rmnka447

Yeah, I read that article. It was the usual progressive BS. That became clear when Mssr. Coates started claiming that the only reason Obama's policies were being reversed were because he was black. He apparently refused to consider that they might be taking the country in the wrong direction like something like 78% of the electorate thought.

It seems like your rhetorical question seems to imply that they wouldn't have. But I would ask if the identity politics that the left engages in doesn't contribute to a greater divide between groups by emphasizing the differences rather than recognizing the commonality we all have. I would also ask why members of an identity "group" that don't agree with progressives are regularly called out as not being members of that group. For example, progressives regularly call Blacks who are conservative "Uncle Toms" and deny their blackness. That's ridiculous. It fails to recognize that these "groups" are diverse in order to explain things in terms of creating neat little monolithic boxes that people can be put into. The term "white" is also insulting because it fails to take into account the extremely diverse cultural heritages and differences of the people lumped into that "group". A person of Slavic heritage from Central/Eastern Europe is far different from a person of Nordic heritage or a person of Germanic heritage or the varied groups of Mediterranean peoples or Gaelic/English heritage of groups from Britain.

This is a system problem hand for K-S. It's enough so that one of our K-S team partnerships play Mini-Roman instead of Flannery. If you don't play anything special to handle this type of hand, you basically stuck opening and rebidding your minor. Fortunately, the times that you hold a ♠ stiff and partner specifically replies 1 ♠ is relatively rare.

In the original K-S system and the update, opener could in practice have a balanced 15-17 hand on the following auctions: 1 m - 1 ♥ 1 ♠ or 1 ♣ - 1 ♦ 1 M. So a major rebid by opener presumably promised 15+. But some practical problems with this approach was that the length of opener's minor was not certain, these auctions frequently led to wrong siding NT when opener was balanced, and with a minimum minor opener with a 4 card major opener always had to rebid 2 of a minor. The answer to the first two above problems was simple -- simply rebid 1 NT with the balanced 15-17 hand and use some sort of checkback bid over 1 NT. That bid turned out to be what is now called NMF. As a result, any 1 m opener followed by a 1 M rebid by opener shows an unbalanced minor opener with equal or longer m length (could be 4441). The last problem still exists anytime opener has a minimum minor opener. It will always exist where opener has a minimum minor opener with a 4 card ♥ suit and responder's initial response is 1 ♠. However, the above auctions could be used on ANY value opener if responder has an opening values asking bid available. We use 2 ♣ as the ask with opener's 2 ♦ rebid showing the minimum opener and any other rebid showing the good (15+) hand. Most often this comes up when responder has a fit for opener's major.

K-S minor suit auctions were developed to take into account the different nature of the population of the hands that you open 1 of a minor. Playing strong NTs, 1 0f a minor openers are only more than a minimum opening hand about 25% of the time. Playing weak NTs, 1 of a minor openers are more than minimum opening hands a little more than 65% of the time. So many of the bidding sequences were changed to reflect the greater strength of hands. In particular, the major suit raise ranges were changed, so after: 1 m - 1 M ? 2 M reflects 15-17 HCP and 4 trumps 3 M reflects 18-19- HCP and 4 trump, and, 4 M reflects 19+-20 HCP and 4 trump. What do you do when you have a 12-14 and 4 trump? Normally, you raise to 2 M anyhow. Responder should always act based on the expected 15-17/4 trump hand and alert that understanding for the opponents. This occasionally may get you too high, but remember that if you have a 12-14 minimum opener it has to be unbalanced. So the distribution may make up some for what is lacked in HCP. In practice, these type of raises don't come up all that often. From my experience, I guess maybe once every 3-4 sessions. And it only may become a potential problem if partner has enough to make a further invite or game bid opposite the supposed 15-17 raise. OTOH, this disadvantage will be offset by the times you end up in a 4-4 major fit with a hand where responder would have passed a strong NT opener. Also, the invitation structure by responder remains consistent with how the strong NTers are inviting in a Stayman or Transfer auction. If you maintain the "standard" major raises after a minor opening (2 M 13-15, 3 M 16-18), there are some issues. First, with the 15-17 balanced hands that used to be opened with a strong 1 NT, opener must raise to 2 M with the 15 hand, but raise to 3 M with the 16-17 hands. Responder also has to decide when to raise to game opposite the 16-18 raise as there is no way to invite. And the jump raise to 3 M is going to happen more often because of the differences in the pool of hands opened 1 of a minor. Edgar Kaplan updated K-S in the late '60s and many K-S adherents adopted some of these changes. One of the most widely adopted changes was the interchange of the meanings of minor rebids in ♣ after opening 1 ♦. So that 1 ♦ - 1 M 2 ♣ shows at least reversing values, and, 1 ♦ - 1 M 3 ♣ shows a weak minor hand presumably something like 5-5 in the minors. This change clarified that the 2 ♣ rebid was always strong. In the original K-S, a 2 ♣ rebid could either be a strong balanced/unbalanced hand up to about a hand value equivalent of a jump 2 NT rebid or a weak 5-5 hand. Practically, this sometimes caused a problem for responder because of the ambiguity of the bid If you have a minimum unbalanced minor hand, the only way to show it is to rebid 2 of the original minor unless you have a hand you can show as a weak minor 2 suiter (by one of the above methods).

3 ♦ for now. I want to hear more from partner about his/her hand. Slam could be in the offing even with this very minimum HCP hand, but we need more info on how our hands mesh beyond the ♦ fit.

A problem on this hand is that North, a strong player, has competed to the 3 level vulnerable when his opponents arguably have at least game invitational values from the bidding. What can North have that would justify stepping into this situation? Well, it can't be a preponderance of points, so it must be distribution or playing tricks unless North has some bizarre death wish. I wouldn't be surprised to see North with something like ♠ AKxx ♥ x ♦ x ♣ AJ10xxxx or similar. Against this, East has what looks like 2 sure ♣ tricks and otherwise soft defensive values. Defeating 3 ♣ is far from a certainty. Beyond the ♣, East has another 1/2 QT. So beating 3 ♣ looks like it needs 2 1/2 to 3 defensive tricks from partner West which is a lot to assume.

Even though I live in the US where strong NTs dominate, with my main tournament partners, I've also played weak NT with some success for 40+ years. It's been my experience that opening such dregs is a losing proposition in the long run especially against strong players. Otherwise, I'm in line with your other comments.

We all know what the result of the investigation of that "matter" will be. Comey will say that there's not enough evidence to prosecute. BTW, if the "business" wasn't about "classified" matters or content, it probably doesn't violate any laws. Doesn't Kushner get to destroy 33,000 of his subpoenaed e-mails like Hillary did?

I didn't vote because in IMO neither player acted reasonably. East opening 1 NT in 1st seat vulnerable with a 1 1/2 QT 12 HCP pancake is overly aggressive. West has a maximum pass opposite a weak NT, but chose to use Stayman. After the 3 ♣ overcall, East properly passed. West has a tough call and chose to reopen with a double. West knows that East/West have somewhere between 22-24 HCPs, but a "strong" North has pushed the bidding up to the 3 level opposite an opening East and West whose hand is still unlimited. 22-24 ought to be pretty safe for a 2 level contract, but the 3 level is lot more uncertain without a known fit. Maybe, pushing to compete further should be reconsidered especially since already having bid the value of the hand and then some. Likewise, after West's reopening double of 3 ♣, East has to consider whether sitting for it is right with East's sub-minimum opener. ♣ KQ9 tight is probably worth 2 tricks at most, but the rest of the hand is lacking much additional defense. West's double also seems to indicate ♣ shortness. It's been my experience that a good 3 card holding in the opponent's suit often isn't good enough to defeat a part score even when holding a majority of the points. 3 ♣x making is an often fatal vulnerable game swing, so it needs to be pretty certain to go down to sit and defend it. So, East needs to seriously think about bidding something over 3 ♣x.

Congrats to all! gszes made a great bid on the last board once hrothgar had made a negative double showing red suit values. And diana_eva's opening bid limited the opponents' ability to compete on the board. I only saw a little over the last half of the match, but it was thrilling to see you build a lead, the JEC team come back, and the last pivotal board. I nearly fell off my chair when gszes bid 4 ♠. Well done!!!

A lot depends on your bidding agreements and approach. As someone asked, how light do you overcall VUL? If you would overcall something like ♠ KQ10xx ♥ xx ♦ Axxx ♣ xx or less, then you need some way to limit your hand after the cue. Typically, that's with a minimum rebid in your overcall suit, here 2 ♠. Do you have a way to show a limit raise after an overcall? If you play all direct raises are weak (5-8), so that a 2 ♠ raise show 3 ♠, 3 ♠ shows 4 ♠, and 4 ♠ shows 5+ ♠, then you need a way to show a limit raise. Lacking any other specific bid to do so, a cue would need to be used to show the limit raise. As for partner being a passed hand, partner could still have a hand that was just under opening values, a hand that improved with the ♠ overcall, or, both. Opposite Hrothgar's original hand, what would you do with something like ♠ QJxx ♥ x ♦ AQxx ♣ xxxx? And over any 2 ♠ "minimal overcall" rebid are you going to raise to 3 with this hand? So, for me, 2 ♠ would not be an option because the overcall is about an opening bid (13 HCP, 2 QTs, 7 losers). With partner being a passed hand, there probably isn't enough HC strength for a NT game to be right so 2 NT would not seem to be right. I'd probably opt for the "1 card off" bid of 2 ♦. It keeps the bidding low, let's partner know I've got an opener, and is only 1 card off from ♠ K10xxx ♥ Kx ♦ KJxx ♣ Kx which would be a proper 2 ♦ rebid.

Welcome to the forum! Your bidding was correct. You have an extremely good 16 HCP overcall with 5 losers. Your close to a jump to 3 ♠ after the double but not quite there. (Such a jump would basically say to partner "Bid 4 with any positive feature.") I agree with the other posters. The problem wasn't you on this hand but partner's failure to raise. Partner has a 6 HCP hand with a fit. But there's more to it than that. ♠ Q is a terrific card to hold as it helps to solidify the trump suit, so it's not unreasonable to feel it covers a potential loser in the overcaller's hand. Also, the ♥ K sets behind the ♥ bidder which raises its value a little. Anytime the ♥ A is with the ♥ bidder, it becomes a cover card for another loser in overcaller's hand. The hand also has a potential ruffing value in ♦. Since quite often a strong overcall is based on a good 6 card suit (giving 9+ total trump), that ruffing value is a little more certain because it's less likely the opponent's can eliminate it by leading ♠. In toto, the hand has a lot of positives if lacking in points some. It's good enough to want partner to bid game with a "good" strong overcall. IMO, it's an automatic raise to 3 ♠ after overcaller (you) show the strong ♠ overcall. At IMPs, it's a travesty not to do so. Don't worry too much about players leaving. It happens all the time. Some players are just terribly adverse to a bad result. As for the "expert" tag, there are more than a few "experts" who IMO are no better than intermediate players. So the designation is somewhat meaningless unless you recognize them as true experts. Also, I'd take any comments, especially negative, with a grain of salt. I recall a hand where I made a safety play in the trump suit to guard against a 4-1 trump break making 4 and my "expert" partner went ballistic when I didn't make 5 because trump broke 3-2. I didn't have the heart to tell this player, that at IMPs, making the safety play is correct and something any real expert would recognize.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the possibility of using 3 NT as a minimum flat hand GF raise over 1 of a major. If you want the ability to distinguish between a 3 or 4 card raise with the flat hand, you could possibly use 4 ♣ as a relay with 4 ♦ showing one holding and 4 M showing the other.

Unfortunately, she didn't take Bill's advice about the campaign. So that's why we'll probably end up with a Tax Reform bill that will include a tax credit for day care expenses courtesy of Ivanka's input on women's issues to her father.

It's MPs, you have a stopper, a balanced hand, and partner has shown about an opening hand. Oh, and partner has not made a negative double so is less likely to have 4 ♥. So what's the logical game? Especially at MPs, that's 3 NT, so bid it. It may be a bit uncomfortable, but it's right. Assuming partner hasn't done anything unusual, a 3 NT bid rates to be somewhere around an average result whether it makes or goes down. With your hand, most players are going to bid 3 NT. So, taking any other action is playing top or bottom bridge. It can get scary bidding it with a single stopper, but that's part of the game. It's normal a little more at MPs. You don't know what's in partner's hand. So taking any action because you are worried that it might not have the right cards to make is an error. In another thread, I proffered that a principle of good bidding is "Don't place cards in your partner's hand unless bridge logic tells you they are there." The other side of that coin is "If you don't know what partner holds, don't assume that partner doesn't hold the right cards for you unless bridge logic tells you there are not there."

Where 1 NT may come into view with a semi-balanced hand is where the long suits are of poor quality with the strength concentrated in the doubletons especially if the long suits are minors. For example, ♠ AQ ♥ KQ ♦ Axxx ♣ Jxxxx would be such a hand. Even with a 4 card major, you might bid 1 NT with this variation of the previous hand ♠ AQ ♥ Axxx ♦ Jxxxx ♣ KQ.

Partner promised ♦. OK, normally, you would expect partner to have an opening bid. But with distributional hands (and partner's hand qualifies as one), partner may push a little to bid a suit. Otherwise, partner may never be able to show it afterward and you'll possibly lose the chance at a good contract. You have to take that into account in your bidding. Since you don't know what partner's hand is, redoubling is ludicrous. That bid needs to be reserved for hands where you're absolutely dead certain that 5 ♦ can't be defeated. You can't with the hand you hold. If 5 ♦ doubled makes, you're likely to get a top at MP and certainly would be getting a healthy swing at IMPs. So it really serves no purpose except to raise the penalty if you go set. One big issue with redoubling on this hand is the ♥, there's no way to if partner has only one heart loser. With a stiff low ♣, redoubling means you're betting partner to have no more one loser total in both majors or possibly two losers if partner has the ♣ A. That's a rather tall order. One cardinal principle of good bidding is "Never put cards into partner's hand unless bridge logic tells you they are there". I'd just pass over 5 ♦x. Your hand is an invitational hand opposite an opening bid. And it still is opposite a 3 ♦ overcall. You have a decent 11 count plus a possible ruffing value in ♣. However, once RHO raises to 4 ♣ that ruffing value has diminished somewhat. Unless you're playing against some incredibly aggressive and wild opponents, the 3 ♣ bidder has at least 7 ♣ and RHO likely has at least 3 to raise. So maybe you can ruff 1 ♣ at most from partner's hand. Partner needs a lot for slam to be on and with many "normal" 3 ♦ overcalls game may not even be ironclad.

I'm also a 1 ♠ bidder if playing 2/1.

I'm bidding 3 ♦. I'd normally like to have a little more to overcall at this level, but with a nice 7 card suit and 6 loser hand I'm not passing. I'll take my chances if partner has zilch and passes. But I want partner to know where my values lie if we defend.

To some extent, bidding agreements can impact what you do with this hand. I would expect those who play Drury to open 1 ♥ a great deal of the time because you have a mechanism to stop at low level in a ♥ fit. If you don't play Drury, the hand becomes more problematic.

From your hand, it seems fairly likely that RHO holds ♠ and ♥. Partner can't have more than 4 ♥ unless you open 1 NT occasionally with 5 bad ones. So it looks like 18+ total trumps for LOTT purposes. So it looks like 3 ♦ or 5 ♦ are the choice. Too much playing strength for Lebensohl 2 NT. I think I'm with Badger on this one. 5 ♦

3 ♣ is the right rebid. If your hand was ♠ Jxx ♥ AQ ♦ Ax ♣ KQ98xx or similar wouldn't you want to know about the 5-3 ♠ fit? How do you show that if 3 ♠ has to be 6+?

I agree with the previous two posts. On the bidding, West also knows something about responder's hand. First of all, responder is marked with an opening hand by inviting with 4 NT. Partner didn't bid 1 ♦ so likely can't have 5 ♦, otherwise a 1 ♦ response followed by a reverse into ♠ would be normal. Responder is also unlikely to have 5 ♠, else 1 ♠ followed by 3 ♠ or NMF over 2NT depending on bidding agreements. Likewise, with 5 ♠/4 ♥ responder would bid 3 ♥ or NMF over 2 NT depending on bidding agreements. With 4-4 in the majors, responder would have bid 1 ♥ instead of 1 ♠. So the following picture emerges of responder's hand 4 ♠, 3 or less ♥, 4 or less ♦, 4 or less ♣. So it looks like no secondary "long" suit tricks except if a 4-3 fit in ♦ and/or ♠ comes in. So slam would seem to depend strictly on total values (i.e., a power slam).

Once trump do not break, you have to start thinking about a possible squeeze. Given that West has the ♣ guard, you should be able to see that there can't be any squeeze on East because there is no pointed suit threat in the South hand (upper hand vs. East). So the only squeeze possible has to be against West.