Scarabin

Ree, Teardrop, Jessup, Thump Milton, Ray, are all characters in Winter's Bone. Ree is the leading part, played by Jennifer Lawrence. Teardrop is her uncle, Jessup her father. Thump Milton is the leader of the Milton clan/family/gang. Ray is one of his henchmen and, I think, Jessup's direct killer. :D

I didn't watch enough to be fair but is she really an asset? :D

I guess I should have Googled it. I did suspect it might be too good to be obscure. I find good movies often leave some unanswered questions: (1) I take it Ree & Teardrop's final conversation means Teardrop put up part of Jessup's bail money? (2) What clue caused Teardrop to know Jessup's killer? I think there was a clue just before Teardrop rescued Ree from Thump Milton, but this was before he arrived? (3) Who was Ray? Teardrop took an axe to his truck? Anyone got the answers? :D

I just cannot believe the EU will bail-out the Ukraine financially, and I don't expect the US will do so either. Perhaps they'll go so far as keeping the Ukraine on tether, hoping for more? :D

Good to hear. I am glad I'm not alone in liking this movie. :D

What a load of crap "Noah" is. Now there's something believers and sceptics, moderates and fanatics, could agree upon! Perhaps I could hijack the topic & launch a poll! :D

I think that for me "Elementary" is just a Sherlock Holmes clone too many. I guess I'm satiated. When you are old and long retired, what makes your day is serendipity. So I was charmed when the second series of "The Bridge" suddenly appeared in my planner to be recorded. I think it's because I series-linked the first series and Foxtel remembers this (for a limited time?) :D

Saw a movie, "Winter's bone", which strangely impressed me. It's about hill-billies and seems chillingly authentic. Now this may well not be an obscure movie in the US. After all it stars Jennifer Lawrence and has won a Sundance award. I can't see it making the main cinema circuit in Australia, more like an art-house movie. :D

Studio, one of our TV cable channels, has a new Norwegian crime series called Mammon which, judging by the first episode, may be very good. Caught up with Elementary but disappointed. :D

With two fairly obvious ways of making the contract, one may query why we should look for any other methods. However I think Kaplan's premise is that the contract may be made in any of four ways provided we keep to a cohesive plan. I can see that the contract may be made by throwing East in with the third round of hearts, after eliminating diamonds and clubs, and forcing him to lead a spade into dummy's ten-ace. This requires West's co-operation in not rising with the Ace of diamonds and leading a spade or heart. Perhaps this can plausibly be accomplished by South's leading the diamond queen as if to force an entry to dummy? The only possible squeeze is a criss-cross squeeze against East in spades and hearts. This requires the defenders' co-operation in taking their diamond honours on the first two rounds, cashing the two long clubs and leading only clubs or diamonds. In these two cases, the opening lead is a spade and dummy plays the queen or jack. Now criss-cross squeezes must be the easiest to break-up, and many of declarer and the defenders' plays are less than optimal. Despite my best efforts to co-operate in defence, I cannot get any robot to adopt these latter plans. :D

Sorry, did not mean to criticize your play or judgment. Just meant to give credit to Gib for making a good decision in refusing to ruff. :D

Thanks for an interesting deal but you could have headlined your topic "Report, ahem, good plays by Gib". My experience is that in this situation - ruff to be forced into an unfavourable lead - the robots do not accept the "poisoned chalice"! :D

Interesting hand to analyse with Bridgify. I tried it on 4 robots - Jack, Gib, Wbridge5, and Sharkbridge. All tried to set up hearts. Wbridge played correctly: 4 & A on opening lead to give 2nd entry to dummy and made oontract. All the others played Q or J on opening lead. Gib persevered by trying to create an entry in diamonds - down 2. Jack & Shark seemed to try to recover with Jack discarding the SA on the third heart trick, and Shark overtaking the SQ with the SA on the opening trick. Both down 3. Nobody tried holding-up (ducking the spade lead in both hands). Thanks again. Added later: On the inferior opening lead of a club all the robots successfully set up diamonds. Shark flirted with a heart finesse along the way. Perhaps combining chances? :D

Not a lack of veracity, more that we are on different pages: you, I think are talking about how experts currently play the hand, I am dealing with theory as applied to how the great mass of players, the hoi polloi like me, are taught to play declarer's hand. Let me first admit this is pure speculation. I am not actively researching play theory just reacting to one academic's comments on the present state of play theory. It's not easy to formulate a feasible alternative to the current, traditional approach. If players were allowed to access computers (instead of note pads) then Ginsberg simulations might represent a viable alternative. This is not entirely fantasy I remember when it would have been unthinkable to allow calculators in examination rooms. I also speculated that it might be feasible to program computers to generate random deals and investigate double-dummy which moves would increase the probability of making the contract. This would require enormous time so would have to be done in advance, and the results stored or if possible analysed into principles. Take a simple example: when the opening card is led declarer may have a 50% chance of making the contract. After declarer holds-up this may increase to 100%. The player handles this by recognising the position, or by projecting the play (expert) or by rules (average player). What I'm saying is that I do not think anyone has written a program to generate the best move for every possible/ probable situation. I did warn you it would be boring! :D

Thanks nige1. I think it might be interesting to discover which strategy the robots would choose. :D

For me Stayman followed by 2♠(my stayman is forcing to game). What am I missing? :D

Not entirely on topic but seeking information without opening a new topic: Some time ago Edgar Kaplan wrote a book on declarer play in which he repeatedly analysed a single hand which could be made by multiple strategies including, I think, both a squeeze and a throw-in. Does anyone recall the book's title or perhaps the hand? :D

Was your stint in Russia connected with "glasnost"? Around the time I retired, Americans were going to Russia to help start a capitalist economy. :D

or in other words, intelligent moderation. :D

I have always liked this story, although I'm not entirely sure why, of an English aristocrat or politician who was a contemporary of the great Marlborough and who went mad: One night there was a great commotion in his bedroom. When the rest of the household burst in they found him, dressed in a nightshirt, holding a candle in his left hand, and a sword in his right, standing over an empty corner of the room. "Don't move you foul fiend" he snarled "or I'll run you through." :D

As a westerner, I think we have a rich culture or heritage. I am not decrying other cultures but I am familiar with my own. But what are the main components of our heritage? Literature, pastimes, history, material wealth, religion, education, politics, manners and customs. I suppose they are all involved, but which are (most?) important? :D

This post seems to be based on twin fallacies: (1) all terrorists are fanatics, and (2) all fanatics are terrorists. Still, as you say, why do we bother? I persevered because I judge you intelligent and I hope, vainly no doubt, to have a debate without tricks, intellectual dishonesty, or abuse. I am probably naive and if you wish I will enter into an agreement that in the water cooler we will not answer each others posts or even refer to each other. :D

Otoh I seem to recall your believing Adolf Hitler was a good Christian, so perhaps your suspicion of Clinton lacks conviction? Reading the rest of your post I concluded the great truth you accuse me of failing to get is your belief that atheists can never be fanatics while all believers are potential fanatics. While such a view may be theoretically possible it does not seem to be related to reality. May I suggest you re-read some of the BBF religious topics? :D

I would say that moderates, whether religious or secular, are more likely to change their views than fanatics, whether religious or secular. I think browsing earlier religious topics should provide evidence for this. In my experience, most people try to formulate life philosophies with which they can feel comfortable and are loathe to leave their comfort zones. I have known some people I would term moderates whose views fluctuated constantly. :D

Perhaps we should consider the founding of the great library at Alexandria? :D