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.

Also, checkout question 37 of the latest Quinnipiac poll, that's the source of 58% independents against impeachment.

The only drug induced dreams I can detect are from most of the progressive participants on this forum. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/09/25/new-quinnipiac-poll-shows-americans-dont-want-trump-impeached-removed/2438970001/

"What aboutism" is rampart here in your various conversations. I see it every day. I guess you can't see the forest for the trees. You sound like Captain Quigg of the USS Caine. Go ahead and try to sell impeachment based on the above to the public. I don't think many people who don't insanely hate the President will buy that's enough to remove a President. Remember we already have given an impeachment pass to a President who lied to a grand jury and was disbarred. BTW, your "unambiguous" claim isn't a fact, it's an opinion. Don't try to pass it off as a fact. The public has gotten wise to that.

Speaking of talking points, how is it that virtually every MSM outlet seems to be using the exact same language in describing Trump's action as the Dems spokespersons? Seems like they get their talking points straight from the Dems. Maybe, they're just lemmings and following the leader. Or maybe it's a case of monkey see, monkey do. BTW, a new poll out asked conservatives, independents, and liberals about impeachment. Right now, 58% of independents are against impeachment. That should be a BIG worry for the next election unless progressives can convince the independents that impeachment is indeed completely justified and necessary. Right now, all the impeachment claims are just preaching to the choir, If impeachment is seen as frivolous by independents, Dems will pay a severe price in the next election. Remember that the Dem majority was obtained by Dems in normally red districts who promised to work with the President and won close races. Those seats could easily flip back if the independents can't be convinced. Maybe you ought to go back and review Nancy Pelosi's and Jerry Nadler's statements about impeachment in 1998. Spending oodles of time parsing words to get to impeachment isn't going to do it. Let sanity rule and give it a rest.

Does that mean that Obama is still culpable for abuse of power by weaponizing the government departments to go after political opposition? Remember US Attorney John Durham is investigating the origins of the Trump collusion investigation. I'm just waiting to see what he finds and think he will be fair. But enough government documents are becoming public that make it clear that the FBI was aware that the Steele dossier wasn't reliable. Yet the FBI presented it as credible to the FISA court, that's potentially perjury by some high ranking FBI officials. Was it an oversight or deliberate misleading of the court? Even the Papadopolous incident which allegedly fueled concerns over collusion is unravelling. His "Russian contact" is proving to be someone very close to foreign friendly intelligence agencies. If you understand that nothing militarily happened in the fight against ISIS in Iraq without White House approval, then you understand how that White House tried to micromanage everything. It would be easy to believe that such a domestic intelligence operation as the Trump collusion investigation would also have to have a go ahead from the White House. I really hope that Durham finds the culpability ends with a few rogue FBI officials. But I'll wait to see what he finds before making any judgments. There are a lot of arms and legs to what happened that need to be investigated and made public. Let's get everything out in the open in the light of day and let the chips fall where they may.

I think mikeh's comment about the Meckwell momentum is spot on. In my own little corner of the bridge world, I've seen it happen several times both favorably and unfavorably, but mostly favorably. You create momentum with a board or two, then the opposition starts feeling pressure and starts to make mistakes. Then, it snowballs. It really doesn't reflect on the skill of the players so much as the psychological situation that makes it difficult to perform. It sounds like the England team got caught up in one. Let me give you an example. We've played several times against teams that have oodles more total masterpoints (30,000) versus ours (8000 at the time). After about 6 or 7 boards of a 12 board half where we played flawless bridge, I could physically notice our opponents start to squirm in their seats and you could see the pressure building on them. Often as not, we'd win those matches. OTOH, we've felt lots of pressure several times playing a team with Shon Huang, Kevin Bathurst, and Kevin Dwyer on it and got blitzed. Yeah, they're probably going to outplay you. But if you can eliminate letting the pressure of playing them get to you and play well, who knows maybe the worm will turn on occasion.

Give it a rest!!! Impeachment may salve your unmitigated hate for Trump, but it is going nowhere. Nor should it. In the meantime, all you superior minds (not that I think that) have been tearing the country apart with all your accusations. That you constantly use members of your own choir to bolster your feelings and prove them correct is laughable. I'm thinking that those "people in Wal-Mart that you can smell" have figured it out and a day of reckoning will come next November at the ballot box. Keep up what you're doing because the more you concentrate on impeachment, the more the public at large will get angry about you're not focusing on the problems of the country. How are you going to sell that impeachment was much more important than solving the country's problems to the electorate? You won't be able to, so you're left with only more hate mongering to make your case to the public. Good luck with that. I have great faith that the broad electorate get it right every time in the end. They did the last time, but you couldn't accept it. BTW, I was fully expected Hillary would win and was wondering if the country could survive another 4 year extension of Obama like rule. It would have been the end of democracy. When Trump won, I couldn't help but think that when the country is at stake, the people do the right thing. They did in 1980, and also 2016. Trump comes with many flaws, but he's a lot of right things to get the country to a better place. It may not be the place you desire, but the alternative you push is worse.

This is subject to partnership agreement. Originally, it was forcing to game, but now is played by most as invitational somewhere around 10-11, bad 12. It also pretty much denies a 4 card major. Same as #1 but guarantees a ♠ stopper(s) and denies 4+ ♥. With ♥, you can make a negative double, then bid NT on the next round if partner doesn't have a ♥ fit. Same as #1 but guarantees a ♥ stopper(s) and denies 4+ ♠. With ♠, you can make a negative double, then bid NT on the next round if partner doesn't have a ♠ fit.

Playing Lebensohl over double of weak 2s helps here. Any bid at the 2 level that can be made shows the weakest hand 6-7 or less. Use of the 2 NT relay followed by the bid of a suit below the original weak 2 suit is also weak (here that would be passing the 3 ♣ relay). in this auction, 2 by South is weak, but I think North should raise to 3 ♥ asking partner to carry on to game with a decent "weak hand".

I'm sorry, but I take my lumps in 2 ♦ passed out. If we are playing a convention, then I honor the agreement on how to bid. I don't jump to any conclusions about what partner holds. But after the session, partner and I are going to have a conversation about bidding 2 ♣ for a 1 suiter on a preemptive hand. I think North's proper bid is 3 ♦ preemptive. Then South can drive the auction from there.