jdeegan

:rolleyes: I hope the hearts split 3-2 or 2-3 so I can lose only one heart and one diamond then run the clubs. Given the auction, the odds of a 3-2 heart split should be slightly better than normal - nearly 80%. I don't want to get stuck in dummy with no easy way to get to my hand to pull the third round of trumps, so I'd begin with the heart jack from my hand at trick two. For what it's worth, I would have doubled 4♠. Partner will either pass or bid 5♣. 4♠ doubled could go down as few as one or as many as three depending on the location of the ♥ K and the club split. 5♣ ought to make 11 or 12 tricks most of the time. So, I like this contract very much and feel lucky to have found partner with a stiff spade and three hearts.

B) I had the same thought when Bob played the ♣ queen. He probably figured that LHO may yet have had the ♣ king. From the spots on the first trick, ♣ 7 from LHO and ♣ 8 (I think) from RHO, this remained a possibility. Since LHO had the ♦ ace and Bob had bid both majors, a club lead was a fair possibiliy regardless of LHO's original holding. Should he have foreseen at trick three the exact actual position at trick eight? Pretty obscure to me. Bob is probably as good as any dummy player in the world, but the hands unfold trick by trick for him too. The actual subset of hands possible as of trick eight must be a tiny fraction of the full set of possibilities as seen at trick three. In other words, he had a good reason to fly with the queen at trick three, and the possible drawback was unclear. In short, why be such a result player on such a complicated hand.

:) I'm off four top tricks, so I can be down one right away if I misguess clubs. I lead the ♦ Q to get up to eight tricks - 2♦, 4♥ and 2♣. I am risking the chance that spades are Kxx opposite AQ9x, AND they find the right defense. But, remember, nobody overcalled spades. Assuming I survive this threat (or LHO ducks the ♦Q), my idea is to get max info before guessing the ♣Q. Who knows, maybe I will find a squeeze/end play?

:)

:P Agree with a pass, although it seems a borderline 4♥ bid. Spade holding is part of it. Club queen and possible diamond finesse offside also not desirable.

:P 3♠ with a reliable partner. 3♦ would be the all purpose game force. 2♠ would be invitational with cards, My hand as a playing hand is a little better than that, so 3♠ is just right. My premise is that partner's vul overcall can't be too awful. With something like: ♠ KQJxx ♥ KJ9 ♦ xxx ♣ xx he will consider he has a minnie and pass my 3♠ call. If not, maybe they will misdefend and let my feckless partner make four. Note that with a little help from some distribution, they might make 9 or 10 tricks in ♦.

:P These are two great problem hands. On the first one, responder knows slam is close after the splinter, but there is no convenient cue bid. I would advise either blasting with a 6♠ call or inviting with a 5♠ bid. The latter is no good if partner is a pedant who will think it asks for trumps, but otherwise, that bid looks best to me. The second one is, I think, a good cautionary tale. The only way I see to get to the near laydown slam is to start with 2♣, so that must be the right call??? I think it is, upon some reflection. You got 20 HCP. You got a 6-4 hand with 5.5+ tricks in the 6 bagger, and a good four bagger. This is too good a hand to open for one despite the awkwardness that is sure to follow after the wretched 2♣ game forcing opening bid.

:P 1. Pass - my soft ♦ cards are in the slot - their ♣ fit may not be much and if it is, I may be able to hurt it with three fast rounds of trump - my ♠ suit is weak and RHO may have up to 4 and LHO up to 3 - my ♣ cards are transferable values, but unlikely trick builders on offense. 2. Pass or 2♥ once in a while depending on table feel and the state of the match - I am not anxious to bid because this is a really soft hand with bad spots and my ♠ holding is a very bad sign. How likely is pard to have a trap pass over 1♠ when I hold Qx in the suit? Nice problems. These two look like a lesson hands good to illustrate several useful concepts vis a vis balancing.

B) The numbers you are citing include the Inca, Mayan and Aztec regions. I was just thinking about what is now the U.S. and maybe Canada. Very few people in the U.S. think of themselves as Indian or native American culturally, but lots of people in the U.S., including a couple of my own grandchildren, have a little bit of Indian blood in them.

:lol: The numbers are quite different and suggest some different conclusions. Scholars have been able to correlate archeological evidence from Indian mounds (which are the surviving ruins of ancient Indian cities) and some surviving accounts from the very first 16th and 17th century European explorers (Spanish and French). Clearly, the Indian population of what is now the U.S. was considerably more than what the first English encountered in the 17th and 18th centuries. Some of the difference was probably the die off due to the introduction of Old World diseases (in Mexico we know from Spanish records that the ultimate die off there was between 80 to 90% in the space of about 60 years - 1520 to 1580). Farther north, without further incursions by Europeans, the damage from the Spanish and French expeditions was probably far less. The other, controlling factor was the lack of domestic animals for food. Sustainable population depended on supplies of protein from the wild - fishing, bison, deer, antelope, etc. This is what accounted for the fact that by the early 1800's European settlers could support anywhere from 10 to 100 persons on the land it took to support one Cherokee - this is what concerned the Cherokee councils of the time. Cherokee lands at the time (1790) supported a population of an estimated 26,000 persons living their traditional lifestyle. The current population of this area is about 10 million. The archeologists have found that a number of long defunct Indian cities, Cahokia and other Mississippian culture sites, collapsed well before any Europeans showed up in the New World. Depletion of local hunting grounds look like the likely culprit. Bottom line is there is a lively academic debate about the actual Indian population in what is now the U.S. as of, say, 1500, but the evidence, to date, supports numbers more like five to eight million. This compares to a low point of less than two million in the 19th century and 4+ million now and growing at a rate much faster than the rest of the U.S. population. Whites are now moving out of the northern great plains states - the Dakotas, eastern Wyoming and Montana, western Nebraska etc. In some areas, native grasses are being reintroduced, cattle ranches have been losing money, bison herds are growing, and Native Americans, at least the few I know from those tribes, are seriously considering moving (and some have) from cities like Dallas back to the northern great plains where their parents and grandparents came from.

:huh: I have to admire more aggressive calls, but a timid 2♠ for me.

:huh: Palestinian irredentism doesn't look much different from the 1920 IRA brand that 'claimed' the six northern counties (and still does, I think). None of this foolishness makes any sense to Americans. Why not settle up, and get on with life? When we took land from the native americans we could support 50 persons on the same land that supported one indian. They were screwed and while they sometimes fought, they generally knew it. Some Cherokee council debates have survived, and they concerned how cope - fight (a minority view) or try to adopt white men's ways (which they did a good job of). Sioux chief Sitting Bull, whose army scalped General Custer, later toured with Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show. After seeing New York, London and Paris he opined that if he had known how many whites there were, he would never made war. By the way, the shred of sovereignty retained by the tribes has been worth quite a bit lately. Tribal casinos and zero tax tobacco sales, to say nothing of mineral royalties, has been quite the economic boon for many tribes. Finally, revenge, making good off the white man's vices.

I somehow like your relaxed attitude towards piracy ;-). :) At the time I gathered these mp3 files a few years ago, I think a 'relaxed' attitude was just what was needed. The internet was drastically altering the economics of audio and this was an obvious precursor to coming changes in video (the really, really big market). The changing economics dictated a change in the legal framework, and the only way to see where things ought to end up was to let things go freely for a while. I speak of this as a doctor of economics with a specialty in government regulation of business. The paradox of intellectual property rights like patents and copyrights is that they do what is normally a BAD THING (i.e. creating a monopoly) in the service of doing a GOOD THING (i.e. providing an economic incentive for artistic and scientific innovation). The trick is to find the correct middle ground that leaves little or no innovation undone for lack of financial incentives without creating a stifling monopoly power that sabotages the very things you want to encourage. My favorite story about intellectual property in the music business is the story of the trial of John Fogerty. Fogerty was, for all intents and purposes, the 60's group Creedence Clearwater Revival. He did not keep ownership of his classic rock songs of that era. In the 1980's he recorded some of his distinctive 'bayou rock' sound (e.g. Proud Mary, Suzie Q, et.al.) for a TV commercial. The owners of the copyrights of his classic songs sued him for breach of copyright. Fogerty's defense was that all of his music sounds the same (lots of truth to that). The jury bought it and found for Fogerty. The point is artists can be intimidated and restricted in their music for fear of being sued. My daughter is an executive for Disney in L.A. and her friends are mostly industry business people who work in Westwood - i.e. 'suits' not 'talent'. Their attitude is exactly what you would expect - they hate the idea of pirates. Artists, however, don't agree. The attitudes are not much different from those in other industries where some aspect of government regulation is important.

:lol: I dunno what the most covered pop song might be, but one important aspect, at least in the U.S., is copyright protection. Noncopyrighted songs get more coverage. "My' particular song was an old American folk dirge called "House of the Rising Sun". It proved its marketability with the Animals hit in the '60's. It has been a staple album filler song for hundreds of groups. I used the free download systems like Napster and Limewire to find 214 different recordings. These include some of the worst renditions imaginable, including a totally stoned bunch of goofing around by the Beatles. My personal favorite bad version is from the album Svein Sings the Hits. Who was that guy anyway?

:) Would someone explain to me the logic of a reopening double here. I'm not disputing that it is for takeout; the bridge logic of that is clear enough. What isn't clear (at least to me) is why do I want to reopen? From the looks of my hand, RHO almost surely found LHO's second suit (a likely nine card fit). So, in that way it makes sense to reopen. The trouble is that unless we fit spades, we will end up at the four level in clubs. With the diamonds and hearts splitting 2-2 and with way less than 20 working HCP between us, we are very likely to be down several (possibly doubled) in 3♠ or 4♣. If partner passes, defending 3♦ doubled against their likely nine card fit makes no sense. I don't see what we are likely to gain by bidding on. Tell me why I shouldn't just let them have it.

:) Well, well. We have five top tricks and another trick due us in hearts, although we may have to lose two tricks first. I want them to lead either black suit. So, maybe its best to duck one round of diamonds. Assuming they continue, I will win the trick and start hearts from my hand.

;) A weak 2 bid followed by two passes is NOT the same as 1♠-P-2♠-P P-??? BECAUSE an 8+ card fit has not been established. Therefore, a bid in the passout seat has to be stronger than a typical balance situation - rather it has to be similar to one made in direct position. Therefore, the notion of a slightly substandard 'strong jump overcall' in this circumstance is B*LLS**T.

;) Ben has the play correct. Not a good situation. First try the spades, then try the clubs starting with the high honors. Your odds here are approximately 1/3 of 2/3 (queen drops doubleton) plus the queen drops singleton and either you can pick up the suit or get three tricks and the heart finesse works. Otherwise, try for two clubs and four hearts. You can combine these chances, so your overall situation is not too bad. I'm guessing around 40%.

;) The choice of lead is, imo, not so much close as it is a crapshoot. I would have led a diamond, and that would have won, but so what? If you have a hunch, follow it.

;) Ever useful, but also ever bogus. Three thousand covers, really now! The source of this is a database that is currently unavailable, being updated so they say. The one available source from Germany found 163 covers of 'Yesterday'.

;) jdeegan has more than _____ covers of this song each by a different artist in mp3 format. What is the name of the song? How many does jdeegan have? The winners will receive a prize consisting of a copy of each song, a total of ____ different versions. If no one guesses correctly, I will post hints until someone gets it. jdeegan

;) One vote for Elvis' cover of Willie Mae Thornton's 'Hound Dog'. Honorable mention for the Beatles covers of Chuck Berry's 'Roll Over Beethoven' and Buck Owens 'Act Naturally' with Ringo on the vocal. Also, Creedence Clearwater's cover of 'SuzieQ'. Do you know the most covered song of all time?

;) Geez guys. There is always going to be the next recession. The only question is when. Recessions happen when imbalances build up in the system (or so says A. Greenspan who learned this in school and then from experience). This is starting to happen - we see too many foreign exchange reserves with the Bank of China and $70 oil. But, I don't see that things are sufficiently awry as yet. Nothing like the dot.com and fiber optic cable excesses of 2000-01. Also, there is no inverted yield curve in the U.S. (I looked). As for petroleum, it is a typical mining industry. It moves in a long cycles of 25 to 30 years. The current boom looks to have a few more years left. There are no signs of an end of it yet. Also, the political risk of a major supply disruption is no longer very important now that American & British soldiers are in a position to physically occupy and control 80% of the middle east oil with ease if need be.

:( One common reason for an inverted yield curve is that there is a surge in short term borrowing from manufacturers who suddenly find that sales are falling short of expectations, and the old checking account is too low to meet payroll, etc. The polite term is that they are 'financing an unexpected inventory build up', but having been there a few times myself, it doesn't feel very good in the pit of the old stomach. Anyway, when lots of businesses start borrowing short term all of a sudden, it affects short term rates, driving them temporarily higher than long rates, sometimes by two or three hundred basis points. I don't know what is causing it these days (or even that it has been happening). It may be due to some other cause. The reason people watch this so closely is that it signals the start of an inventory driven recession long before any government data are available. Look for some other reason why this might be happening. The most likely other explanation is that the Fed is tightening, thus affecting short rates, while long term rates remain low due to ??? possibly weak loan demand.

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=s76432hq86dakcak3&s=saq985h109d653cj102]133|200|Scoring: IMP 1♠-P-2♠-P P-Dbl-3♠(as planned)-P P-P[/hv] :( Disaster! I bid 2♠ planning on bidding more at the least provocation (following the LOTT). Partner (a BBO expert in an indy) passed. RHO balanced with a double. As planned, I bid 3♠ and it went all pass. Given that my 3♠ call indicated good, long trumps and a max, should partner have bid 4♠?