rmnka447

3 NT.

West has done more than enough by making an aggressive negative double. East has seriously underbid the hand by bidding 2 ♥. IMO, East's proper bid is 3 .♥. That shows the value of the hand and leaves room for further action or exploration by West. West's hand at this point is still unlimited, so the extra room may be vital should West have more than was actually held. At IMPs, West just carries on to 4 ♥ after 3 ♥.

I'm not sure South bids 4 ♣ over East's 3 ♥ either whether North's second bid is 2 ♣ or 2 ♦. With a 7-4 hand, I'd be awfully tempted to bid 4 ♣ as North though if 3 ♥ is passed back to me. An interesting question is how the auction should develop if East passes after a 2 ♦ reverse. South's hand to me is an absolutely minimal hand despite the ♣ fit. So I'd think South would still make the potential negative/drop dead bid. If it's 2 NT (Ingbermann or 2 NT negative), or, 2 ♥ (cheapest of 4th suit or 2NT possible negative), then what does opener bid next? Playing Ingbermann, 3 ♣ accepts the signoff. Playing other methods 3 ♣ shows at least 6-4. Does opener have enough to jump to 4 ♣ instead?

4 ♥ here also. There's no way to know what's making or going down. With a 5 loser 6-5 hand, you've got to act. I don't necessarily believe LHO has to have a big hand. Between your hand and the 3 NT bidder's hand, you account for about half the points in the deck. (3 NT bidder ought to have something like ♣ AKQ10xxx minimum.) So the remainder of the points are distributed between LHO and your passing partner. I'd expect the point split to be closer to 10/10 than 20/0. I wouldn't be surprised to see that this hand could be a double game swing hand where both sides can make game.

Watson's Classic Book on the Play of the Hand at Bridge by Louis Watson. But any good basic book on card play should suffice -- Card Play Technique by Gardiner & ?, Bill Root's books, and many others. The important thing is that the more grounded you are in the fundamentals, the more solid a player you are. If you never execute a trump coup, endplay, or squeeze, but can consistently play excellent fundamental bridge, you'll win against most opposition. When you study a book the first time, you never pick up everything important that's there. So revisiting a book after playing for a while helps you pick up and gain better understanding of what the book was teaching. Oh, and the first time I read Watson as a teenager eons ago was a copy available from my local public library.

North has a 4 loser minor hand and should at least bid a 2 ♦ reverse over partner's 1 ♠ response. 2 ♣ is far too much of an underbid. The question then becomes whether East will still bid 3 ♥ over North showing a powerful hand.

The best method for becoming a good bridge player is a combination of study and play. As others have pointed out, you might make some progress by solely playing, but it may take a long time to do so, or, what you think you may be discerning as basic principles of bidding and play aren't really so. Then you may be stuck at some point in time at trying unlearn bad habits which is not so easy. OTOH, if you simply study, you don't automatically become a good bridge player either because playing experience is necessary to learn to apply the concepts and principles you learn from study. It some time takes a while, but sooner or later a hand or hands will pop up where you recognize something you've studied applies and you know what to do. Often, such moments may initially occur after the fact, but then at some point they become apparent as you play when you can use them and you have made a step forward. Something study does do is present concepts, principles and ways of thinking about hands and playing that are not so obvious to a newer player. Your main task as a newer player is to learn these fundamentals and learn them well. If you do so, you will be far ahead of many other bridge players and able to compete against almost anyone. Fundamentally sound bridge players are always tough opponents. Some new players to competitive bridge who are partners got some free copies of a bridge book on fundamentals of play at a bridge book giveaway at our local club. They asked about how good the book was and how to use it to help them improve. I suggested that it was excellent and that they carefully study the first half of the book on fundamentals, play for several months, and then reread the sections on fundamentals. It's been my experience that going over the fundamentals a second time helps players cement them a lot more firmly in their minds. At some point when you get the fundamentals down, you should be able to play reasonably satisfying bridge. Then the game opens up as even more fascinating. You can then go as far as you want to take it by further study and play. I might add that I still go back and reread that fundamental book from time to time and am still learning from it.

By losing trick count, OP's hand is a 5 loser hand -- 2 in S, 1 each in the red suits, 1 in C. It's much too strong a playing hand to stray from bidding out the pattern of the hand. 1 ♣ - 1 any red suit 1 ♠ - 2 any red suit 2 ♠ - ? and partner knows the story that you are 6/5 and strong enough not to invert the bidding as you would with a minimum hand. 1) Definitely 1 ♣ 2) N/A as I don't play strong 1 ♣ and can't comment

I think you pass with that hand as partner has shown the strong ♠ overcall and you've bid your full values with your first bid. There's no reason to think partner has any ♥ and that ♥ will play better than ♠. Give partner something like ♠ KQJxxx ♥ x ♦ AQx ♣ Axx and you're making 8 or 9 tricks in ♠ while losing 6 or 7 tricks in ♥.

One of the big claims for ACA was that it would reduce emergency room visits thus savings lots of money expended for extremely expensive healthcare by getting people into more regular forms of healthcare delivery that are cheaper. The following is an article I found that seems fairly balanced as it refers to several studies of emergency room data. It certainly shows that emergency room usage has not gone down with ACA. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/mar/10/tom-price/hhs-chief-tom-price-correct-er-use-obamacare/ Uninsured visits to emergency rooms were down but they were offset by increased Medicaid and private insurance visits. So basically since Medicaid is essentially free to those enrolled in it, the public is still paying for those visits by the formerly uninsured except it's just coming out of a different bucket. All I was saying in my original comments was that as you significantly increase the amount of people with real health care insurance, the total demand for healthcare being sought will significantly increase. You can't ever expect to reduce health care costs in that scenario unless you provide increased capacity to deliver health care. It's simple supply and demand. If you don't increase healthcare delivery capacity, then you'll drive up health care costs and create scarcity which results in rationing of those services and possibly even less quality of delivery. Ultimately, that will mean some people will have access denied or delayed a la the VA. And we know that has resulted in some veteran's deaths. Simply providing insurance isn't a panacea. It has to be accompanied by a concomitant serious look at how to expand healthcare capacity. But that's not how the discussion is being framed.

1. 2 ♥ 2. Dbl - 3 H takes up too much room, need to know more about partner's hand. Game in NT or either minor is still possible. 3. Pass 4. 6 ♠

After the ♣ transfer and super accept, isn't still 3 NT in play on many hands? So wouldn't it be logical that 3 ♥ over the 2 NT super accept would presumably show a ♥ stopper. Then after 3 NT by the NT bidder, a 4 ♣ continuation makes the slam try in ♣ and the previous 3 ♥ bid becomes an advance control bid for ♣. Alternatively, you might also just bid 4 ♥ over 3 NT in this sequence which also becomes a slam try but should show a 6+♣/5 ♥ hand since with 5-5, you'd normally transfer to ♥ and then bid ♣. So, to recap, 1 NT - 2 ♠ 2 NT - 3 ♥ 3 NT - 4 ♣ Slam try in ♣ with ♥ control, or, 1 NT - 2 ♠ 2 NT - 3 ♥ 3 NT - 4 ♥ Slam try with 6/5 hand (and sort of implies some ♥ control since slam is suggested), but, 1 NT - 2 ♠ 2 NT - 3 ♥ 3 NT - Pass was just trying for 3 NT with something like ♠ xx ♥ AJx ♦ xx ♣ AKxxxx.

I agree with the sentiment of most that the jump to 4 NT was just plain wrong. Even if the ♣ K is a wasted value, South's hand is a terrific hand for North. Every other honor in the hand is working. So, South should go slow and cue 3 ♦. Look how much more information you both have if you do so. 1 ♠ - 2 NT 3 ♣ - 3 ♦ 3 ♥ - 3 ♠ (3 ♠=waiting bid show continued slam interest) 4 ♣ - 4 ♥ At his point, North knows South has at least ♦ A and ♥ K, South knows North has ♥ A and ♣ void or stiff A. And someone can still use RKCB. Given the actual auction, North has to make the appropriate void response (5 NT or 6 ♣) showing an even number and void. Whichever it is, South should be able to get the additional information to bid the grand by a further ask.

Some tools are available over a Gambling 3 NT for exploring for other contracts opposite a 7 or 8 trick solid minor, but partner just can't ever envision a 9 card solid suit. So depending on vulnerability, the hand should be opened at 1 m or 5 m. Just to refresh those who might not recall the tools over a Gambling 3 NT -- ♣ at any level is pass or correct, 5 ♦, 6 ♦, 7 ♦ is to play. I know your suit and want to play from my side -- often to protect a holding in one of the suit, 4 ♦ asks for a singleton or void - 4 M= M shortness, 4 NT= no shortness, 5 of opener's suit= shortness in other minor, 4 NT asks "Do you have an extra trick?" - opener rebids 6 of suit with an extra trick, 5 of suit without an extra trick, and, 5 NT asks "Can you play opposite a void?" - opener rebids 7 of suit if can play without a loser opposite a void, 6 of suit if a loser exists,

This is a situation for a partnership agreement on what a 3 level double means. At the 2 level, there are plenty of tools available to sort out what to do. At the 3 level space is constrained for finding a fit and deciding if 3 NT is possible. 3 NT here has to be to play with a stopper. 3 ♥, 3 ♠ should be natural 5 card suits GF. So, double here is needed for a myriad hands where no clear cut bid exists, but you need to tell the 1 NT opener that you have values. Else, especially at IMPs, your opponents will learn that preempting at the 3 level when possible can knock you out of biddable games. How about something like ♠ xx ♥ Kxx ♦ xx ♣ AKQ10xx? You have six pretty sure tricks for partner at NT and a good probability of 7. But the 3 ♦ preempt puts it to you right away. 4 ♣ bypasses 3 NT, but you can't play 3 NT without a ♦ stopper. An 11 trick 5 ♣ contract may not be ironclad while 3 NT may be if partner has the stopper. So this is another candidate for a values double.

There's a 900 lb. gorilla that no one advocating universal healthcare has addressed as yet. How do you expand the availability of healthcare to make healthcare receivable in a timely fashion by all the millions of additional people to be covered under the system? Right now, our healthcare delivery systems have a finite capacity and adding millions more individuals vying for that care will cause cost increases and scarcity resulting in rationing. Inevitably, that rationing will result in increased fatalities resulting from inability to receive timely care. How do we prevent that?

Nice summary through 2014, but here we are well into 3 years later and the problems still exist. Trump at least has signed into law a couple measures aimed at helping solve these problems. One let Vets see private doctors if the VA facilities couldn't provide timely healthcare. The other provided for dismissal of VA employees that weren't performing their jobs properly. I'm sure opponents of single payer will hold up this system as an example of government run healthcare run amok. How do you protect people from ruthless or apathetic bureaucrats under single payer as much as you do ruthless or apathetic health insurance executives under the current system?

Single payer sounds good in principle, but since something like 76% of healthcare in this country is delivered under employer supplied plans, the question is whether you can convince all those people covered under those plans that it's better to be covered by a single payer government plan. I suspect that will be a very tough sell with some severe political ramifications if jammed down people's throats.

When responder bid 2 S, responder reversed and forced you to bid with a minimum ♦ hand. It should show longer ♣ than ♠ and a near opening hand at minimum. So you could try to sign off with minimal bids in your suit, or NT (3 ♦, 2 NT), or bid game 3 NT (with ♥ stopped and maximum minimum opener) or 4 ♠ (Spade fit). 3 ♠ would invite. That leaves 2 other bids available below 3 NT -- 3 ♣ and 3 ♥. 3 ♣ is a preference and leaves it up to partner to take further action -- so is non forcing. 3 ♥ ought to be asking about a ♥ stopper as you could bid NT yourself with one. Since it forces to at least 4 of one of the minors if responder has no stopper, it should be forward going.

I'd opt for 2 ♣ on both suggested opener's hands. With responder's hand over 2 ♣, the question is whether to rebid 2 ♥ over the 2 ♣ rebid. First, responder should consider what opener didn't rebid. Opener didn't rebid 1 ♠ so should have less than 3 ♠. Opener didn't rebid 1 NT so doesn't have a ♦ stopper. Opener didn't raise ♥, so has less than 4 ♥. So the worst that partner could be is 3-1-4-5, but that means LHO is void in ♦ which is unlikely. So partner is likely to at least 1 ♥ and 2 ♥ seems OK to bid.

Political correctness seeks to limits debate to only certain "acceptable" terminology. Progressives have used it to try to frame everything in terms favorable to their world view. In essence, it's arbitrary censorship to gain political advantage by stifling debate. Anyone who dares to criticize or question that view is ostracized, delegitimized, intimidated, or otherwise stopped up to and including threats or acts of violence. Yet in a FREE and democratic country, unpleasant or tough questions must be asked to get to the best solutions. Limiting discourse only along certain lines does not lead to optimal outcomes. History is replete with countries that followed self destructive paths because they couldn't recognize how they were acting in ways antithetical to what they presumably espoused.

I also agree with Winstonm's comments. 2/1 does not have any agreed standard approach that everyone uses and agrees about. The ACBL convention card even shows this by having two boxes to check off -- Game Forcing or Game Forcing except when Suit Rebid. As for a rebid of 2 ♠ showing 6, Max Hardy in his books asserted so but even he had to hedge in his examples. The problem set of hand are unbalanced minimums with 2nd suits unbiddable at the 2 level. After 1 ♠ - 2 ♦ you hold ♠ AKxxx ♥ Qxx ♦ x ♣ Kxxx and the only sensible rebid is 2 ♠. So for Hardy, 2 ♠ guarantees 6 except when it doesn't. Even a 2 NT rebid has no common definition. I believe Hardy and Mike Lawrence had differences about that bid. One insisted it showed stoppers in unbid suit, the other didn't. Then there's the question of what bids show extras and what bids don't. Some play 2 ♠ (and sometimes 2 NT) show minimums while any other bid shows "extras". Others just pattern out their hands without regard to strength. So 2/1 is an approach built around the concept that a 2 level response is at least nominally game forcing with myriad variations based upon individual agreements. It's OK to specify how you'd take a bid but need to understand there are no absolutes. In the versions I play with my fairly regular partners, 2 ♠ and sometimes 2 NT are catchall minimums, other bids normally show "extras". So our auctions would start out 1 ♠ - 2 ♣ 2 ♠ - ? Here the auctions would vary because some play 2 ♣ as an absolute game force while others play a ♣ rebid could be passed. For the game forcers, the auction would be 1 ♠ - 2 ♣ 2 ♠ - 3 ♣ 3 ♠ - 4 ♠ ( 3 ♠ now shows 6) ? and for the Suit Rebid can be passed bidders, the auction would be 1 ♠ - 2 ♣ 2 ♠ - 3 ♦ (3 ♦ because responder has to force with something) 3 ♠ - 4 ♠ ? The question then is whether opener continues on beyond 4 ♠. In the 1st auction, it's more difficult to do so than in the 2nd. But with red suit controls and partner likely showing good ♣, 4 NT is not out of the question. After 5 ♥ (2 without the Q), does opener go on? Not sure, but more likely playing 5 ♠.

Win A and return a heart. Opener's 3 ♠ would seem to confirm 2-2 in majors and some 5-4 minor holding. Opener might bid a logical alternative 3 NT with ♥ Ax over 3 ♣.

I'm bidding 4 ♦ as a shortness ask. If partner shows shortness in a major (4 ♥, 4 ♠) or no shortness (4 NT), I'll bid 5 ♣ -- pass or correct. If partner shows shortness in the "other" minor by bidding 5 of partner's suit I'll raise to 6. Without a stopper or potential stopper in every other suit, you don't sit for 3 NT. Here one of the minors is unguarded.

4 ♣ I play Roman Jump Overcalls in all positions with my partners over weak 2s only. So, 4 ♣ shows strong 2 suiter in ♣ and ♦ (suit bid and next higher unbid suit). For other strong 2 suiters, 4 ♦ shows ♦ and ♠, 3 ♠ shows ♠ and ♣.