Scarabin

I will have to pass on Zermelo's theorem since I have forgotten whatever knowledge of set theory I ever had in my salad days. I probably should pass on the theory as well. At the risk of hijacking this post I do think that when the system-makers developed pre-determined bids to cover all common situations it became possible to mimic on computers human play in bridge. Possible but perhaps requiring a prohibitive amount of work. The latter problem may be solved when more developers follow Bo Haglind's lead in making source code available. Perhaps then we can build "on the shoulders of giants" instead of endlessly reinventing the wheel. I think Benito Garozzo once said "the longest journey starts with but a single step" and I think I can program a module to make opening leads to an acceptable standard, next to "read" opening leads for declarer and the leaders partner, then to play to the opening lead,etc. Who knows where it will end?

Interesting discussion but is it getting anywhere? The answer to the OP seems to be "No", and is bridge really zero-sum? :unsure:

I am puzzled. Do you consider maddowblog independent? If Issa believed Tea-party groups were targeted unfairly and asked IRS to investigate this I would not find it surprising or consider it showed bias.

What a pleasant surprise! May I welcome you to the forum and hope this may be the first of many posts. Thanks for your humour and understanding. You already know you fulfil my definition of a modern renaissance man but may I enlarge on the self-promotion. I guess we all try to do this but some are more talented than most. I dimly remember Macchiavelli once said a plan was incomplete unless it included a plan for its own implementation, and Mackay in "Walk of the Oysters" said that without Culbertson's flair for promoting his ideas bridge would have remained on the same plane as canasta or mah jong. I delayed responding to your post so as not to obscure it from members returning from the ACBL trials. As a result I can echo Woody Allen and say: if only life were always like this! :D Slainte, Ian

Perhaps frankant is suggesting that a publicized statement of a zero tolerance policy and a stated will to enforce it (coupled perhaps with encouragement to report abuse) might decrease abusive behaviour. Since sanctions are rightly private it is all too easy to feel no one ever is reproved for abuse, and most of us come from cultures which discourage snitching.

Perhaps the Wikipedia article confuses zero tolerance with mandatory sentencing. I understand zero tolerance as not turning a blind eye to minor crimes - not as applying the same punishment to major and minor crimes. However I do not think describing zero tolerance as brain dead or insane is justified in either case. As regards my choice of "comparison" I choose those I think will be familiar to most posters. Another "comparison" would be that the Roman Catholic church could benefit from a zero tolerance policy toward sex abuse. :rolleyes:

To be fair: 1) This is frankant's first post. 2) I may be naive but zero tolerance seemed to work in New York. 3) Can you judge a policy by the reaction of the fringe? 4) It is reasonable for newcomers to be surprised by the gap between BBO rules and members' actual behaviour.

If you offered evidence for your rather sweeping statements I might agree with you. As it stands however I think frankant's suggestion of a zero tolerance policy agreement is entirely reasonable and timely. It might be difficult to implement and would probably result in our more colourful posters being banned.

Saw "House of cards",the US - Kevin Spacey version, the other day and judged it better than the UK version; which I think is the original although no acknowledgement is made. "Forbrydelsen III" has not reached Australia, although we have got a political series "Brogen" made by the same people (producers not cast). I like it; reminiscent of the sub-thread in "Forbrydelsen I"

Dwar0123 and FM75 thanks for reasoned replies to my comparatively shallow comments. In my simple world: reference to my mistake constitutes admission of mistake. Dwar0123 post perhaps questions veracity? similarly illiteracy = inability to read or write and innumeracy = inability to handle numbers ie arithmetic. FM75 post seems to question comprehension? Anyhow thanks for explanations, I tend to over-react when I think posters are ganging-up on a single poster.

As I see it: Blackshoe fully admitted his mistake - FM75 made a comment, some way between uncalled for and snide - Blackshoe turned the comment back on its author. I do not understand your problem? :(

My point is that imo it's better to inconvenience people by closing down a city than to risk killing innocent bystanders.

In comparing London and Boston's reactions to terrorism, we should bear in mind that in London the terrorists were already dead, and the security forces killed an innocent bystander. Consider what might have resulted if the Boston firefights had occurred in crowded streets.

I would not criticize the authorities for shutting down Boston, when terrorists strike at the heart of the empire you need quick resolution. The New Yorker excerpt suggests we might find an explanation of the refugee's ingratitude in Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Congratulations to the authorities, security services and people of Boston on a great operation. No one could ask for anything better.

I had intended to return to these forums when I had something useful to contribute to the Bridge Material Review but feel I have to express my outrage at the cowardly and vicious attack on Boston, and to offer my sympathy to the good people of Boston and to all Americans.

I suppose if I had any sense I'd sit back and watch Vampyr self-destruct while trying to rewrite history. However I feel I should thank you that, apart from a few rather confused allegations, the coverage has been very fair. If anyone wants to act as a vigilante and clean up the forum then I suggest they concentrate on eradicating cyberbullying. I can cite evidence of this to anyone interested. I have no desire to continue my stouch with Vampyr but it's an understatement to say her vicious, unprovoked attack was no more than tactless.As regards my reaction let me tell you a story I find amusing. It concerns a dinner Winston Churchill attended at Lady Astor's home: "After dinner Lady Astor presided over the pouring of coffee. When Churchill came by, she glared and said "Winston, if I were your wife, I'd put poison in your coffee.""Nancy"Churchill replied to the acid-tongued woman,"If I were your husband. I'd drink it."."

I gather that you dislike me and I can live with that but why vent your spleen on the monitors? They have shown superior courage and judgment, and also tolerance to your own peccadilloes. If you wish to be fair then I suggest you re-read(?) the topic starting at Vampyr's first post.

I'm not proud of these posts and I would be happy to delete posts #7 & #9 to #13. However I suggest you consider: have you encountered Tourette's syndrome, and perhaps you should re-read and comprehend what I actually said: that in certain circumstances I would kill myself. Other than this be "holier than thou" as much as you like. It must be a rare experience for you.

Your lack of manners amazes me.Are you sufficiently qualified to make these statements or are you just a miserable specimen of dried up doubtful humanity? What a stupid person you are. Do you really think your little shafts of venom improve these topics? If you were me or I were you, I hope I would have the good grace to commit suicide. These remarks have been considered in detail and fit you, and your posting record.

Your lack of manners amazes me. Are you sufficiently qualified to make these statements or are you just a miserable dried up specimen of doubtful humanity? What a stupid person you are. Do you really think your little shafts of venom improve these topics? If you were me or I were you, I hope I would have the good grace to commit suicide.

Sounds a good approach to me. Let's start with your four points. 1) Agree computers can play a good game of chess, although they cannot explain in human terms why they made a particular move. Something I would expect of a human player. Similar considerations apply to scrabble, and jeopardy(Barmar). 2) I would not agree that computers play a quite good game of bridge. Have you watched Wbridge5 "think". 3) My impression is that anyone can assess the present fundamental value of a stock. Both humans & computers have difficulty in assessing a stock's potential value. 4) Agreed computers perform poorly on social & literary endeavours. OK we're agreed, how do we proceed? :)

Thanks for the link which is interesting and clarifies your previous points. I fear however, Mike, that I am too old and too sceptical to take Transhumanism seriously. Indeed I have trouble freeing myself from the feeling that it's an elaborate hoax. I fear that Ken's suggestion of evaluating things computers do well or badly is more my speed. I am sorry about this because I really enjoyed our interchange of ideas.

My understanding is that the Turing Test got whittled down to the point where it could be met by "Liza" clones. If we return to a more general test where the computer demonstrates human performance on several fronts then I think it mjght be more convincing.

I wanted to upvote your post to applaud your wit but feared it might be misconstrued and encourage an undesirable trend. By the way your post is inaccurate: if you were me you would open a topic entitled "What is wit?". It ocurred to me it might be fun just to report your post. What would the mentor do? Delete your post as personal and assure you that he does have a sense of humour, or try to convince me your post is funny. In the end.......