joshs

Art you are misreading something. No one cuebid 5H in our actual auction, and partner having 0 aces was not possible as he opened 1S and I had the 20 count with only 1 ace. If the partnership is missing 3 aces, then we have at most 28 points, hence partner has an 8 count, with 0 aces and no shortness. hence partner has at least 1 ace. The main question is should he be quebidding with: xxxxx Kxxx Ax Ax (slam is very good) or JTxxx Ax AJxx xx (slam is slightly worse than 50-50 double dummy, but they sometimes lead a heart away from the K) or JTxxx Kxx Axx Ax (slam is great) Probably we should be playing 3S as asking shape here....

Here were the actual hands, and my "bad" auction: [hv=n=sqjxxxhkxdajxxcxx&s=sakxxxhqjtxdkqckq]133|200|[/hv] 1S-2N-3C(min,11-14ish)-3D(relay)-3H(no shortness)-3S(waiting)-4S-5C-5D-5S and Marc thought I was demanding him to bid 6 with a heart control, and I thought I was merely inviting. I honestly think that I should have passed 4S since Marc would have likely qbid with 2 aces having already limited his hand. Of course on this hand rkc would have kept us out, but doesn't quite solve all my problems. I was afraid that if the auction went: 1S-2N-3C-3D-3H-4C-4S-5D-5H-5S I might be implying some need for trump help. We sadly were not on firm enough grounds on this auction. It comes down to what hands will bid 3S and what hands will Qbid immediately....Probably, in the context of our normal agreements, 3S should be a mild slam try (in the context of the auction) and Qbidding a serious slam try and 3N natural since non-serious is not needed when 3S is available there for that purpose.

You Hold: AKxxx QJTx KQ KQ White vs Red at BAM Partner opens 1S (we open most 5332 11's at these colors) You bid 2N (Jacoby) He bids 3C (Any Min) You bid 3D (Asking Shortage) He bids 3H (None) Now what? Plan the auction.... If it means anything your rkc is 0314 with spiral scan followups. Qbidding below game is not manditory. You can Qbid 1'st or second round controls as you see fit, although you generally Qbid up the line unless strong enough to force to the 5 level.

I think the hesitation does not suggest anything. Partner might have been considering passing 2S, bidding 2N (a relay I presume), jumping to 3N or jumping to 4S. If partner had x Axx AKQJxx xxx 4C goes past your best game. Really, I think the hesitation here is a non-issue....

Basic statistics was really not taught at any level in my education. E.g. A. Not taught in High School B. Not taught as part of a Math Undergrad degree C. Not taught in any of my official course for my math PhD (although I did audit 2 stats classes) I did learn a little bit about the Normal Distribution in my physics courses. For the record, my experience in aerospace, is less than 10% of engineers ever studied any stats, and a lot less actually know any stats. Of the folks I interview for my current work (stats for finance) probably 50% of the PhDs actually know even these sort of basic things... P.S. In the spirit of being pedantic, poll results follow a bernulli distribution not a normal distribution. The key fact is that as the number of trials gets large, and the sample mean is sufficiently far away from 0 or 1, then the bernulli gets really close to the gaussian. Of course a gaussian is unbounded, and bernulli's are between 0 and 1, which is why you clearly have problems using the approximation near 0 and 1... BTW, Ian Ayres book, Super Crunchers is a good layman's intro to a lot of this stuff and discussed polling and many other applications for statistics.

I never even thought of these as 2 way club systems. I have been playing the same way with Marc Umeno for years (although we open our better minor with a weak NT)... I do credit Bjorn for this. Basically Bjorn moved to NYC, discussed x-fers over 1C with Chris Willienkin, Chris mentioned it to Marc, Marc mentioned it to me, and I said, of course thats the right way of doing things if you are going to play walsh, and wrote up some notes... What Bjorn used to play back in Sweeden was a 2 way club where 1C was something like 10-12 bal OR a strong hand. In the systems cited, the 1C opening has a continous range over the same range as the standard american 1C opening.

Now thats funny!

I am waiting for the book: Bell and Me

Really??? I think Welland-F/W and G-W all play a strong 2C, with 1C being clubs or one of many balanced ranges. I do not think that they open 1C on say, 6 hearts, and a 22 count. It is not a polish club, since there is no strong hands (other then balanced ones) in the 1C opening.

Since I live for good gossup, I hear that Zia will be playing with Hamman on Nickell and thus Michael Rosenberg is in need of a new partner...

This is basically what Lanzerotti and Buratti play, maybe Bocchi and Deboin did also.

Classic Bert and Ernie: Bert: "Hey, you've got a banana in your ear!" Ernie: "What?" Bert: "I said, YOU'VE GOT A BANANA IN YOUR EAR!" Ernie: "What? I can't hear you; I've got a banana in my ear!" Another Classic: Ernie walks in and sees Bert and a Pigeon in front of a checkers board. Bert: "What are you doing?" Ernie" I am teaching the pigeon to play checkers" Bert "Wow thats amazing, that must be the smartest pigeon in the world" Ernie" No he is not that smart, we have already played 10 games, and he has only won twice...." B) Jim Henson was a genius!

Why bother? Idiots like you were ignored and marginalized back in the days when they called themselves "John Birchers". I'm perfectly content to ignore your boviating now that you fashion yourselves "Ron Paul supporters". Hofstadter's article "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" is every bit as true today as when he wrote it 40+ years ago. For what its worth I admire Richard Hoftstader. I also admire Douglas Hoftstader. But then again, I admire Wile E Coyote. Or is it Willey?

the best I have so far is: Person 1 always abstains, and the other 3 ignore what is on his head. Of the other 3, someone votes IFF the other 2 are the same, in which case he selects the other color So of the 3 hats, we win all the 2-1's (only the 1 votes), and lose the 3-0's. So we win 75% of the time. I can't seem to do any better by including the 4'th guy so far...

Well here it seems that you only want 1 person to guess most of the time and having more than 1 person guesses reduces your expectations. So it seems that the optimal strategy is: If you see 3 hats of the same color, guess the opposite. Otherwise Pass. This wins in 4 of the 5 cases when you guess RRRG (person 4 guess and is right) RRGR (person 3 guesses and is right) RGRR (person 2 guesses and is right) GRRR (person 1 guesses and is right) RRRR (they all guess and are all wrong) And the same with the R's and G's switched. So you win with all the 3-1's, lose with the 4-0's, and don'tbet with the 2-2's. There are 8/16 3-1's There are 2/16 4-0's There are 6/16 2-2's So your expectations is 6/16=3/8 per turn I haven't thought about an optimality proof. Oh woops, I thought you don't lose anything if no one guesses. So this solution is clearly not right if you lose unless you have at least 1 right and have 0 wrong....

This isn't close, auction 2 is much safer. 3 key differences: 1. In auction 2, neither opponent has 5 spades, and RHO doesn't have 4 spades. This is not true in auction 1. 2. In auction 2, I have already limited myself, and the range on 2S the second time is tighter. 3. Lets suppose responder is 3145 and opener has a good 6 card heart suit. If Opener opens 2H with 10 and responder has 16 (and probably even with 17) this should get passed out with 26 high. There really are not combos that add to 26 in which responder does not make an immediate 2/1 bid with this shape or opener jump rebids 3H (15 and a very good suit is probably enough) or responder bids an INV 2N next. Consequently, in the second auction the opps are limited to about 24, while in the first they can have up to 26.

Well here it seems that you only want 1 person to guess most of the time and having more than 1 person guesses reduces your expectations. So it seems that the optimal strategy is: If you see 3 hats of the same color, guess the opposite. Otherwise Pass. This wins in 4 of the 5 cases when you guess RRRG (person 4 guess and is right) RRGR (person 3 guesses and is right) RGRR (person 2 guesses and is right) GRRR (person 1 guesses and is right) RRRR (they all guess and are all wrong) And the same with the R's and G's switched. So you win with all the 3-1's, lose with the 4-0's, and don'tbet with the 2-2's. There are 8/16 3-1's There are 2/16 4-0's There are 6/16 2-2's So your expectations is 6/16=3/8 per turn I haven't thought about an optimality proof.

Certainly, the odds are better if they either: All say the same number (100 chances of getting 1 number right) or, Split up into groups of 2, 5, 10, 20, 25 (pick one) and each group guesses a different number that they can see. Are they not? No. It's not such an easy problem. If you have no idea how to attack the problem then I'd recommend looking at my hints and trying to solve it for 3 prisoners. Guessing the solution is unlikely to work. But you wrote your hints in invisible ink.... B) Anyway, here is my algorithm for N people:

Certainly, the odds are better if they either: All say the same number (100 chances of getting 1 number right) or, Split up into groups of 2, 5, 10, 20, 25 (pick one) and each group guesses a different number that they can see. Are they not? No. It's not such an easy problem. If you have no idea how to attack the problem then I'd recommend looking at my hints and trying to solve it for 3 prisoners. Guessing the solution is unlikely to work. But you wrote your hints in invisible ink.... B)

with two prisoners the problem is trivial. One guesses 1, one guess 2, at least one of them has to be right, so they go free. With the problem as stated, each prisoner guess a unique number from 1 to 100, at least one of them has to be right, so they all go free. Surely this is not so stupid to be that easy. The problem needs to be restated... Ahh Ben, You are not even coming close to solving the problem even in the case of 2 prisoners. You gave 2 people, and you had person A guess 1, and person B guess 2. If person A had 2 on his forehead, and person B has 1 on his forehead you lost. Also, note the problem said that numbers can be assigned more then once (so not all numbers had to be used)...

Well actually I passed 1D after 1C-P-1D with a poor control balanced hand with something like KQJxx of diamonds and a 16 count. I admit that the action was very anti-partnership, and was possibly a losing action on average, but it wasn't nearly as bad as passing 1S with this hand....

While I certainly beleive that the cleveland fed governors know more about economics than I do, they obviously know less about what is a definition. In physics, we know that Force=Mass* Acceleration in Chemistry we know that PV=nRT (for an ideal gas) There are seperate definitions for each term here. The relationship between the abstract quantities constitutes a theory. There is a general definition of inflation. And there is a theory about the cause. Even if everyone completely agrees with the theory, that does not mean that the theory is part of the defintion. Thats like saying that "the orbits of the planets is a motion, around the earth, caused by superimposing circular paths." -E.G The Ptolomaic model of Orbits. the defintion of orbits is destinct from the explanation. the phrase "caused by" really should never be part of a definition. Here there really are some substantive differences between the monitarists, which obviously is the school of thought subscribed to by the Cleveland Fed, and the Kensyians, into the causes and nature of inflation, especially over the short term. Anyway, Inflation is a notoriously difficult thing to measure, since a. prices of different goods change at different rates b. the mix of goods people buy change c. the quality of the goods change over time Anyway, as you point out in a different post, and I think Mike misunderstood, there is a big difference between a perminant change in the money supply, and a short term change. To make a perminant change, one could a. print more money b. burn or distroy existing money c. create a new currancy with is exchanged for the old currancy at a fixed convernsion rate All of these have the effect of merely "changing the units" of money. This results in a uniform effect on all prices. (with a few technical exceptions that have to do with the fact that money is not infititely divisable, so if you say, get rid of the penny, it does effect prices, but not uniformly. 2 cent gumballs will probably cost 5 cents after the change which is a 150% increase). the other way of changing the money supply is short term. this is the amount of money that is currently in circulation. Imagine the following, 10Billion dollars gets put in a vault that can't be opened for 20 years, at which time someone gets it (or we all share it). the 10 Billion dollars has disappeared from the economy temporaily so no one can spend it, or lend it to someone else to spend or do anything with it for now. On the other hand, the money will be available in 20 years. As there is less money available now to purchase products, there are 2 effects here: a. since the money available to spend has decreased, prices have to drop, since someone with $5 available will be more likely to spend $3 on a beer than someone who has $4 , assuming both of them have other things that they want or need to buy. Effectively, decreased money available results in decreased demand for goods at any given price level, and prices have to fall to reach a new equilibrium since demand has fallen. The exact effect is complicated here and may not be completely uniform across all products in the short term b. Imagine two situations. Situation 1 is that this 10 Billion was all taken from one person and situation 2 is that it was taken uniformly from everyone. b1. This person, who will get 10Bil in 20 years, wants to spend money now. Thus he agrees to gives someone part (or all) of the 10Bil in 20 years in exchange for some amount of money now. the conversion between these two is the effective interest rate (I will call this the discount rate). As there is now increased demand for money now then there was without this person's request, the "cost" of getting money now (the discount rate) has to increase. Thus interest rates goes up and everyone borrows less and spends less. b2. The effect is the same if the money was taken from everyone, and is returned to everyone in 20 years. there is an increased demand for money now, and thus an increase in interest rates and a decrease in spending. Note the 2 different effects here are linked: prices falling (or rising slower) do to a short term decrease in the money supply, and interest rates going up. The main way the fed controls the money supply, is by buying or selling securities. When they buy securities the money goes into the economy (and leaves "the vault") thus increasing the money supply. When they sell securities the money leaves the economy and goes into the vault. When the money goes into the vault, in general, there is less money available to spend, so inflation slows and demand for money increases causing rising interest rates. Hopefully I have this straight now...

While I agree with 98% of that paragraph (most of it reflects the ideas of sportsmanship and fair play), I don't think that: "learn about other cultures" and "leave your politics at home" are even remotely compatable. if everyone left their politics at home, how could I learn about them? How can I learn that there are ranges of opinions and values coming from different countries, and what those values are? Did you think that culture does not include the range of values in that society? Now, perhaps, symplified slogans from the podium are not nearly as effective as substantive discussions with your fellow "athletes" for sharing your "culture." But thats another matter (its a debate about quality of communication vs quantity).... To me, the main goal of having international competitions are for people to see: "Wow there are these people out there who share my love of sport and my sense of fairplay, but somehow are different than me. I think I should learn more about them." Note: The reason to play in international competitions is to have the opportunity to compete at a high level in your given sport. This is distinct from the reason to hold these events. P.S. I wonder how nice life would be on Annares? It would be interesting to find out...

Yes but the fed is doing just the opposite...increasing the money supply. :) btw I did the opposite in the 80's shipping from Germany to the USA....it is quite the hassle... Yeah but the Fed just started increasing the money supply 6 weeks ago after years of decreasing it. So far the european banks have not followed suit. I have not looked at the market implied forward rates on the LIBOR recently, but perhaps there is an expectation that the european central bank is going to follow suit (which would cause the relative long term rates to not change much since the fed started lowering rates). Anyway, there is a complex topic since there is an equilibrium between: a. prices of goods b. demand for goods (now and later) c. costs of labor d. costs of capital e. exchange rates and other economic factors with some large inefficiencies built in in the form of the cost to tranport an item from one location to another... Furthermore, I definitely over simplified before since while lowering the rates correlates with a slower time discounting of money (the money in my pocket loses value at a slower rate) the real interest rate (interest rate-inflation rate) that I can receive can go up or down, and it makes sense to convert your (unused) money to whatever currancy gives you the highest real rate of return, so if no one was trying to keep money in the pocket and spend it near term, the real rate of return should reach equilibrium between countries unless there is an expectation for increased demand of one currancy over another in the future. The day I ever understand this topic fully, I will be a happy man...

I actually would like to organize a group that buys cars in the US, and resells them in europe. Prices on autos currently are about 1-1, and the euro is worth $1.50US. So after shipping costs and import taxes I figure we can make a 15-20% profit. (Does anyone know the Tarriffs?) Possiblly, there are other items out there with this kind of arbtrage opportunity which we can sell which are cheaper to ship... As to inflation and exchange rates, here is my over simplification.... The process has been: a. the fed sees inflationary pressure b. the fed increases their target rates. (decreases the money supply) c. this decreases inflationary pressure e. with higher rates than the euro (pick your favorite currency), the value of the currency is decreasing faster with time than the euro, so I would rather have a euro in my pocket than a dollar. Consequently, the relative values of currency changes until there is an equilibrium. Note: 1. The way the fed effects the interest rates is by buying treasury bills (increasing the money supply since they are paying with cash) which lowers rates or selling treasury bills (decreasing the money supply) which raises rates 2. rasing rates, makes it harder to borrow money which slows the grouth of the economy 3. this is done because when an economy is growing too quickly, pricing ineffeciences occur which causes price inflation (I respond to your price change then you respond to my price change and so on) Important Note: There are other factors that influence exchange rates than just the relative interest rates. In general, if you want to buy goods from a country, you need the correct currency. If there is extra demand for products (at the current price) from a country, this raises the value of the currency, until price and demand are in equilibrium. As to why european prioducts are cheaper in the US than in europe its either: a. they are cheaper to make here (less taxes, lower salaries) b. they are making so much money in europe, that even if they cut there profit margin in order to sell things at US competative prices, they still make money...