rmnka447

I think you have to play for some good breaks.

If it was a stolen bid double, it should have been alerted. Likewise, since the 2 NT response standard after a weak 2 is for a feature, 2 NT should have been alerted.

If the opponents bid are reasonable, partner can't have much. 2 ♥ over your 2 ♣ should show 5 ♥. Can your side make anything over 4 ♥? It's very unlikely so no further suit bid should be made. So the decision is between calls of Pass or Double. With an unknown trump stack, it's better to keep quiet rather than alert the opponents to the situation. BTW, long gone Barry Crane, reputedly the best MP player ever, had reputation for doubling at the drop of a pin. So if you want to be aggressive about it, you're not exactly in bad company. Just be consistent in your approach and accept the results.

It should be alerted. Originally 2 NT was the default second negative bid and 3 ♣ was a natural bid. So other bids that are second negatives are departures from the "standard" and should be alerted.

I'm also opening 1 ♦ on the NT hand. You get more aggressive as the number of QTs goes up. Unless you have some way to show a 5-5 minor hand, the best you can do is pick a minor and play there. You know that you have an 8 card minor fit somewhere. You also know that partner can't have more than 5 ♠ and often less. So you can't pass 1 NT for fear of the opponents setting up long ♠.

At this point, the best you can do is assume that the remaining points are breaking evenly between partner's and responder's hand. Give opener a reasonably chunky suit at unfavorable vulnerability. You do know partner doesn't have enough to make a TO double or overcall. The problem is ♥. You don't really have support and partner is likely to have some length. ♣ aren't good enough to bid at the 4 level. Although you'd like to bid, pass seems right. On a good day you may find 6 tricks for a +200 versus nothing.

I play at 3 clubs and the amount of "cheating" is pretty minimal. All the clubs have zero tolerance policies. Most of the players have played at the clubs for some time. If someone engages in any of these behaviors consistently, they will be told about it and action taken if they don't desist.

First, understand the implications between forcing and non-forcing new suit advances of overcalls. If you play non-forcing advances, then the only way to keep the overcall bidder bidding is with a cue bid. Then, with a good suit and opening values, you have to cue bid first then try to get your suit in on subsequent rounds of the bidding. The other side of that is that with a constructive hand, you can show a good suit and not force partner to bid again. If you play forcing advances, a new suit bid forces the overcall bidder to bid again. Cue bids are usually reserved for good hands fitting with partner, but you don't get to show your suit with hands where a force of partner may cause you to get too high. In my corner of the US bridge world, the choice between the 2 methods is about equal with non-forcing constructive probably a tad more prevalent.

I also would rebid 2 ♦ especially if it implied extras in a 1 ♥ - 1 ♠ auction. It's forcing and let's you keep all options open. Given the 3 ♥ call in the actual auction, 3 ♠ should convey game interest. It should usually show 5+ ♠ and no ♥ fit (void or stiff). The problem is that 3 ♠ is the only forward going bid below 3 NT, so might not be as advertised but necessary for game. In any case, after 3 NT is bid, any further bid ought to be natural. Responder has the choice of bidding 4 ♥ even without a fit knowing that 3 ♥ should show good ♥s. Responder can bid 4 ♠ with a long ♠ suit and interest in no other game. And responder can simply pass 3 NT in most other circumstances. 4 ♦ must be natural. I'm bidding 5 ♦ knowing that to partner's surprise that my hand will be the master hand that is set up. I wish there was a way to ascertain if the assets for slam are there, but anything else you do at this point risks too much chance of being misinterpreted without explicit agreements.

In first seat, there's not a chance that I would open the hand 2 ♥. South has a clear 3 ♦ bid. North should bid 3 NT with a ♥ stopper. Without the 2 ♥ bid, I'd see South opening 1 ♦ and North bidding 2 NT or 3 NT depending on how they evaluated the hand. Over 2 NT, South would carry on to 3 NT. This time the weak 2 worked, but don't be surprised if you go for some numbers if you continue to open similar weak 2s.

Yep, it's a 20 point hand, but 6 of those points are unguarded so not carrying full weight. So it's a poor 20 point hand. The question is "How much you demote those points?" I came up with hand I'd rate on the cusp between a 1 ♦ - 3 ♦ rebid and a stronger hand. I'd probably bid it 1 ♦ - 3 ♦.

2 ♠ also. If partner is at exactly a 10 count and 2 ♠, you'll be about rightly placed. If partner makes a more forward going move, you can cooperate with this player.

Exactly!! HCP aren't as important as trick taking ability in strong unbalanced hands. Disciplined Standard American bidders will open a strong 2 ♣ with a 4 loser Major hand or a 3 loser Minor hand. I would anticipate the auction that Felicity suggests for this hand. The operative thing is responder's second bid since 2 ♦ is usually waiting. The partnership has to agree on a second negative over opener's rebid. Originally, that was 2 NT. But it's more common now for either cheapest suit or cheapest minor to be the negative with cheapest minor more prevalent. The hand in question is a 3 loser Major hand so definitely qualifies for a SA 2 ♣ opener. Sometimes SA bidders might choose to open 1 of a suit with 2 or 3 suited hands that could qualify for a 2 ♣ opener to facilitate easier bidding. Usually these are hands on the cusp of being 2 ♣ openers.

1. Did Trump say anything about a Presidential campaign? No! So this is a conclusion you've arrived at and not a fact. 2. Joe Biden isn't exactly just a "private US citizen". He's a former VP who was in charge of US affairs with the Ukraine and subject to some scrutiny especially if any questions have arisen about possible criminal wrongdoing or abuse of those powers. 3. Again, this is a conclusion you've arrived at and not a fact. Prove that what Trump asked was for political purposes. The Prez is charged by the Constitution to faithfully execute and enforce the laws of the US. As such, he must ensure that possible corruption/criminality be investigated. So asking for help to do so may be required to meet his obligations as President under the Constitution.

In other words, all these media people decide that they must phrase everything the same in lockstep. Don't be absurd! We've all probably played the game where something is whispered in your ear and you whisper to the next person. It's interesting to see how the original statement changes at the end. So when everyone uses the same catch phrase, it either has to be scripted or because there's some tacit understanding to do so. The worst part is that the catch phrase often comes from a "what if" statement by an "analyst" (Trump hater) on the conspiracy news networks.