Flem72

Or does the chart require 3+ clubs? Also: If opener's 2D rebid merely excludes certain hands, and serves as a catchall for, say 5-3-3-2, hands with D, and/or hands with 4C and no short, does the 2D rebid qualify as a "relay" within the meaning of the GCC? TIA Regards and Happy Trails, Scott Needham Boulder, Colorado, USA

We're thinking of using a 2D opener as a weak 2 in H or a couple of strong options. Where does this land on ACBL convention charts? TIA Regards and Happy Trails, Scott Needham Boulder, Colorado, USA

Here I am in Greenpoint visiting my kids. One has been here for 10 years, with a company-pushed move to Sydney for 2.5, and one has been here almost 7. The latter is now 24, declined college and moved to B'lyn just b/c that was his thing. He is now well-established in the restaurant/bar scene, but he has had to struggle. Moved 9 times: ONe of the problems is finding a good place to live; some of his were illegal; he's in a good one now, pays $1400 for about 350 sq ft, rent-stabilized. Rent-stabilized or rent-controlled is the holy grail. His advice to a newbie: Live close to where you will work, or directly on a train line, b/c getting to and from can be a bitch. Consider Queens b/c B'lyn, especially Williamsburg and Greenpoint, are now trending to money, developers very busy, wealthy Europeans paying $2500 and more /sq ft for condos. You had better enjoy walking, or get a bike. Wonderful, vibrant, pedestrian-ruled neighborhoods, full of young people mixing with older folks of whatever ethnic group lived there before the influx. Also, saw the Park Slope reference: It is indeed one of the lovliest areas in B'lyn, assuming,of course, that you have the $1 mil + required to buy one of those townhouses. Luck seems to rule when it comes to finding digs. and situations.

I'll be in NYC next week. Wondering which club and which games are best, and would appreciate any input. Regards and Happy Trails, Scott Needham Boulder, Colorado, USA

Our 2/1 MW agreements are that 1m-1X/3m-4m is MW, IOW when m bidder claims a strong suit. Since OP specifies a strong 1C opener, and confirms a C suit., and them says it's a real C suit, I'd like 4C here initiating MW agreements.

If this is 2/1 w/ XYZ, as I prefer to play it, 4H by N after 3D or 3H over 1S: Both are slam invitational. The latter is a Very Good Suit, and most of the time a very distributional, control-rich hand, the former a long "normal" suit, HCPs. The Hs are about 1/2 a card away from VGS because there could easily be 2 losers opposite a small stiff. I've told my story, and partner has a call.

Q♥, K♠. Q♣ ? I'm a K+ and a ♥ card better than I might be (though I wish I held ♥10), and I think I'm willing to play 5N. What about 4♠, then 5♥ over 4N? Partner could hold KQx Qx QJTxxx xx or Qxx xx KQJTx Qxx or anything in between. If the last one is Kx xx KQJTxx Qxx, 6♦ is in the picture, though some would bid 4♦ instead of 3N with that.. What was the responding hand?

I think waiting for a solid suit wastes bidding opportunities. I prefer to make these jumps with a Very Good Suit (some specific auctions require a truly solid 6+ suit), and my standard for a VGS would be 5+ winners and at most 1 loser opposite a small stiff. This is informative enough that partner can evaluate his cards, and enables the showing of a source of tricks much more frequently than the solid suit requirement. When I'm playing SJS or XYZ, the HCP requirement varies a bit with the solidity factor. As always, YMMV.

Travelling w/o a 'puter and can't figure out how to achieve the "new content" page for the forums. Is there a way? Thx in advance.

Many more 3♠ bidders, but the doublers, IMHO, seem heavily weighted toward very high level players.

"Obama and Kerry claim several times in the last 48 hours, that their evidence is very strong." If anyone in the WH advisory corps has a shred of a sense of humor, s/he will suggest that Colin Powell reveal the evidence.

Assuming one of the "normal" versions of XYZ, as I understand them, & Walshish (O may conceal one or both 4M; R bids D first only with GF values) with R = 4-2-5-2 (also, I would think, 2-4-5-2). After 1C-1D/1N: 2C = you would've bid 1S first, so Does Not Exist with any hand that does not want to play 2D (except in one iteration, a big self splinter hand). 2D = Checkback, GF+: You will discover if O holds 5C or 4M or D support or none of the above. 2M = 5+D-4M, GF+, natural bidding to follow. In one p'ship, 2D denies 4M; in all of them 1D with a GF hand claims 5+D, and using the 2M route is shape, e.g. 4M-5D-(3-1) so the given (4-2)-5-2 shapes would use 2D. Most of these hands can and will decide to blast NT in order to avoid too much info leakage. So, yes, 2D and 2S are different, one asking one telling, but 2D is possible. Of course awm's non-Walsh version is workable also. Without completely parsing this, I don't see anything wrong with using 2D and 2M the way you suggest. I kind of like our shape agreements though--"shape before strength" and all that, and I don't think one needs the slam zone tip-off right away.

First question (answers 1, 2 & 3): A recent first-time partner expressed with great animation his view that in classic 2/1, going back to Hardy, this kind of picture bid has been defined as a 12-14 count, something like HHxx in M, HHxxx in X, 2-2 in the others with no controls there. Maybe only Hxxx in M. I believe the discussions have left more room for other shapes, say Hxx in M, HHxxx in X, Qxx Qx as an example. What do you think? (I'd appreciate comments, especially references to opinions of 2/1 authors. The only one I found in my quick run-through was on p. 98 of Hardy's Yellow Book (revised), which is a broader definition more similar to my view. EDIT: explicit example at p. 56 of Hardy/Lawrence _Standard Bidding for the 21st Century_ shows KQx xx xxx AKJxx for R's jump to 4♠) Next question (answers 4 & 5): Does/should the major support require Hxx as a minimum?

cute.

Understand. But I spend/have spent a lot of time there. I'm reminded of a piece I read somewhere, before BHO actually, that analyzed last-half 20th century Chicago politics in light of what the pols learned from the mob: Isolate the head guy except for a couple of chief "deputies" and operate under established priorities/rules/guidelines more or less independently and as aggressively as conditions will allow, Us vs. Them. Allows the formation of a bunch of mostly independent entities linked pretty much only by bag men and cash flow. Sound familiar?

Maybe you'd care precisely to describe the situations to which you refer? just so your (implied) assertions can be evaluated? My general view: Politics is the dirtiest game. Played largely by lawyers, it is open to the same kinds of abuses that haunt the legal process, and it is virtually free from any kind of monitoring -- except when someone is put in a position where s/he thinks s/he HAS to testify or leak. And for the record, this administration is better at no-holds-barred politics than any in my memory.

Here's an honest question, one unanswered by my study of American history : Do we suppose there has been any administration that has not used targeted assassination and "torture" (trying to avoid definition kerfluffle) as a tool in sovereign conflict?

Repeating: The rules of engagement in any conflict are established by the least-principled participant. Conflicts involving the interests of nation-states are all dirty in one way or another b/c the stakes are ultimate. Even a relatively insignificant sovereign act, such as the negotiation of a treaty, is a conflict between competing interests that will not lead to a zero-sum outcome. Interesting and ever-present moral question in the most significant of sovereign conflicts: In order to preserve the constitution, does one take action directly at odds with its fundamental values and ideals? It's a Col. Jessup kind of commitment; let's hope most called to make it don't trivialize it as did the good colonel. IOW, if you are going to sin, sin big. OTOH, I suppose one could simply take the high ground and withdraw from the conflict. IMHO, we call that "losing."

Yes, but it always wins the bidding contests :rolleyes:

Opener: KQxx -- AJxx AJxxx Responder: xx AKJTxx KQx Kx 6D looks pretty good, but it seems to me that someone has to take a leap of faith, at least playing a 2/1 with 4thSF or XYZ.

Winstonm, ole buddy, I don't need advice from you on this. I source widely, and in fact most of the sources you and your fellow travelers (no "commie" implications) cite I have long since dumped as unreliable/biased/whatever term you choose. But I'm glad to know that you use other sources also -- and they should include Fox, if only as a 'know your enemy" thing, as I view MSNBC, HuffPo and a couple others.

To be clear: Is the underlying fact in all of this simply that Karl's reportage is what the posters' sources refer to as "Republican leaks"? and that in point of fact, no "Republicans" have represented the summaries to be quotes at all, except by reference to Karl's (and, I suppose, Atkinson's) reportage? and that Karl's reportage contained some ambiguities that have now been characterized by some as outright lying manipulation of email contents by Republican congressfolks/senators/ operatives/spinmeisters? I'd really like to know, but , reading the posts, all I can see are intestinal walls and their contents....

OK, so now this is all mired up. I thought Karl's articles were the first source for any of this information on the talking point emails, while these articles assert that "Republicans" "leaked" Karl's summaries as quotes. Would one of you advocates please advise: First, is my characterization of assertions in the articles to which posters refer accurate? 2nd, my understanding of all this is that Karl obtained summaries of the emails from a "source' at a time when the WH was refusing to pass on the actual emails. Right? 3rd, the reports quoted above claim that Karl's summaries were "leaked" by "Republicans" on Friday (May 10? can't be today) as email contents, or quotes, right? And I assume that by "Republicans" it is meant that these people were R congressfolks/senators/ operatives/spinmeisters, not that Karl's source is/was a republican? What "Republican" did anything independently of Karl's summaries after the info was obtained by Karl, who is s/he? When the "quotes" were "leaked" by "Republicans", was the content of the "leak" explicitly sourced on Karl's reportage or was it not? or by "leaked" are we talking about event by which the info was provided to Karl by his source? Is this a situation where a "Republican" read Karl's articles, and characterized as actual quotes what Karl clearly identified as summaries? or did someone simply say, 'this is what the emails say based on Karl's reportage'? IOW, will someone please point me to a source that identifies a Republican, or a Republican source, who did whatever was done on whatever Friday we are talking about. 'Cuz I'm not finding that either. *************************** The rest of the _Politico_ report, for those who care about anal insertion and "Worlds [sic] like "quote", "on record", "for attribution", "verbatim" and the like [which] have very specific meanings in press reporting [note: three of which apparently not having been used at all,even in the looney reporting done by some in this situation]: So what's going on here? Tapper's "U.S. government source" is likely drawing attention to the discrepancy between Karl's summary of the email and the actual content of the email in order to discredit ABC's report and Karl's sources. Indeed, on Tuesday afternoon the White House accused congressional Republicans of fabricating the emails cited in Karl's report. One thing you'll learn if you study political communications: Nothing seems to work so well as using one small error in a report to discredit the entire report. CNN's "U.S. government source" must be overjoyed that Tapper used the word "inaccurate" four times** when referring to a report that is, for the most part, accurate. UPDATE (4:50 p.m.): Karl has addressed the new email, which he says "helps fill out the portrait of the inter-agency deliberations that went into shaping the now-discredited talking points." He writes, in part: The source was not permitted to make copies of the original e-mails. The White House has refused multiple requests – from journalists, including myself, and from Republican leaders in Congress – to release the full e-mail exchanges. The differences in the two versions are being taken by some as evidence that my source sought to intentionally mislead about the extent of State Department involvement in changing the talking points. The version I obtained makes specific reference to the State Department, while the version reported by CNN references only "all of the relevant equities" and does not single out State. [...] I asked my original source today to explain the different wording on the Ben Rhodes e-mail, and the fact that the words "State Department" were not included in the e-mail provided to CNN's Tapper. [...] This was my source's response, via e-mail: "WH reply was after a long chain of email about State Dept concerns. So when WH emailer says, take into account all equities, he is talking about the State equities, since that is what the email chain was about." The White House could still clear up this confusion by releasing the full e-mail transcripts that were provided for brief review by a select number of members of Congress earlier this year. If there's "no 'there' there," as President Obama himself claimed yesterday, a full release should help his case. To be clear, I believe that Karl's report contained errors. Karl stated in one paragraph that his report was based on "summaries" of emails, but elsewhere said he had "obtained 12 different versions of the talking points" and cited "White House emails reviewed by ABC News." Karl also stated unequivocally that Rhodes "wrote an email saying the State Department's concerns needed to be addressed," and put the summary in a quote was attributed directly to Rhodes. (Schneider told POLITICO that ABC News had not reviewed emails directly and said "Karl's report could have been even clearer" about that.) But I also agree with Karl's source when he says that Rhodes email included State Dept. concerns, and I agree with Karl when he says that The White House could still clear up this confusion. **UPDATE (5:46 p.m.): CNN has since removed three of the four uses of the word "inaccurate" from its report. The remaining use, like those that have been removed, refers to "the inaccurate information" in the leaked email summaries. ********************************

Summaries are summaries. Quotes are quotes. If you can't make your case, call a summary a quote.

In a highly amusing development, it turns out that -- once again -- the assertions do not match the facts: http://www.politico....ted-163979.html Guys (not gender-specific): Can we be a bit more circumspect with the conclusions? Seque to: my favorite news rant. In the 50s and 60s, Douglas Edwards and the early Cronkite would say something like "Reports have reached CBS news today that an unidentified senator has screwed the pooch. More information when it becomes available." Today, the same source info would be rendered: "Sen. So-and-so, WHO SOURCES SAY IS A REPUBLICAN FROM SOME SOUTHERN, BIGOTED STATE, has committed bestiality, the dog has died horribly, and Speaker Boehner, discussing THE BIGOTED REPUBLICAN AGENDA FOR LESS SPENDING AND MORE TAX CUTS, apparently enthusiastically endorses this behavior, saying: "Americans cannot stand by and walk the dog on this issue." Please?