From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Bidding problem
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:20:43 GMT
Organization: Irvine Compiler Corp., Irvine, California, USA

In article <1dmjrqINNgt8@transfer.stratus.com> tnh@sw.stratus.com 
(Tim Hill) writes:

> In article <9211090824.aa21965@Paris.ics.uci.edu>, kibler@turing.ICS.UCI.EDU
> (Dennis Kibler) writes:
> > No opposition bidding, 2/1 with WJS.
> > North deals and opens 1 spade. South responds 2 clubs.
> > Now what?
> > 
> >   North: QJxxxx, AKQx, xxx,--
> > 
> >   South: K10x, xx,Axx,AKQxx
>
>     1S   2C
>     2H   2S
>     3C   3D
>     3H   4C
>     4H   5N
>     6S   P
>

I can't agree with the 3C bid by North.  I think this sounds like a
"pattern" bid, showing some length in clubs (3+) and implying diamond
shortness.

4C (splinter) may work out the best.  It should warn South not to get
too excited if he has wasted values in clubs (KJxxx) or no help in
diamonds.  (North might have bid 3D with 5-4-3-1 distribution and some
values in diamonds.  I don't like bidding 3D with the North hand on 3
small.) 

Since I was Dennis' partner on this hand, I'm sure I'll have more to
say about this.
                                        -- Adam
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se (Lars Andersson)
Subject: Re: Committee Ruling - Opinions?
Reply-To: ttllarsa@eua.ericsson.se
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:04:08 GMT

In article 10953@ramon.bgu.ac.il, avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira) writes:
>This is a pair event played at IMPs with Butler scoring.

I really don't know if there are some special considerations in this form of scoring
and I also do not have the laws at hand but here goes.

>
>Hand 1:  all white, E dealer
>
>	Qxxx, Axx, xxx, KJx
>Axx                           K
>KQx                           JTxxxx
>AQJxxxx                       Kx
>-                             xxxx
>        JTxxx, x, x, AQTxxx
>
>The bidding went:	
>
>E
>2C*  p 2S** 3C
>3d   p 3H   4C
>4d   p 5d   all pass

BRIDGE comment; Why did not West bid 6D!? Seems to be a 4 or 6 hand... If they
lead a space you probably go down in 5D or make 6/7D

>2C was artificial and forcing. 2S showed 7-8 HCP. was not alerted.
>South claimed that the failure to alert distorted his bidding and prevented
>the pair from finding the good 5S sacrifice.

I think South has a good point here. Judging from the bidding (4C!) he seems to 
be an aggressive bidder and would probably have bid 3S over a correct alert/
explanation.

>
>How would you rule?
>
>

I would adjust the result to 5S going down 2 doubled (AK of spades, a diamond and
a club ruff).

>             AJ, - , xx, xxx
>Kx                           xx
>KQxx                           j
>Kx                           JTxx
>-                            -
>             QTxx,  AQx -
>
>Now, the lead is in dummy
>S played a diamond, intending to  win the A and finesse in Spades, hoping
>for a 2-2 break.

>However, on the play of a low diamond, E went into a trance.
>pulling one card, then the other, finally played the J. There was no
>dispute on the facts of the matter.  Now S thought the E had the K of D,
>and decided to finesse, planning to ruff one in dummy, and hope that the
>K of spades in now single.

A lower percentage plan.

>
>In the auction. S opened 1S, E overcalled 2H and N doubled (-ve) and W
>remained silent.  South claimed that he thought that the high cards were
>marked, and that without the hesitation, he would have certainly not finessed.
>South is a good player. E is an LOL.

Why would a LOL think about playing the king!? I would rule no infraction and 
allow the result to stand. If E would have been a decent or good player I would
rule split scores giving both sides bad scores (yes, I am mean)

--lars
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Secure(?) 3 NT
Date: 8 Nov 92 01:36:21 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Nick Straguzzi <nstraguz@atl.ge.com> writes:
>>>                     Dummy   S A 6 5 4
>>>                             H Q T
>>>                             D Q 7 2
>>>                             C K 6 5 3

>>>                        You  S K J 8
>>>                             H A K 7 3
>>>                             D J 5
>>>                             C A J 9 4.

> Very minor improvement to Dennis' line: cross to the club ace and
> strip LHO of hearts, in case he started with Jxx(x) and made a very
> unusual lead.  Throw one spade (not two!) and/or a club from dummy.
> Once LHO is exhausted of hearts, go to the club king.  If clubs split,
> duck one for nine tricks.  If RHO started with Qxxx(x), lead to the
> club jack.  Finally, if LHO started with Qxxx(x), lead a spade and
> cover whatever RHO plays.  A spade or club return gives you your ninth
> trick immediately.

As much as I hate to post again on this rather silly problem, I have to
point out that this is just wrong.  How can a spade return possibly
"give you your ninth trick immediately"??  You only have KJ in hand
opposite A6 in dummy!  And even if you did have A65 in dummy, a spade
return wouldn't give you a ninth trick, because the spades are blocked
and you have no entry!!

                                        David desJardins
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Committee Ruling - Opinions?
From: avir@chen.bgu.ac.il (Avi Roy Shapira)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 03:57:24 GMT
Organization: Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Israel

Last week I had the dubious pleasure of sitting in a committee to decide
the fate of the following two hands. I am not sure we made the right
decisions. I'd like to get the opinion of the net.

This is a pair event played at IMPs with Butler scoring.

Hand 1:  all white, E dealer

	Qxxx, Axx, xxx, KJx
Axx                           K
KQx                           JTxxxx
AQJxxxx                       Kx
-                             xxxx
        JTxxx, x, x, AQTxxx

The bidding went:	

E
2C*  p 2S** 3C
3d   p 3H   4C
4d   p 5d   all pass

North led the CK and EW made the obvious 12 tricks.

2C was artificial and forcing. 2S showed 7-8 HCP. was not alerted.
South claimed that the failure to alert distorted his bidding and prevented
the pair from finding the good 5S sacrifice.

How would you rule?

2nd hand.

This time I don't remember the exact hand, but the problem came at this
position:

             AJ, - , xx, xxx
Kx                           xx
KQxx                           j
Kx                           JTxx
-                            -
             QTxx,  AQx -

or something like that. NS were playing 4S, and need all the tricks.
Clubs are good. W overruffed once. Now, the lead is in dummy
S played a diamond, intending to  win the A and finesse in Spades, hoping
for a 2-2 break. However, on the play of a low diamond, E went into a trance.
pulling one card, then the other, finally played the J. There was no
dispute on the facts of the matter.  Now S thought the E had the K of D,
and decided to finesse, planning to ruff one in dummy, and hope that the
K of spades in now single.

In the auction. S opened 1S, E overcalled 2H and N doubled (-ve) and W
remained silent.  South claimed that he thought that the high cards were
marked, and that without the hesitation, he would have certainly not finessed.
South is a good player. E is an LOL.

Please advise

Avi
From: tnh@sw.stratus.com (Tim Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: Comments Please (without tabs)
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:47:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: transfer.1dmf8jINNgt8
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbootay.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov8.193711.5091@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao) writes:
> ... I know it is very much accepted IMP strategy to
> shoot out games on a prayer (usually when vul), but I think this is
> not optimal.  Those part score swings begin to add up, and IMO game
> should be reasonable in order to bid it.  ...
> This is perhaps my matchpoint-oriented
> frame of mind showing through, but I have seen too many matches lost
> after the conversation "we are -140" "we are -100" "lose 6, next"...

Just to quantify Bharat's observation, you'll win in the long run if you
bid vulnerable games that have more than 6 chances in 16 (37.5%) of
success and stay out of those that have less than 6 chances in 16
(since you can win 10 IMPs or lose 6 IMPs).  However, it seems that
many players, having heard that bidding some <50% vulnerable games wins,
bid a lot of 25% games.  Bidding a 25% game when your opponents don't is
exactly as bad as not bidding a 50% game when your opponents do:  on the
average it'll cost you 2 IMPs.


                                    Tim
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: ceblair@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Charles Blair)
Subject: Re: About "whining" and club games
Keywords: club games, tournaments
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:57:25 GMT

altus@leland.Stanford.EDU (Steve Altus) writes:

> can they REALLY do anything?  i doubt it, but who 
>knows!  i'm keeping an open mind...  beause for all the reasons that
>people have cited, it WOULD be good IF club games were worth going to.

   I'm not too optimistic about players who are unpleasant and/or
unethical (some people say that about me), but I do wish the ACBL would
try to educate directors.  How many directors know that questions of
the form ``How are you interpreting that bid?''  , as opposed to 
``Do you have any advance agreement on the meaning of that bid'',
are improper?