rmnka447

BTW, one important thing that has been overlooked so far is the length of East's ♥ suit. Even if East has the appropriate controls, say, ♠ AKQx ♥ KQxx ♦ x ♣ QJ10x 6 ♥ is not a good contract. A ♦ lead at Trick 1 followed by a ♦ continuation taps declarer's ♥. Then, ♥ have to break 3-3 for the slam to make. So it becomes about a 36% chance of successfully being made. It's another thing that West should consider in deciding on how to bid the hand.

I wouldn't raise to 2 ♥ on the West hand, but if you do it as a matter of style OK. My rebid would be a sedate 1NT with a relatively flat minimum opener. If that is unstomachable because of the lack of values in the outside suits, then bid 2 ♣. The biggest problem is the 6 ♣ bid. As I've often said, if you're considering slam you have to ask yourself what needs to be known to ensure slam is a good bet. When you do that here, the issue of pointed suit controls comes clearly into view. Of those, the possibility of 2 ♠ losers is acute. The issue is even more serious if there is an agreement not to splinter with a stiff A. So, here I think a simple 4 ♥ is the best continuation.

The US elimination was a well earned result. The USMNT played lackadaisical and lackluster soccer through much of the Hexagonal (Final Round). They lost an unheard of 2 home games during this phase of qualification. Neither Jurgen Klinsmann (1st 2 games) nor Bruce Arena (last 8 games) were able to find the right mix of players to ensure qualification. Klinsmann emphasized the use of German born American players while Arena favored MLS based players. Part of the problem could also be generational as too much reliance was made on players at or near the end of their soccer careers. The result also reflected improvement in the region's soccer. The Central American and Caribbean nations have especially benefitted from the growth and improvement in the US MLS. It has provided opportunities for the best players from these nations to play and develop in a higher level of competition than their domestic leagues. As a result, the differences between the participants has narrowed significantly to where the US and Mexico don't dominate like they did 3 or 4 qualification cycles ago. In the final game against Trinidad & Tobago, the American side looked like zombies. The only player who played even reasonably well was youngster Christian Pulisic who may become the first real US soccer superstar. The 19 YO, who is from Hershey, PA and plays for Borussia Dortmund in Germany, scored the US goal. Trinidad & Tobago, out of competition for a WC spot, played a young team that had played well against Mexico and looks to be their future in international competitions. They played well and deserved the victory. In a quirk of fate, the result was the reverse of the "shot heard 'round the world" game in 1989 when a last second Paul Calaguiri goal from a miracle shot beat T&T in their home stadium and qualified the US for the WC for the 1st time in 40 years. That was the start of the qualification streak that ended on Tuesday. The loss and failure to qualify is a big disappointment and temporary setback for US soccer. But the outlook long term for US soccer continues to be rosy. MLS is now firmly ensconced as a part of the US sports scene. Development of soccer in this country continues to progress as the infrastructure necessary for international success continues to be implemented and grow. All MLS teams now have youth academies. Some are starting to produce young players capable of playing on the USMNT. Also, because of the failure to qualify, the whole process of selecting and fielding the MNT will be reviewed and improved. There certainly will be greater opportunities for younger players to compete for spots on the MNT as we move into and past a major generational change.

I would think in this auction P - 1 ♠ - 2 ♦ - DBl p - ? that 2 ♥ - minimum opener (12-bad 15) and 4+ ♥ 3 ♥ - good hand (15+-18) and 4+ ♥ 3 ♦ - even better hand with ♦ control if subsequent show ♥

Cherish the hand and tuck it away in your memory for the times when you get a hand that is cold with even a 4-1 break and one of your opponents shows out on the first round. The bridge gods giveth some time and taketh away other times.

Thanks Cy, you're absolutely right. That'll teach me to reply when tired after a grind'em out 28 board club duplicate session. Obviously, I was a little brain dead when replying. Yes, with most of my partners a 4 ♦ rebid would show a solid ♦ suit and a 4+ ♠ fit. With my handicapped partner, where we play a simplified version of SAYC, the auction as I outlined would apply. For the partnerships, where 4 ♦ shows a ♠ fit, I'd just rebid 5 ♦ over 1 ♠. That should get you to at least 6 ♦ because it should show values outside of ♦. From responder's hand, it ought to be fairly simple to deduce that opener probably has ♣ A. With 9 or 10 ♦ and only some outside Qs or Js, IMO should opener just preempt 5 ♦.

The hand is a 4 loser hand. So the hand is not quite good enough for a 2 ♣ opener IMO. So I'd open 1 ♦. After a 1 ♠ hand response, I'd then bid 4 ♦ which sets ♦ as trump and should show a hand with 4 losers. The fact that the hand was opened 1 ♦ should tell partner that there is something outside of ♦ else the hand would be worthy of a 5 ♦ preempt immediately. The 4 ♦ rebid leaves room for an A asking bid. With a hand with 4 1/2 cover cards opposite a presumed 4 loser hand, responder asks and when opener shows 2 keys plus the ♦ Q, 7 ♦ would seem to be an easy bid.

Pass with this hand. The only time I remember bidding game with less than about 4 points opposite a 20-21 2 NT was in a regional A/AX (top level) Swiss vulnerable with something like ♠ J109 ♥ 109x ♦ J10xx ♣ J98 Since the scoring was IMPs, 35% probability vulnerable games should be bid. 3 NT seemed like it should be bid because of all the intermediate cards (10s,9s) which are very useful at NT. I think it was a push against a very expert team. With something like ♠ J64 ♥ 943 ♦ J852 ♣ J75 a pass would be automatic.

3 ♣. I agree with much of what Badger says. If the hand were simply a preempt - x xx xxx KQJ10xxx or similar, I'd just pass. The remaining points average out to about 11.33 HCP per hand. That almost has to be the case with no one opening with shortness in ♣ and major length somewhere implied from your distribution. But with the actual hand, the missing points average out to about 9.66 points per hand which is about 2 points less per hand. That should be enough to make it difficult to compete over 3 ♣ even though the distributional situation is the same. Even with nothing in partner's hand (which really can't be the case with 3 passes) your hand looks to be worth at least 7 tricks which limits the risk of the 3 ♣ bid. So, this looks like the perfect situation to bid what you've got, a distributional hand where 3 ♣ seems a reasonable spot. With a stronger hand where game is reasonably likely with partner holding a max pass or near it, you would open 1 ♣.

Worst case scenario would be partner has 0 ♣ opposite your 765432 suit, in which case, the most likely expected result is the loss of at least 4 tricks in the trump suit because a 4-3 break is the most probable. It could be more if the opponents get ruffs in their "short" trump hand. So the net of at least 2-3 tricks you foresee may be offset or more than offset additional trick losses in your own suit. There's also an issue if the opponents can play a forcing defense and force you to lose control of the trump suit before you can draw trumps and set up partner's suit. Some of those 5 card suit hands you say will double and rebid in a 5 card suit may opt to make an overcall anyway due to concerns of having to rebid at the 3 level with a less than at least semi-solid suit. That's a not infrequent theme in expert bidding quizzes. This probably more of an issue for suits other than ♠ because you can't be forced to the 3 level with any 2 level bid when holding ♠. But with something like AJx AQxxx xxx AK bidding 3 ♥ might be a tad difficult after something like: 1 ♦ - DBL - 1 ♠ - P 2 ♠ - ?

The values of non-vulnerable sets were changed after down 3. It used to be down 1 was -100, down 2 was -300, down 3 was -500, down 4 was -700, ... increasing by -200 for each additional undertrick. It is now the same through down 3 -- down 1 is -100, down 2 is - 300, down 3 is -500. After down 3, it is now an additional -300 (similar to vulnerable undertricks) per undertrick. So down 4 is -800, down 5 is -1100, ...

Even though I'm a Republican at this time, Harry Truman has always been one of my favorite Presidents. That's even with Harry having no use whatsoever for Republicans. He lived in a tough time and made a lot of decisions that greatly affected our country for the good. It appears history is getting more appreciative of Harry as time goes by. But, of course, the elitists, never warmed to his very plain spoken manner and regularly denigrated him as nothing but a hack politician. He was failure in business, most notably in the haberdasher business. He eventually turned to politics and was part of a Missouri political machine. He never went to college and is I believe the last President not to do so. So you guessed it, he's been portrayed by the intelligentsia as a dumb hick politician. The truth is a bit different. He was veteran of WWI, serving with distinction as a Captain in the Artillery and receiving some recognition for bravery in combat despite his poor sight. Although he never attended college, he was a voracious reader and, most particularly, a student of history. In the Senate, he spearheaded the committee that investigated and combatted corruption, waste, and profiteering in the War industries. He wasn't afraid to make a decision as the sign "The Buck Stops Here" on his desk in the Oval Office indicated. What did he do? After being essentially shut out of any meaningful part in the Roosevelt administration, he took over as President when Roosevelt died and got in harness fairly quickly. His first and biggest decision was whether to use the atomic bomb on the Japanese. He recognized the dangers that the Soviet Union posed to a free and independent Europe after the Germans were defeated, something that FDR seemed oblivious to. He worked with his Secretary of State, Gen. George Marshall, to develop a plan to support the rebuilding of a devastated Europe to offset that threat. That was the Marshall Plan. He assisted in the creation of the UN and NATO. He integrated the Armed Services and reorganized them creating the US Air Force. He disbanded the WWII OSS, then reversed himself and created the CIA to provide the information necessary to counter the Soviet threat. He stood up to Communist aggression in Korea using the UN as a vehicle to foster an international response. And, he ensured civilian control of the military by sacking national hero and icon, Gen. Douglass McArthur, when his actions as Commander of the UN forces threatened to start WWIII. Not bad for a hick politician. My favorite story about Harry Truman is from Merle Miller, who wrote a biography of Truman ("Plain Speaking") in the '70s based on a series of interviews that he had with Truman just before he died. Miller had at some point gotten into a conversation with Truman about leaders who got full of themselves as indestructible or indispensable. Truman related that this was true of Alexander the Great and that it had led to his death. He stated that Alexander had been so sure of himself that he literally drank so much alcohol one night that he poisoned himself from it. Well, Miller wanted to check out this claim so he went to the Library of Congress and sought their help in finding out how Alexander died. They referred him to a book they had in their collection. Sure enough, it confirmed what Truman had claimed. However, he noticed that only two other people had ever checked that book out. Sure enough, one of them was Harry Truman during his time in the Senate.

I agree with 2 ♥ to play here unless you've had specific agreements that NT systems are on over 1 NT in this type of auction. Otherwise, partner might consider a weak jump shift of 2 ♥ over the 1 ♦ overcall if that is an option. Such a bid should deny a decent 5 or 6 with ♥ length.

Years and years ago, Harold Feldheim in a book on Swiss Team tactics outlined Positive Slam Doubles by the preempting side. After the slam bid, the next person on the preempting side Doubles if holding 2 or more probable tricks (versus a small slam) or passes with only 1 or no probable tricks. The next person on the preempting side to speak doubles with 1 probable trick or passes with 0 or 2 probable tricks. Now when the pass out seat double occurs showing 1 probable trick, doubler's partner can pass with the additional 1 probable trick hand or sacrifice with the no trick hand.

Hand #1 - First of all, passing with a balanced 13 behind the NT bidder would be entirely normal over a strong NT opener. With a good 13, you might Double showing equal value over a weak (12-14) NT if you play Cappelletti or similar. So, making any move on this hand really depends on partner in the reopening seat. Opposite a strong NT, partner with 12 is looking at 27-29 HCP in his and your RHO's hands. So it becomes very difficult to make a move with the remaining 11-13 points presumably split between your and your LHO's hands. The only caveat might be if partner had a semi-balanced hand 5-4-2-2 and the distribution favors saying something. Otherwise, your result is probably pretty normal. Opposite a weak NT, partner with 12 is looking at 24-26 HCP in his and your RHO's hands. That leaves the remaining 14-16 points presumably split between your and your LHO's hands. With any even distribution of points between those two hands, the points ought to be near equal, so competing at the 2 level at least should be considered -- probably with a reopening double in 4th suit. The bid would not be without risks as responder's pass could be made with up to a bad 11. Hand #2 - Unfortunately, your partner can't compete directly over the 2 ♠ raise because at that point in the auction your RHO's hand is still unlimited. But you know they've found a fit and didn't invite, so they probably don't have more than 22-23 points and quite often less. If they have a fit, your side should have a fit, so this is hand to compete on. Your hand has 7 and if the opponents have 23 or less, partner has at least 10+ points. Your also have a 6 card suit and shortness in their suit. Sure, you'd like a little better suit, but bidding 3 ♥ here stands out.

I'd expect a lot of people who play 5 card majors and Drury to open 1 ♥ on this hand in 3rd seat. Personally, I'd either pass or bid 2 ♥ on this hand in 3rd seat despite the top 3 0f 5 agreement. While I can understand such an agreement in 1st or 2nd seat, but in 3rd seat you need a little more freedom to obstruct the opponents. With the intermediate partner described, I'd pass for sure. Over a non-forcing 2 ♦ response things could get ugly. Sometimes it's better to just avoid stepping into it.

A take out double followed by the bid of a new suit as a rebid shows a hand that was too strong to make a simple overcall the first time. Typically, that's 16+ HCP with a good 6+ card suit. This bid is workaround for strong jump overcalls which have for the most part been supplanted by obstructive weak jump overcalls. The new suit bid is limited by a couple of stronger rebids -- a jump rebid in a new suit (here 3 ♠) and a cue bid of opener's suit (here 3 ♦). The cue bid shows the equivalent of a strong 2 ♣ hand while the jump rebid shows a hand not quite strong enough to cue, but better than a strong jump overcall hand. It sets trump. I like to call it the "bid game in my suit with any good excuse to do so" hand. So, typically, subject to partnership agreement, It's something like a hand that you would open in the suit then make a jump rebid on (1 ♠ - 3 ♠). Since it is a limited bid you are not under any force to make another bid. So you can pass. Stephen Tu made a good point about potentially playing in the weaker hand's long suit. But there is a caveat. If your long suit is weak, such as Kxxxxx, Qxxxxx, or Jxxxxx beware of rebidding it. There is no guarantee that partner with a separate long suit has anything at all in your suit. If not, you're looking at losing several tricks in your suit that probably wouldn't be lost playing in partner's suit. OTOH, if you have a reasonably good suit holding in your long suit, such as QJ109xx or KQ10xxx, then Stephen's point is very valid.

Experts do a lot of good, even great things at the bridge table, but are not exempt from making their share of mistakes. But you don't often hear about the bad things they do. Most information you get about the experts is like the televised pro golf tournaments. They concentrate on showing the pros who are in contention and doing well not the pros who aren't or didn't make the cut. So there's a false impression that pros (and bridge experts) are infallible. You've made a reasonable assessment about the redouble after 3 NTx. I'd expect most experts recall that old saw "If you want to get greedy and act like a hog, expect to get lead to the slaughter." 3 NTx making is a really good IMP result, so there's no reason to redouble. Where a redouble for sitting might be made is in a contract where there's no place to run, and, redoubler sees the contract is pretty much a lock to make. But here, the exact hand held and the hands you inferred are distinct possibilities, else the failure to compete will let the preemptors steal you blind. So the SOS is needed here to alert advancer about doubler's hand and the potential problem with 3 NT. If West sat for the redouble, then there was a misunderstanding of some sort. Or possibly, for some reason, West thought that sitting might get the preemptor to run. In either case, it resulted in a vulnerable game swing equivalent for North/South never a good thing at IMPs.

4 ♦ I agree with Badger. Partner might be bidding some on distribution rather than strictly lots of points. You've shown your stopper and some values yet partner has concerns. You don't hold enough to be willing to dismiss those concerns and sit.

1 ♠ is likely to be more frequent, but there are also responding hands that require other responses over a minor opening on this hand. So, in essence, we're talking about an opening hand that doesn't come up that often and a problem response that comes up only part of the time that you make that opening with this hand. So you have to decide what's the best way to bid that's likely to cause the least problems.

Look, with a hand with at least a decent 6+ and 4-4 or better in the majors, responder should make a negative double directly over the 1 ♦ overcall. With 6+ and only one 4+ major, responder could simply bid that major. It's also possible that responder would make a negative double with ♣s and a hand not quite good enough to bid 2 ♣ directly over the ♦ overcall -- something like a 9-a bad 11 count with ♣. In this auction, 2 ♣ should show a hand that couldn't negative double with ♣ -- an 8- with ♣ length. So, it would seem to me that the 2 ♦ bid is most likely a "pick a major" bid with a bad hand (5-) and major length that is not willing to sit for 1 NT. I'd bid 2 ♠ and hope for the best.

First of all, understand that just because a contract makes doesn't mean it should be bid. So the objective of good bidding is to put you into contracts that have a reasonable chance of making. Sometimes because everything is right, you'll find a hand where a contract will make, but good bidding won't get you there. The flip side of that is that with good bidding sometimes you'll be in a contract that has a good chance of making but goes down because of bad breaks or cards laying wrong. Nonetheless, it's still good bidding to get to the contract. 4 ♥ makes because both red Ks lie right, so the finesses work. Without any other information, it's a 25% probability that the cards lie that way. The actual probability of both finesses working is a little bit higher because North did balance with a 2 ♦ bid. But even if both finesses work, you'll still go down unless you can limit the hand to no losers except ♠ AK and ♣ A. Dummy's doubleton ♦ is key to doing that allowing East losing ♦ to be ruffed. So the odds are that game is probably still a lot less than a 50% chance of making. Bidding contracts on any regular basis with less than a 50% chance of making is not winning Bridge unless you're intending to sacrifice. West correctly passed East's 1 NT opening bid which shows less than a decent 8 that would be needed to invite game. When West subsequently doubles the 2 ♦ balance, West shows somewhere about 6 - a bad 8 in value and is for takeout. West's message is "I think we've got the majority of points on the hand." It's in no way clear from East's very flat 17 that a game should be bid. Note that had North held ♠ K10xx ♥ Kx ♦ K10xxxx ♣ x, 2 ♦ doubled would make. So after West's reopening double, East should bid 2 ♥ and hope for the best.

I'm a passer also at this point. I may come alive later if opponents find a fit or partner shows values.

Here are a couple of references: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/04/27/this-study-found-race-matters-in-police-shootings-but-the-results-may-surprise-you/?utm_term=.98c300a0cee5 http://tribunist.com/news/harvard-study-on-police-shootings-and-race-offers-shocking-conclusion/

I don't have a reference, but I believe that there was a study made of police shootings black versus white. It showed that on a per encounter basis that whites were more likely to be shot by police than blacks. It may be that the number of blacks shot are larger because of a much greater number of encounters than whites.