rmnka447

2 NT seems right as it should inhibit some intervention by the opponents by implying a strong hand. It also may provide the appropriate info to pick a spot if partner gets to respond.

I think 1 NT - 2 ♣ - 2 ♦ would be automatic for most people. The question then is whether to rebid 3 ♦ or 3 NT. At IMPs, I think 3 ♦ stands out as either the minor game or NT are OK if they make. If you happen to find opener with a ♦ suit even 6 ♦ might be a possibility as responder holds all the out side controls. At MPs, 3 ♦ forcing is probably still preferable, but may drew a ♣ lead from the opponents. So if you wished to make a tactical 3 NT rebid, I don't have a problem with that. After a 3 ♦ rebid by responder, I think opener just rebids 3 NT and the auction ends there.

East really can't quite find a bid once West bids 4 ♥. The bidding has taken away too much space to determine that there are not 2 losers especially with East's void in ♥. If, as lamford asserts, 4 ♥ would be the consensus bid and weaker than DBL followed by 4 ♥ bid, expecting to find the necessary black suit controls and ♥ quality seems like a stretch.

I'm also a 1 ♥ bidder on this hand. Sure it has 11 red cards, but poor suit quality really pushes me toward bidding the major first. Make it S - H KQ10xx D AQ10xxx C xx and I'd bid it naturally starting with 1 ♦ - still not many HCP, but much better playing strength. Responder could always make a negative double if no other bid fits and follow up with a NT bid later. This might by agreement show more than 13-15 if that's what a direct 3 NT over 1 ♠ would show.

So, you criticize evangelicals if they find an interpretation of the relationship between men and women that you disagree with. Yet, if a conservative even mentions anything about the relationship between men and women taken by Islam, you label such criticism islamophobic and label them bigots. Aren't you engaging in a little hypocrisy? By your own standards, wouldn't it be fair to call you a christianophobe and call you out for your bigotry against evangelicals also? The funny thing is that many Evangelicals and Muslims are OK with how their faith/religion define that relationship and espouse it. And, you know that is allowed in this country, it's called freedom of religion.

Against small slams, aggressive leads are generally right. The problem with a passive lead with 2 Kings is that you give up a tempo and may be unable to set up both Ks as winners before declarer can set up his suits for 12 tricks.

It's a typical MSNBC nothing burger. Rep. Adam Schiff, ranking member of the House Intel Committee, was saying similar ominous things 6 months ago and here we are 6 months later and nothing. It's the usual might be, could be, wish it were effort to create smoke by taking huge leaps to connect dots. I can see where if you're convinced collusion occurred you'd be thinking how "damning" these contentions are. But see them for what they are, nothing more than allegations/innuendos by not unbiased individual. When I'd really worry would be if House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Nunez had given credence to such allegations.

I'm a Heart leader, also.

Pass for me also. Partner's 4 ♠ could be made on anything and there is no way to know if the 4 ♥ raise is pre-emptive or what.

At the end of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a Philadelphian anxious to learn the results of the Convention allegedly approached Ben Franklin and asked "What kind of government will we have?" Franklin replied "We'll have a Republic, Sir, if we can keep it." It may be a myth, legend, or whatever but the words still ring true today. I think the Founding Fathers realized that the only practical course was to compromise and remain united. If instead two or more "countries" would have been formed, they may not individually have had enough strength to withstand a second takeover from Great Britain. As wise old Ben had said earlier at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, "We must all hang together, for if we don't, we must all surely hang separately." This was also one of the big concerns of Abraham Lincoln about the Confederacy. He was worried about the ability of two American countries to coexist in peace and without European interference. It was problematic to him if either country could survive and prosper. He famously said at the beginning of the Civil War that if he could maintain the Union without freeing one slave he would do so. But I think he knew that was impossible. He had said as much in the famous "house divided" speech many years earlier during the Lincoln-Douglas debates. The gist of that speech was that the country couldn't continue to exist "half slave and half free" but eventually had to be one way or the other. It ended with the summation "A house divided against itself cannot stand." The war began as an effort to restore the full Union, but eventually morphed into a war to end slavery. In the end, we did both.

2 ♦ for me is forcing, so I'd see the auction as something like 1 ♥ - (2 ♣) - 2 ♦ - ( P ) 2 ♥ - ( P ) - 2 ♠ - ( P ) 2 NT - ( P ) - 3 ♥ - ( P ) 4 ♥ as Nige1 posited. If you play NFB, then this hand is a nightmare to bid as you have to double to show strength. After a 2 ♥ rebid by opener, what next?

Thanks! Interesting piece. But it seems to infer that North Korea was reacting to US/UN moves rather than US/UN moves being a reaction to things that North Korea was doing. Either is plausible. But the nature of obtaining intelligence in a closed society like North Korea may make it impossible to divulge information that support the latter. Early in the piece, it mentions that North Korea became a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty participant and had reached agreement with South Korea to not obtain or use atomic weapons. It further stated that it wouldn't let IAEA inspectors examine its nuclear wastes and then dropped out of the NPT. The examination of such waste may provide strong evidence about the nature of NK's nuclear activities. So, denial of such inspection is worrisome and potential indicator that North Korea was surreptitiously going beyond peaceful use of nuclear power. Additionally, the testing and development of longer range missiles doesn't make sense if all you're able to put on them is conventional explosives. So that too is worrisome. The article also frames simply in terms of nuclear weapons. But Kim Jung-Un has made it clear that he seeks re-unification of all Korea under his leadership. So part of his nuclear weapons development may be to use it as a bargaining chip to undermine or remove US support of South Korea to enable such a takeover. Or, after he develops such capability and has ICBMs deployed against US targets, use it as a deterent against US support against a conventional weapons attack on South Korea.

Bidding isn't a perfect science, it's an art. There's no way to know what is in partner's hand except points at this point in the auction. You've made a reasonable decision and it didn't work out. That happens in bridge -- it's the rub of the green. It doesn't mean that the decision was wrong just that it didn't happen to work out this time. It's impossible to know if slam is there or not, but you do know 2 ♣x is going for a number. Any time slam isn't there, you're getting a huge, probable match winning swing. I'd pass in a flash with your hand, also.

Completely understand -- more like a member of the family. I had to carry our 12 YO family dog into the vets when I was 16 to be put to sleep. She was just suffering too much. My older brother and I bawled for quite while afterward as we both grew up with her.

With a 4 QT 18 HCP point hand (and virtually all the points in primes outside of the ♥ suit), I don't think 3 NT is right. Without any special agreements, I'm calling double and see what partner will do next. The interesting question is "What should opener rebid after the double?" Opener does have a very distributional, but minimum value opening hand with a ♥ void. I just don't see the hand as quite strong enough for a ♥ cue so I'd probably opt for a very encouraging 3 ♠.

Would you pass this hand in 1st or 2nd seat? Let's see, you have 12 HCP, 3 QT and 6 losers. I don't think so. Do you have ♠ shortness and at least 3 card in every unbid suit? Yes, you do. So you have met all the requirements for a takeout double and then some even before you consider the auction. Both LHO and partner have passed. So neither rates to have more than about 10-11 HCP. If RHO has opened with a minimum opener, say 12 HCP, that leaves around 16 HCP for the two passers. So even if LHO has a maximum pass, partner is likely to have some points. The worst case scenario would be if RHO has a big hand and LHO has the 10-11 hand. But that should be a relatively rare occurrence. And anytime RHO has opened light, the amount partner holds is likely to be higher. At matchpoints, you should be concerned about the most likely outcome and that definitely tips towards competing. The opponents do have an advantage because they may hold the highest ranking suit. You may not win the contract because they can compete and win the contract at whatever level you and partner bid. There is some concern about going down 2 or down 1 doubled when vulnerable. But part of good matchpoint playing is to push the opponents one level higher then beat them or win the contract then go down for less than they would make in their part score. You can't do that by passing.

That's right. They gained power by being freely voted into office by the people. If the people are dissatisfied with what they are doing, then the people have the power to vote them out of office. Guess what, that's exactly what the people did with the previous holders of the executive branch last fall. They lost power because enough people were dissatisfied with their policies and the direction they were taking the country that they voted for change. Yet, here we are and you're talking about the "rational" people taking over from the "irrational" people and holding power. And who decides who's "rational" and "irrational"? Most of the time I hear progressives talk about "rational", "intelligent" or "reasonable" people, they are using it as dog whistle code for progressives. Conversely, when they use "irrational", "ignorant", or "crazy" people, they use it as dog whistle code for conservatives. So how do you propose progressives should take over and hold power indefinitely "until they die out"? It can't be by constitutional means because free elections always risks a loss of power. Your statements are the exact type of boiler plate used throughout history to justify some sort of takeover of the government by a group or individuals.

Is that your version of democracy? Sounds like totalitarianism to me. Yes, those "rational" people would be in charge of the government and tell everyone else how to live their lives and make all the decisions. Wasn't that tried by Lenin and his cronies from 1917 to 1989 in the Soviet Union? They sure helped those "irrational" people die out over time to the number of millions of citizens.

"Tribe"? That's right in line with all the other characterizations you make about those who disagree with you as stupid, irrational, etc. I'm surprised you haven't used the term "untermenschen" as yet because what you're peddling is just a variation on the Master Race theme.

And here are some comments from Rep. Tulsi Gabard (D-HI) also. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/11/03/rep_tulsi_gabbard_the_dnc_needs_to_be_completely_overhauled_no_more_games_no_more_retaliation.html

There are many, many people who would say that President Trump isn't truly a Republican. But against all odds, he ran and defeated many other Republican contenders in a field of 16. He just hit a populist chord that resonated with Republicans and won the nomination. It was messy process getting to a single candidate, but I don't hear anyone suggest it wasn't done democratically. In a way, Bernie Sanders hit a similar chord with many progressives. But, of course, with a fixed result, he never stood a chance. I just think it's delicious that the folks who scream about the end of democracy with Trump rigged the system. Just think, if it had been a fair system, Bernie might have been selected and beaten Trump. "Hoisted by one's own petard" comes to mind.

Now we have Democrat Donna Brazile in her new book giving credence to the claim that the Democratic nominating process was rigged. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/brazile-hillary-rigged-dnc-against-bernie/ar-AAumfqZ?ocid=spartandhp Sad!! I guess it was much too important than to let the nominating process be democratically conducted and let the people decide.

There you go again, Winnie. After a year or so ago blowing off a well written book by a liberal outlining how the left are assaulting free speech, you roll out this BS. I'm hardly likely to be impressed by content from a left wing Breitbart equivalent site any more than you would accept any thing Breitbart puts out as true. This interview also involves a guy plugging his newly published "expose" book. So what he's peddling isn't any better than the loony conspiracy/end of democracy stuff peddled by both the far left and far right.

Isn't that leak a crime?

It's amusing to see how the left are always asking about pardons. Maybe, you got used to pardoning as a way of life under the pardoner-in-chief Barack Obama. It seems to me like an attempt to create "fake news" by making President Trump's failure to answer or not answer those questions a story. Then you can waste a lot of time speculating whether he will or will do it. It's not news, it's just noise. Just more progressive BS. I would be shocked if President Trump pardoned anyone charged by the Special Counsel. Maybe it would be better to focus on the bigger story out of the Manafort/Gates indictments -- just how widespread the corruption is in Washington.