rmnka447

The information that about Comey drafting a memo exonerating Clinton long before the investigation was complete came from Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsay Graham. http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/31/politics/comey-clinton-investigation/index.html Comey did in his testimony under oath claim he didn't decide that no prosecution was warranted until after the investigation was complete. This revelation is a possible contradiction of that testimony and needs to be investigated further. At the very least, it brings up the issue of whether Director Comey prejudged the investigation or was predisposed toward exoneration. That could lead to a "self fulfilling prophesy" situation where he might have acted in a manner in line with that predisposition in pursuing the investigation ensuring exoneration. So, at the very least, there needs to be an inquiry to assure something like that didn't occur.

What to do with 15-17 hands with a 5 card ♠ suit varies among good players. So there's no clearly right or wrong answer here. For newer players, I'd recommend just keeping it simple and opening 1 NT. The biggest concern in opening 1 NT with a 5 card major is possibly losing a fit in the 5 card suit. But on the other side of the coin, opening one of a major with any 15-17 5 card major hand has it's problems, too. Responder with any distribution 5-9 hand is forced to bid 1 NT (except over 1 ♥ openers when holding 4 or more ♠). So the "automatic" raise to 2 NT isn't without it's problems opposite distributional "stinkers". Even if the major is raised, there are some issues deciding how high to bid. The Badger's response brought up a lot of good points also. Whichever way you decide to go, over a period of time, you discern some group of hands where going the opposite opening route may seem to work better. Then, you can discuss with your partner(s) how best to handle those hands.

I think the choice is between pass and 2 ♥. As I've often said, when the hand is a misfit try to get out as cheaply as possible. Bidding a black suit will often just raise the level of the contract without improving anything. Passing isn't so much about collecting a penalty as attempting to limit the losses. -180 or -380 might not look so bad versus a -500, -600, or -800 if you make a bid. 2 ♥ gets you out of 2 ♦x. But there's no guarantee partner will have anything better than a 5-1 fit. The only problem is if partner has a good hand and takes a push thinking there's a fit but not many points. (Partner ought to know that with a fit and a smattering of points you'd raise over 2 ♦ initially.) My instinct is to pass.

+1 for Wank.

Pass. What does the auction tell you? Opener should have a good hand to double your 1 ♠ bid because with a minimal opener a pass could be made and RHO would still have a chance to make a call and continue the auction. Your ♣ void would seem to place your partner with some ♣. You've made an aggressive 1 ♠ overcall, so have bid the full value of your hand and then some with that call. Your partner made a minimum raise which shows a limited hand and support. Often partner will have only 3 card support. Then 2 ♠ may be the limit of or beyond what you can make. Partner should have another chance to compete further with the right hand or sit for a ♣ or other contract if that's right. Bidding 3 ♠ is a unilateral decision and should be reserved for hands where it's pretty crystal clear to bid on no matter what partner has. Here what partner has is very important on what should be done, so passing is right. Keep in mind that at MPs a vulnerable contract down 1 doubled is -200 which is the kiss of death on part score hands. And at MPs, the opponents can be freer making part score penalty doubles. Indeed, making such "ornery" MP point doubles where you've got enough to feel you have a fair chance of beating the opponents but not enough to bid on are an important part of being a good MP player.

The problem was pretty obvious -- potential ruffs coupled with a bad trump break. If trump break 2-2, you're always making 6. If trump break 3-1, you can always make 5 by playing 2 rounds of trump, then playing to ruff the 3rd ♣ in dummy. If trump break 4-0, then you must limit your losers to no more than 2 trump losers. Win ♣ A, play a ♠ to the ♠ K. If trump are 3-1 or 2-2 play as above. If trumps 4-0 with West, lead remaining ♣ from the board towards the ♣ K5. If West trumps you can discard the losing 5 avoiding a ♣ loser. If West follows, you can win the ♣ K and ruff the ♣ 5 on the board. If trumps 4-0 with East, you can play ♣ from the board and put up the ♣ K. If it holds, you try to ruff 3rd ♣on the board. If the ♣ K is ruffed by East, you still have 2 trump on the board. So even if East returns trump, you can win in hand and lead the 3rd ♣ to trump on the board unless overruffed by East.

It depends on how strong you play your reverses. There people who will play "light" reverses as light as an undistinguished 15-16 without any assurance of a further rebid. For those folks, your ranging would be about right. But for those playing "strong" reverses promising 17+ and a further rebid, 7-8 is enough for a positive response versus a potential sign-off.

Unfortunately, preempts do work. You get only one shot to place the contract and partner might have something like KQx xx AKxxx Qxx where 3 NT makes but 5 ♦ doesn't. Pay your money, take your choice.

3 NT for me, also. It's the most likely game and you are vulnerable. Partner doesn't have many ♥, so partner's ♦ should be a real suit.

Sorry, but I'm bidding a "disruptive" 2 ♣ over 1 ♦ initially. It makes it more difficult for the opponents to sort out any major fits, they may have. With LHO being a passed hand, there's less danger of a phone number penalty double of 2 ♣ and a pretty good likelihood it will be a part score hand. If partner finds a raise to 3 ♣ over LHO opponent's negative double, the opponents will have to sort it out at the three level.

Pass. Do you think partner is going to sit for a double of 4 ♠ with a void? You have presumably advertised ♠ shortness with your previous double, so partner will virtually never be able to figure out that you have the extra strong NT type hand and will not pass. With a ♠ void, partner could well be 5-4-4, so you can't really guarantee anything better than an 8 card fit. You know they have at best a 9 card fit. LOTT tells you it isn't likely to turn out well if partner bids. 4-3-3-3 hands are not good to compete further. Sit and take your positive.

4 NT, then pull 5 ♦ to 5 ♥ if necessary. I appreciate those who are worried about 5 ♥ being a superior MP result. But at the 5 level, it's more about finding a decent place to play than necessarily the best place to play. By bidding 4 NT, you not only increase your options of doing that, but also give partner some useful information about the nature of your hand.

I'm in agreement with the posters who would double now and pull 2 ♦ to 2 ♥.

Pass. Partner has doubled and bid a new suit which should indicate a "strong" overcall hand. You're void in partner's suit, so the hand is a misfit. Rule #1 for misfits is to get out of the auction as quickly and cheaply as possible. There's no guarantee that any further call by you will result in a better contract, so pass.

Again, your passes are perfect. After partner's opening bid and RHO's overcall, you know: 1) You don't have a fit with partner's long suit, and, 2) RHO is unlikely to have a good ♦ fit with his partner, and, 3) Partner is unlikely to have many diamonds with 10+ accounted for between you and RHO. The hand looks like a misfit as the distributions of both red suits are likely skewed adversely for whoever declares. When you know that is the case, it's not likely that either black suit will break well either. In that case, it's often right to stay out of the auction or get out as quickly and cheaply as you can. You don't have the values to compete freely over the 2 ♦ overcall. But let's consider and define the bids you might make if you did decide to make a call. A direct 2 ♠ call shows a good hand with 5+ spades and at least 11-12 HCP. A negative double shows about 8-10 HCP minimum at the 2 level. It implies no ability to penalize the opponents, length in the unbid suits (or length in 1 suit that you were unable to bid freely at the 2 level) and tends to show tolerance for partner's suit. Neither of these calls really fits you hand either. 2 ♠ shows a much stronger hand and it may be difficult to prevent partner from pushing too high. After a negative double, you have no good call if partner rebids 3 ♣, no matter what you do then you'll likely land in trouble. The only other call available is the pass you made. Sometimes good bidding is as much about staying out of bad contracts as finding good ones. Now consider if you had the following hand instead ♠ 108xxx ♥ xx ♦ x ♣ AQxxx. Same points, but the distribution has been rearranged a little. Now consider what happens if partner replies to a negative double with this hand. If partner bids either Black suit, you're reasonably placed. If partner rebids ♥, you know you'll be playing at least a 7 card fit and possible have a ruffing value for partner in ♦. So an aggressive negative double with this hand is not bad. You don't quite have the normal values, but anywhere you end up is likely to be a decent place to play. However, with a singleton ♥ and doubleton ♦ in this hand, pass is again better. Believe it or not, a pass also gives partner some valuable information. Your pass over 2 ♦ shows not enough values to make a call, a hand unsuited to any call, or a hand with a ♦ stack and values where you want to penalize a ♦ contract. As you progress as a bridge player, you'll learn that sometimes what an opponent doesn't call is as revealing as what they do call. In that regard, as a very fine player told me early on, "Pass is one of the most underrated calls in all of bridge." BTW, your hand isn't worthless on defense. You hold ♣ AQ behind RHO opponent who presumably has a decent hand for a 2 level overcall. An AQ tenace is worth 1 1/2 Quick Tricks (defensive tricks). That's a lot more than most 6 point hands. If, at IMPS, the bidding goes, 1 ♥ - 2 ♦ - P - P DBL - P - ? I'd probably pass with your hand as 2 ♦x making isn't a game and there's a reasonable chance of beating it. As the cards lie, it's possible to take as many as 9 tricks against 2 ♦x.

Poor, at best for all the reasons outlined by previous posters. If somehow you get an inkling that making the bid is tactically right, be prepared to make profuse apologies to partner if it turns out badly. If it works out, well, no one can ever claim that good matchpoints is necessarily good bridge.

A trump.

A trump.

Would a 3 ♦ bid be forcing or would it just be a preference for one of responder's suits with a minimum hand? If it's forcing, then after 3 ♦, a further ♥ rebid ought to show a hand that's something like 6-4 in the reds and is better than a simple 3 ♥ rebid. If it's a just preference, then you have to have some way of showing extras and that would probably be double unless you specifically agree on something else. This bidding situation is the kind of thing that you work out as you develop a partnership. I'm not sure there are any right or wrong answers, just what you agree with your partner and what works for you as a pair.

I'm leading a ♠. Partner has to beat this hand, if it's beatable. Yeah, partner may have 7 ♠, but I can't know that for sure. I'd hate to find out that both opener and responder had doubletons and failure to lead a ♠ allowed declarer to pitch to avoid a ♠ loser.

♠ J

I'm leading the appropriate ♠ for my holding. As Fred Will said, "If my partner bids a suit, I lead partner's suit unless there's a darn good reason not to." But, of course, I hate leading Q from QJxx because it seems like most times I do dummy ends up A10x or K10x and declarer has the other high honor. So the lead gives away a trick.

Winnie, Winnie, Winnie, there you go again. You present a piece from a biased source as authoritative. The only problem is that it isn't. The Washington Post states: This isn't fact, it's conjecture. The summation in the third sentence starts "It's entirely possible" which are weasel words and no where near something like "It's absolutely certain". Furthermore, there's no way to know if there's no connection between the work for Prevezon and the Trump dossier without a thorough investigation. There's no way the Washington Post has the necessary tools to even do that. Also, the second sentence makes an unwarranted assumption that the Russian wouldn't do anything that might make themselves look bad. But if Russia's overarching goal is to weaken the US by fostering chaos, discord, and division among Americans and between Americans and the American Government, then the Russians might well do something that casts themselves in a bad light if it progresses their main objective. What is known is that Prevezon has connections to the Russian government when its owner's father is a confidant and close friend of Putin (according to William Browder's testimony). It is also known that Fusion GPS did work for Prevezon. According to William Browder, it was a completely bogus smear campaign against Magnitsky and himself. What's not known is if somehow in the course of doing business with Prevezon, Fusion GPS did something that compromised themselves with the Russians. So the best you can say about this piece is that it provides a few facts, but is really an opinion. I would refer you to view the Browder testimony. It's available on-line at www.c-span.org . Parts of his testimony are definitely his opinion, but some of what he said about the Russians and how they operate is downright scary.

Here is link to William Browder's opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee during their hearing on the renewal of the FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act). http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bill-browders-testimony-to-the-senate-judiciary-committee-on-russia-magnitsky-act-full-text/article/2629846 It is fascinating reading. In the follow up questioning, he was asked if the Russians would try to gain access to both campaigns and he strongly affirmed that they would. He said their objective would be to sow discord or do anything they could to weaken or compromise our system of government. So they would play both sides against the middle. He firmly asserted that the Russian government indirectly funded a Fusion GPS smear campaign against Magnitsky and him to prevent passage of the Magnitsky act. He stated in his testimony that Fusion and a number of other Washington lobbying organizations should have been registered as agents of a foreign government under the FARA Act. But in a subsequent interview on FOX, he stated that he didn't have any knowledge about whether there were any further dealings between Russia and Fusion. Fusion GPS was working with the Dems on "opposition research" about Donald Trump during the campaign. (Hey, Winnie, remember when I asked about possible Russian attempts to infiltrate the Clinton campaign and you vehemently denied they'd let that happen. Welcome to the real world of cloak and dagger!)

Many players play 2 ♠ as a weak transfer to a minor contract. Opener bids 3 ♣ and responder passes or corrects to 3 ♦ to play there. If so, then you can by partnership agreement define the following Stayman sequence 1 NT - 2 ♣ 2 ♦ - 3 ♣ as showing a forcing hand with a ♣ suit or minor suit Stayman. If opener has less then 4 ♣, 3 ♦ has to be bid. Otherwise, opener can bid a major stopper confirming 4 ♣. (Opener's hand must have 7+ minor cards, so a 3 ♦ continuation must be either 3=3=4=3 or 5-3-3-2 with a 5 card ♦ suit.) On the actual hands asked about, opener would rebid 3 ♦ and you should have no problem finding 5 ♦ from there.