Two Unusual Autobiographies -- Cheever and Ellroy

I have recently read two unusual biographies, unusual because of a specific theme which runs throughout each one. The first one is "Note Found in a Bottle: My Life as a Drinker", by Susan Cheever. Susan writes so beautifully about her personal life that I found myself wishing I had known her in her prime. I'm quite certain I would have fallen deeply in love with her.

She quit drinking in the early 1990s as she was nearing 50. This happens near the end of the book, and she doesn't say much about her new life as a sober person. She says "I live a quiet life now", and she writes of how she finds meaning in life through her two children and her relationship with God. Her book is very moving, and an easy read at only 190 pages.

The second book is "The Hilliker Curse: My Pursuit of Women", by James Ellroy. Ellroy acquired an obsession with women at the early age of seven, after seeing his mother naked, and his whole life after that is consumed with that obsession. By the time the book was published, in 2010, he had finally acquired some peace and stability in a third relationshp, after two failed marriages, but a brief check reveals that he and Erika separated in 2012. Ellroy has not written of the breakup, but in her memoir, "The Big Hurt", Erika Schickel says that Ellroy was "someone whose intensity eventually became unsustainable".

Besides the addiction to women, Ellroy writes of his other personal quirks, like a dislike of travel and a preference for dark, enclosed places. Since reading this book I have checked out some of his novels, and I have noticed that many of his characters share the same traits as he described for himself in his memoir.

"The Last Manager", by John W. Miller

This is an excellent biography of Earl Weaver (1930-2013), the legendary manager of the Baltimore Orioles, published just this year. Weaver grew up in the 1930s in a working class St. Louis niehgborhood located less than a mile from Sportsman's Park, home at that time to both the NL Cardinals and the AL Browns. His father, a dry cleaner, had the contracts to clean the uniforms of both the Cardinals and the Browns, so Earl was in and out of major league clubhouses at an early age.

Earl avidly followed the "Gashouse Gang", consisting of Dizzy and Paul Dean, Joe Medwick, Pepper Martin, and Leo Durocher. This was a time when the Cardinals were known as "America's Team"; it was both the southernmost and westernmost MLB team, so it was the closest MLB city for the whole western half of the country.

Even as a boy Earl learnd to think through strategy decisions the managers had to make. His uncle was a bookmaker, so Earl learned to apply probability theory to basic decisisons like the sacrifice bunt, the hit-and-run, and the stolen base. It took many decades for the rest of the baseball world to catch up, as by the 2010s the new science of sabemetrics, developed during the 1980s, had finally become widely accepted in the baeball world.

Earl was a standout player in high school, and upon graduation his father contacted the Browns about signing his son, but was told he was a "class-A player, tops", because he "couldn't throw or run". The Cardinals were more positive, offerng Earl $175 a month plus a $1,500 bonus. Earl signed, making him a pro at age seventeen.

Earl spent thirteen years in the minors, never cracking the show. His best chance was in 1952, when he seemed set to make the Cardinals as a back-up second baseman. But 35-year-old Eddie Stanky had been hired as the player-manager, and Stanky chose himself over Earl as the back-up second baseman.

Earl started managing in 1956 while still a player. He managed eleven and a half seasons in the minors. He major legue managerial career began in 1968 mid-season when he took over as the Orioles manager. He retired after the 1982 season, but came back two years later for two final lackluster seasons. Despite the last two disappointing years, his lifetime major league winning perentage was .583.

Weaver was a managerial genius, prioritizing on-base average, strike throwing, and elite defense before these things were fashionable. He got the most out of his entire roster with masterful platooning, always working to get the right people in the right positions to excel. Miller's biograophy superbly captures the essence of Weaver's remrkable life.

Trump's Frivolity

Word came down this week that a federal appeals court has upheld a penalty of nearly $1 million against President Donald Trump and attorney Alina Habba, concluding they committed “sanctionable conduct” by filing a frivolous lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and former FBI Director James Comey. The three-judge panel which issued the unanimous opinion included a Trump appointee.

What is most significant to me about this ruling is that the appellate court concluded that the district court judge who originally ruled against Trump had properly considered Trump’s “pattern of misusing the courts” when deciding to sanction Trump and Habba. Trump has a long history of abusing the courts, and I'm encouraged to see that the court system is finally holding him to account.

None of the major news networks reported on this, as far as I know, and I had to find out through an article at politico.com. This is an area which the networks need to pay more attention to. People need to be made aware that if you file frivolous lawsuits in this country, you will be punished. We don't require that lawsuit losers pay the winning side's fees and costs, as the Brits do, but we do assess those fees and costs when the losing side has taken a positon which is not based on fact and law, and is not asserted in good faith.

"Detour" (dir: Edgar Ulmer, 1945)

This was a small-budget independent film, made for less than $100,000 in 1945 (equivalent to about $1,800,00 today). Since 1945 it has become a classic film noir, restored so that today's audience can enjoy it. It is now in the public domain, freely available to all.

The plot centers around a piano player who is hitch-hiking from New York to Los Angeles to join the singer he is in love with. The ending, in which the protagonist is picked up by the Highway Patrol, is completely bogus, made necessary by the absurd motion picture code of the time, which requried that nobody can be depicted as getting away with a crime.

The short run time of only 66 minutes adds to the appeal of this movie, as it does not require a large time investment on the part of the viewer.

Findlay Duplicate Bridge, 11/14/25

An eventful Friday afternoon at Findlay dupliate bridge. Ron and I got there in tme to catch the tail end of Jim's lesson time. He was talking about the Rule of Nine, something I'd never heard of. The Rule of Nine is a guideline for deciding whether to convert a partner’s takeout double into a penalty double by passing. You add together three factors: the level of the contract, the number of cards you hold in the opponents’ trump suit, and the number of honors you hold in that suit (counting the 10 as an honor). If the total is nine or more, you should pass and let the double stand for penalties. If it’s eight or less, you should bid instead. The application occurs most often after weak 2 opening bids.

And then it was time to play bridge. We had five full tables, meaning we woud be playing 27 hands. There were many interesting hands, with five slams bid and made. Ron & I scored 47 points, for a decent 43.5% of the possible points. Here is a hand-by-hand analysis of how we did.

Board 1. We set 3NT by one, but only got bottom board as the other N-S pairs got 100, 100, 150, and 200.

Board 2. We went down one at 6 spades. The bidding went 2 clubs, 3 spades, 3NT. 4 spades, 6 spades. I probably shoud have bid 4 clubs instead of 3NT. My jump to 6 spades was an impulsive move, based on my frustration at having missed out on several slams earlier in the session, and based on fatigue (it was the last round). Jo and John were the only couple that found the best contract of 6 clubs. But Jo graciously points out that, but for a bad trump split, 6S would have made and we would have had top board.

Board 3. Ron went down one at 3 diamonds for bottom board.

Board 4. I made 4 spades, tying for top board.

Board 5. We set 4 diamonds, again tying for top board.

Board 6. They bid 2S and made 4. One N-S pair (Mike & Arlene) bid the 4 for top N-S pair, while we tied with 3 others for top E-W pair.

Board 7. They bid 4S and made 5. We tied with 2 others for bottom board. One pair only made 4, while Jo & John bid the slam and went down 1.

Board 8. We bid 2NT and made 4. Ron inexplicably bid only 2NT after my 1NT opening, and with only 15 points I had to pass. We beat a pair who went down, but lost out to the others.

Board 9. I played 4S and made 5. Two others did the same, and we three tied for bottom board. Bob & Karen bid and made a minor suit slam, while Merrie & Richard bid and made 6NT for top board.

Board 10. We set 3NT by one, for 3 points.

Board 11. They bid 2H, making 3. Three N-S pairs only made 2, so got only one point.

Board 12. I played 2D, making 3. Same with 3 other boards. Bob & Karen made 3 of a major for top board.

Board 13. We set Jim & Kathleen's 3NT by one. Game was made at the other tables, so we got top board.

Board 14. I went down 1 at 4S, tying for bottom board. Ann & Nancy stopped short of game, while the other two pairs made game.

Board 15. I played 4 spades and made 5. This was top board as Jim & Kathleen failed to cash an outside Ace.

Board 16. Ron went down one at 3NT, tying us for bottom board. Clarence and Teresa were the only pair to bid and make a game.

Board 17. We set 3H by two, but our 100 points was bottom board, as the other boards were 120-170-200-200.

Board 18. Rom made 3NT. Two pairs did the same, while the other two made 4.

Board 19. They played 4H, making 5. Same with one other board, while two boards were held to 4. Bob & Karen bid slam and were set by Jo & John.

Board 20. They played 3NT, making 4. Same with three other boards, while Jim & Kathleen held their opponents to 3 for top board.

Board 21. I played 3C, making 4. Bob & Karen stole the bid from Jo & John and made a part score for top board.

Board 22. They payed 1NT and made 3. We got -150 points; the others were -110, -110, -140, and -170.

Board 23. We set 3H by one. The other N-S pairs all played Spade contracts, three gong down and one (Ann & Nancy) making it.

Board 24. I played 4H, making 6. Same result on all the other boards!

Board 25. I played 4NT, making 6. My 4NT bid was intended to be Blackwood, but I was told I should have used Gerber as NT had alrady been bid. Two pairs bid and made the small slam.

Board 26. We got top board as our opponents, Bob & Karen, played 3D and made 6. Slams were also made at the other boards, but only games were bid.

Board 27. Ron played 5S, making 7. Same result at two other boards, while two boards only made 6. Nobody bid the slam.

"The Last Crooked Mile" (dir: Philip Ford, 1946)

This movie was based on a radio play, and as such has all the characters found in those old-time radio dramas--the cynical, hard-boiled private eye, the beautiful and elegant dame, the long-suffering "girl-next-door" dame, and the usual collection of policemen, bankers, and insurance reps. The snappy dialogue keeps things interesting for the viewer throughout. The down side is the too pat resolution of the mystery, when the private eye reveals who the "bad guys" are, but how he managed to figure this out remains a mystery as there have been no hints during the movie. The short run time of 67 minutes is a plus.

Yesterday's Final Jeopardy Wagers

The scores yesterday going into Final Jeopardy were, from left to right, $22,800, 10,800, and 15,600. The champ wagered $8,401, the standard wager, ensuring the win if he got it right, even if the second-place guy bet it all. When he got the answer wrong and the second-place guy bet nothing, the champ lost.

Someone on the Facebook Jeopardy Fan Group posted that the champ's bet was a mistake. an absurd comment. The actual mistakes were made by the other two players. The secod-place guy could have safely bet up to $1,200, ensuring the win if he and the champ both got it wrong. The third-place player bet $5,000, but she should have bet $6,000, ensuring the win if she got it right and the other two missed it.

If the champ had figured that the other guy would make the sophisticated bet of no more than $1,200, then he could have ensured the win by betting no more than $5,999.