joshs

1. x showed the minors, and the cue-bid says "I am interested in a slam, do something intellegent" 2. I think its rkc for hearts. its not totally unreasonable to play it for minors, but its not a normal agreement (you know partner has 6+ hearts, so 4H is a playable spot, having a better fit at the 5 level is only hypothetical even with 6-5 in the minors, and its 1 level higher). This hand normally has only 2 hearts or perhaps was 2344 and thought that they might be better off in a minor, or defending spades. 3. Slam try, agree's hearts 4. RKC

I also love GNR's cover of Knocking on Heaven's door.

Ahh utility curves. Now if you bring up Pareto optimums I would accuse you of talking dirty. :)

I am still in morning over Tribe and Ednaswap...

ROFL. I think the original had the fireworks (over Baltimore) in the background also. But Guitar fireworks are cooler! One of the challenges in this game is figuring out what was a classic in the first place. For instance, hendrix's cover of All Along the Watchtower is clearly a classic but is Dylan's original? Now I am a big Dylan fan and not a big Hendrix fan... It doesn't pass either "classic" test for me: a. Everyone knows the song (who here has even heard Dylan's orginal?) OR b. It is frequently covered (so it has become part of the cannon as a written song, but not as a recorded song) Along those lines these don't qualify for me: Mannford Mann's Cover of Bruce Springstein's Blinded by the Light (who has heard the Orginal?) Natalie Imbruglia's Cover of Ednaswap's Torn (do you even know who Ednaswap is?). I actually think the original was slightly better... Someone mentioned The Bangles cover of Hazy Shade of Winter. Suzzanna Hoffs has made a career of producing great covers. I especially love "All I want" Orginally by The Lightning Seeds (unless you listened to alternative rock from the late 80's early 90's you will not know them).

I am never sure what exactly is a classic. I don't think a classic means it was written in the 1970's or earlier. My vote for the best cover is a folk classic, and most of you probably never heard of it. "The Kid", Orginal by Buddy Mondlock, Covered by almost every contempory folk singer, Covered best by Dar Williams and Lucy Kaplansky on the Cry Cry Cry allbum. Also maybe obscure (where obscure means, not known to absolutely everyone): Hallelujah. Orignal by Leonard Cohen, Cover by Jeff Buckley. If you are a west wing fan the cover was playing the entire scene when the agent protecting CJ Cregg was killed. A scene (and fitting music) thats impossible to forget. Definitely not Obscure: Sweet Jane, Orginal by the Velvet Underground, Cover by the Cowboy Junkies. Its close which version is better. Eye in the Sky, Orginal by Alan Parsons Project, Cover by Jonatha Brooke. The cover totally shows why the orginal was a great, but overproduced, song. I prefer the orginal of Hazy Shade of Winter but the cover is great....

Its fine to think in net present value terms, the problem is at any one time, how do I compute current value (before I convert that to present value via the geometric average inflation rate). For instance, what is the value of being alive but not producing anything. The value of free time? Etc. Lets consider 3 scenarios: Scenario A: I work to 65, I spend the next 15 years traveling and enjoying life and live in good health to 80 when I die. At which point, half of my life savings remains which is given to my kids. Scenario B: I work to 65, get sick because the water in my town is poluted, live 15 more years with medical care. The money I would have spent traveling is paid to medical professionals. At 80 I die, and half my life savings is given to my kids. Scenario C: I work until age 65 and then die due to being poisoned from the polluted water in my town ( death was sudden) and I gave all of my life savings to my kids. Judging from the money people spends on health care and keeping in shape and other lifestyle decisions people makes, its clear that the market greatly values scenario A over B and C, but how do you quantify that value? (I think this is possible to do but very tricky). The net amount of wealth in society is the same in all 3 scenarios. The point is that total net wealth is not a good measure of current value, so you have to be careful in figuring out what the variable is that you are trying to optimize. (As another example, consider 2 scenarios one where everyone works 4 hours a day and the other where everyone works 12 hours a day to produce the same wealth. The first scenario has much higher "value" than the second...)

Go heels! Number 1 this year and 13 players deep!

This is getting funny. First as to taxation: there are multiple types of taxes. There are taxes that primary purpose is to raise revenue. There are taxes whose primary purpose is to effect behavior (large tarrifs on chinese imports, for instance). These when effective raise no money. There are taxes that directly charge for a service rendered There are taxes that collect money to pay for something AFTER the fact (Think tolls for crossing a bridge.) etc. Further who pays, is at question. Let me give an example. Lets say my town has a beach. At my beach I have lifeguards. It also costs money to keep the beach clean, and keep the water clean and safe to swim in. We can charge everyone in the town money for the beach. This tax can be per head or progressive. We can charge a use fee for the beach. We can charge a use fee for the beach and a large fine for littering (enough to also pay for sufficiently many enforcement officials). We can have the town pay for the lifeguard costs but not for the littering costs. We can levy a supplimental tax on the town for cleanup only after the beach gets polluted (if we didn't have anyone responsable that we can fine) or we can collect steady money all along. etc. (Keep in mind that someone can polute the beach without even going on the beach.) What should I do? This depends on the optimization problem you want to solve. And this in turn depends on the values of the community. There is nothing insrinsic that says you should: a. min total cost to townspeople given no pollution b. min total cost given no pollution and kids use free c. min total cost given no pollution and free for all people under a certain income level d. min pollution given a fixed total cost and no one has to pay more than 0.1% of their income e. maximize revenue to town given no pollution (town can turn a profit if possible) f. minimize maximum cost to townspeople given no pollution g. maximize number of beach users (both pollution and costs are something that keep people away) etc. These are all Legitamate public goals, and from each goal you get different taxation policy.

I would have only given him AKQJ9 AKQJ AKQ A and let him gamble. Its more interesting this way...

Yes of course, Douglas. I read Richard's books in high school history class :)

I read this a number of years ago, but don't remember much about it other than I wasn't impressed with his argument. Personally, Godel's incompleteness theorem ("Any sufficiently complex (so that it at least can handle the natural numbers) formal system must contain a true proposition that can be stated within the formal system but can't be proved within the formal system." - OK, this is a loose statement of the theorem.) only says formal systems all have limitations- e.g. not set of axioms can lead to proofs of everything- there will always be true but unprovable statements. This is no more a statement that there are limitations on what a computer can know, than it is a statement about what humans can know, and neither has any bearing on whether someone or something is intellegent. Just because I can't deduce all true statements, doesn't make me not intellegent... On the other hand I have always been impressed with Richard Hofstader's book Godel, Escher, Bach. Hofstader had an interesting concept that "intellegence" comes from a complex system that has multiple levels of organization (each which symbolic processing power), with with enough feedback between the levels to change the "rules" by which the levels evolve (in the dynamical system sense). He claims that "brains", computers, ant colonies, and many other complex systems all have the basic architecture needed for intelligence to "emerge". Anyway, its a brilliant book and a very subtle argument.

Pass = I don't have anything. Its not forcing x= cards. I still call it responsive and partner is allowed to pull with lots of shape, but at this level its pretty rare for partner to pull. 5N=I think its the only grand slam try available. I have no idea how to use it for pick a slam auctions when partner has shown a 1 suited hand (if he has a second suit, so be it, but he could have bid 4N and not 5C), no other suits are currently in play, I passed previously so I don't have a strong 2 suiter, and since clubs is the lowest denomination and there are no bids between 5N and 6C its hard to suggest any other strains without bypassing clubs. If I had 1552 shape and a 10-13 count I would just be xing and taking the money (but would be thrilled if partner bids over the x). Grand slam auctions tend to be very conservative at this level. I define the grand slam try as "Bid a grand if you expected that you were making 5 when you bid 5. If you weren't sure, we might make 7, but don't bid it." This doesn't mean that you have 11 tricks in hand, just that you thought the 5C call was totally sound... The idea is to have a scheme that lets you occasionally bid a great grand without ever bidding a bad grand. 6C is of course, lets play 6C. :)

I would never get close. My auction is: 4C -x-4H-All Pass Plus good, minus bad....

6C. I am not trying for 7. Who knows if partner was bidding 5C to make, to save, or as a 2 way shot. What 5clubs shows is enough offense to believe that we are better off in 5C than defending 4S. If partner (without peaking at my hand) felt 5C was a good place to be, I am reasonably confident that 6C will not be hanging him. yes occasionally, both 5S and 6C will be down 1 (maybe even one of them down 2) since the SK is just a defensive value, but I have 5 card support and a good hand. At IMPS bidding 6C is totally clear since when you are wrong its lose 5 but when you are right its gain 12 or more....

In the first auction, partner has made a free bid so really raising doesn't promise anything more than having 4 trumps. If you wanted to invite game you can bid 3M (partner's range is pretty tight). In the auction: 1C-x-P-1H 2C I think the 2 most common styles on these auctions are: a. 4 trumps, No extras (this only applies to competing to the 2 level). b. 4 trumps, moderate extras, but doesn't promise anything close to what the raise would had RHO passed. This auction is trickier because the range on the 1H bid is much wider. So with real game interest you just have to stretch a little and bid 3H...

I guess it because I am from the US, but I didn't think the US tackle was close to worth a red card either. There were at least 5 tackles that game that were comparable and most didn't even get yellow cards. Now maybe, the refs should be calling the games tighter and ejecting more players (to protect players from injuries) but it certainly changes the game to be playing shorthanded, so this has to be done consistantly in all the matches.... As to the game, it was interesting to me that years ago the US had no skill players. Now they have quite a few players who can beat there opponent with the ball in the midfield. Just no one who can shoot straight...

Nothing is quite as pretty as the backwash. I had 2 straight days with "almost interesting hands". Sunday was almost a winkle (would have been a winkle if the A and K were switched) and last night there was this hand, except the C8 and T were switched. Here was the hand from sunday: I opened a weak 2S in 3'rd seat on: JT87xx Ax AT J75 It went all pass. I got a spade lead and we had: Q Qxx KJ9xx T9xx JT87xx Ax AT J75 At trick 1 the SQ held. Not having anything good to do I lead a club to my 7, fetching the Q. The HJ came back, Q, K, A. I played a top spade pitching a heart,RHO winning the K and LHO playing the 9. They tapped me in hearts. I cleared spades (breaking 3-3) and again they tapped me in hearts (hearts breaking 4-4). At this point I felt the DQ was off, and since I really like winkles I played for the winkle: I played off all my trumps coming down to: D: KJ9 C: T D:AT CJx If RHO had the Diamond Q and the CA he was sunk. If he bared the CA, I would cash the DA and lead a club. If he unblocked the CA I would lead a club without cashing the DA. And of course if he pitched a diamond I would have to read the position and played for the DQ to come down. Alas, LHO had the CA, and RHO had the CK and they defended correctly with RHO baring the K, and LHO squashing the K with his ace after I cashed the DA and led a club to break up the endplay. Oh well. I really like winkles. Yes I know that if LHO had the KQ he probably would have led it at some point, but you never know.

I am partial to my friends varient from my Frosh Year at Wesleyan (see I am even using Wesleyan lingo!): The song was "Oh, Hi, Ed"

Tie: The Boxer, Simon and Garfunkel Just Like Heaven, The Cure

But i to the i'th power is around .21 :)

After 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♦ - 2♠: Typical hands for responder: 1. Axx, KQxxx, KQx, xx (prelude to a diamond raise) 2. AQxx, KQxxx, x, Axx (patterning out) 3. Axx, KQJxxx, x, Axx (prelude to a heart rebid) Typical hands for a 3♣ rebid by Opener: 1. x, xx, AQxxxx, KQxx (weak 6-4; patterning out) 2. xx, xx, AKJxxx, Axx (trying to right-side the NT) A typical hands for a 3♠ rebid: AQx, x, AQxxxx, xxx (nothing better to say); I don't like a 3=2=6=2, as it crowds the auction and doesn't give responder the chance to cheply bid hand "3" above. Personally I think its wrong to bid the 4'th suit both on hands that have the suit well under control and with hands that have doubt. I really think 2N is a much better rebid on xx x AQJxxx KQxx and similar. This gives definition to 3C then 3N as showing something in clubs but not that much... After 1D-1H-2D-2S-2N- everything is natural and forcing, so if there happens to be a club fit responder will introduce clubs now... General principle, in game forcing auctions: the 4'th suit is a semi-natural punt unless partner has allready shown stuff in that suit via a NT bid, in which case its natural. Note the NT bid has to have explicity show stuff in the key suit... 1H-1N(forcing)-2S-3C(natural, decent hand, gfing)-3D(punt, 1N bid didn't show diamond values) 1H-2C(gfing)-2S-2N-3D(natural, 4531 or 4630 or 4540)

What are honors worth? Their values comes from a few factors: a. Tricks. An ace is a trick no matter how you slice it. b. Promotional value. When you have an honor, it immediately raises the rank of all the other honors in both hands. E.G. If you have the ace of spades, then the K of spades becomes like an ace. If you have the K then the QJT becomes like the KQJ. Note: promotional value is value on power. You lead your K forcing out the A, and then your Q becomes good. c. Positional value. If you don't have the ace, but you lead toward the Kx it will score half the time. Having honors in combination (in the same hand) greatly improves their positional value. KQx vs xxx will take 2 tricks half the time (assuming enough entries) while Kxx vs Qxx will take 2 tricks only when the ace is singleton or doubleton and you guess who has it. You take a lot less tricks on average with this holding. d. entries/communication. Being able to get from hand to hand without wasting tricks is valuable. If you can't get to the correct hand, the positional value of your holdings goes down and possibly the promotional value as well. For instance: Picture K vs AQJx vs Kx vs AQJx. If in the first case you need to overtake the K, you have used the K to promote the QJ but have lost the trick taking value of the K. e. timing and control. While KQJT are 3 tricks after you knock out the ace, this holding is still worse than the AKQ since you have to lose a tempo to set up your 3 tricks. If you have to give up the lead, the opps may be able to set up tricks of their own before you cash yours. WHat is the value of a stiff K relative to Kx or K and more length? 1. is the almost the same. Its worth a trick whenever partner has the A (except when its a stiff A). 2. the promotional value is almost the same as the K with length but if partner has the stiff Q or the AQ it loses its promotional value. 3. this value is completely lost 4. this value is greatly reduced since you do not have 2 way communication, and if partner doesn't have the ace, you do not have an entry (while Kx is an entry 50% of the time) and you might have to give up the trick taking value (value 1) in order to use the K to get to partner's hand 5. this value is greatly reduced since you do not have either absolute control (and A or a KQ) or positional control (protected K) Now what is Jxxxx worth? It has very little value in all 5 measures. Its trick taking value depends on the probability that partner has enough of the higher honors... Since there are no good spots, it has little promotional value.... etc.

Most interesting play and defense problems are not of the form: what card to you play at trick x, which can be easily answered Instead its usually, if a happens then I do b if c happens then I do d with lots of branch points. Most good play problems need to be presented interactively. I play this, what happens, and then you decide what to do next. Answering a question that involves ALL possible future decisions is very exausting. On the other hand, most bidding questions are compact. They involve 1 bid, or on rare occasion, a plan involving 2 bids. When its a complicated bidding sequence, it begins to get close to as complicated as a good play problem is...

Pass would have won 5 imps against 5H-x making 5 at the other table. In 5S, what is your opening lead with: A AQTxxxxx x xxx on this auction? Is the opening lead clear? (Forget that you know that dummy has a heart void).