rmnka447

I also play similarly except opening minors are 3+. With the way original poster is playing, maybe they should have an agreement that with 4+ ♣ and a bad hand responder can pass instead of bid 1 ♦. Sometime you may end up in a 4-2 fit, but more often you'll have a 7+ card fit. Playing a 4-2 fit at the 1 level maty not be optimum, but it usually isn't the end of the world. There's another issue with designating 1 ♦ as a weak bid. If you have balanced 6-7 count and no major -- xxx Ax xxxx Qxxx or similar -- then you're forced to bid 1 NT. That allows an opening lead through the strong hand rather than into it. So there are some hands where you'd like to able to some time manufacture a 1 ♦ response, so opener can rebid 1 NT. If you're playing in an environment where most opponents are playing strong NTs, bidding 1 NT on OP stated hand probably isn't going to cost you much.

I'm opening this hand -- rule of 20 with 2 QT and 7 losers. If the hand were Axxxx xx QJx Axx or similar, it would be a clear cut pass to me. Loser count tends to be a tie breaker for me these days. I make the minimum rebid if a 2/1 bid comes back.

2 NT Vulnerable, and especially vulnerable versus not, you just can't be bidding wildly on lousy suits. So this hand is about a minimum for a vulnerable unusual NT.

2 ♦ Yeah, dummy has denied major length. But there's any even more overriding "fact" that needs to be considered. You're looking at 11 HCPs. The opponents should have about 25+ points, so that accounts for something like 36 of the 40 HCP. That leaves maybe 4 HCP max for partner. 4 HCP isn't usually enough to provide enough high cards to set up a Major and have the vital entry to it. Guess I pay off if partner has a 6 card major headed by the A9 or A10, but how often does that happen? Low from KQxx might not work out but seems the best option. If partner has D J, D J10 or even just D 10 it might just work out. (I've seen declarer's misguess and insert the 9 from ♦ AJ9 tight on several occasions.)

At MP, I think pass would absolutely clear. But at IMPs, where bidding thin vulnerable games is a winning strategy, I'm making a try. So, 2 NT or 3 ♥ whichever is the power invitational raise.

Pass Partner has no more than 4 cards in the pointed suits, so a ♠ rebid with such a bad suit has some peril. It would be even more risky if you play Flannery where a 1 ♠ response usually shows 5 and opener can raise with 3. The hand just isn't good enough to raise ♣. If you do, you may get too high if partner takes another bid. In an IMP sense, if a ♠ part score and ♣ part score make, 2 ♣ is not likely to lose many IMPs. So, the only big risk for passing 2 [clubs ]is that partner has a big hand and some game makes. Since that isn't all that probable, passing seems best.

Agreed, with the proviso that where "I hope you can let this go" falls needs to be determined by the Special Counsel because of possible different interpretations of that meeting. It may be that subsequent information turned up by the investigation turn it into something extremely serious or something just incidental rather than culpable. We'll just have to wait and see. Former AG Loretta Lynch's attempt to have the FBI characterize the Hillary e-mail investigation as a "matter" is disturbing. Such a description would have been in lock step with what the Clinton campaign was calling the probe -- a clearly politically motivated purpose. It was my fervent hope when President Trump was elected that he'd appoint an AG who was largely apolitical and would conduct the affairs of the Justice Department in a fair and impartial manner. I hoped the Justice Department wouldn't be tied to a political agenda as was apparent during the Obama years. I also hoped that he'd reaffirm that the FBI was independent, apolitical and would remain so. I'm not sure AG Jeff Sessions meets that criteria. Or how politically connected one is. It's almost the same thing because if you've got beaucoup money and donate, you're virtually assured of being well connected.

Pay your money and take your choice. If you reserve a jump bid as a very strong single suited overcall, then you're sort of stuck doubling with big 2 suited hands. Then try to figure out how to compete with those hands over a preemptive raise. I think that's why people use a jump to show a big two suiter -- suit bid and next higher unbid suit.

Good point. It does speak to one advantage of bidding discipline in situations like this one. I've also seen a large modicum of such discipline when competing against top players. Unfortunately, none of us usually have those kind of players sitting across the table from us. So maybe we have to take that into consideration in deciding what to do. The more I think about it, 5 ♠ may be a better bid in a situation where intervener's discipline is less sure.

6 ♣ I agree 5 ♣ should be strong else partner has preempted a preempt which should be a no-no. But if partner has done that, the onus is om him/her. With that being said, it's possible that partner has pushed a tad to bid 5 ♣ with a player. I wouldn't be surprised to see something like - x KQJx KQJxxxxx or similar come down. Since there's just no way to know if 13 tricks are there or not, 6 ♣ seems to be the practical bid. If 6 ♣ makes 7, then the opponents still have to bid it.

You forgot that when asked about his plan for fighting ISIS, President Obama grudgingly admitted he had no plan. Of course, he promised to put one together and then never really did. A year later, he still didn't have a plan except to say "no boots on the ground". I recall a point in his last year or two of his presidency when President Obama claimed that ISIS was contained in an interview. That occurred no more than a few days after the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified under oath to Congress that ISIS wasn't contained. Sorry, but I didn't buy the smoke President Obama was blowing. If ISIS was to be defeated with "no boots on the ground", then the fight would have to be carried out by a coalition of regional forces opposed to ISIS. President Obama said as much, but never provided the leadership to get our allies to act and marshal those forces against ISIS. So he had a chance to control events but choose not to, so he is fully culpable for what happened. The pity is that by essentially ignoring ISIS, he let it metastasize into a world wide organization that is going to be much more of a problem and ultimately cost more lives in battling and in terrorist attacks. At least you're perceptive in figuring out that part of my position on Trump is "at least he's not Obama". When you chose to ridicule President Trump's trip to Saudi Arabia, you apparently missed that the President was doing exactly what Obama didn't do -- seeking to get our regional allies to act and marshal their resources against ISIS and Al-Qaeda. In doing so, he also sought to reassure them that America had their back. That was backed up by his recent actions against Syria and against ISIS in Afghanistan. Those actions showed he wasn't just talk, but would act when the situation warranted. So "at least he's not Obama" in this case is a very positive development.

OTOH, President Obama voiced that US commitment, but his actions belied that he'd ever act if circumstances demanded it. As a result, he unwittingly became the best agent Putin and some of the other bad actors in this world could have asked for. His reluctance to take any strong action in support of the Ukraine allowed Russian to seize the Crimea. His lip service to going after ISIS resulted in their global expansion. President Trump, so far, has shown the ability to respond to difficult situations. By launching missiles against Syria after they used chemical weapons and letting his military use the MOAB in Afghanistan, he sent a message that he was unafraid to act. That message wasn't just to the targets of those attacks, it was to all the potential bad actors. It told them they couldn't count on US passivity anymore. It certainly seemed to get China's attention, so that they couldn't disregard Trump saying "If you don't help us with North Korea, we'll take care of them ourselves."

There's no doubt President Trump has done enough to warrant plenty of negative coverage, but when the reporting reaches the point where it's virtually all negative you have to seriously question its objectivity. On the lighter side, I liked the quip by Gov. Mike Huckabee during the campaign. He said, "If Donald Trump was out in a boat, got out, and walked on water, the New York Times would report 'Donald Trump can't swim'." Cute remark, but illustrative that one's prejudices can color one's perspective. It's no secret that most of the "mainstream" media espouse a liberal/progressive view of the world. But if they are to be a credible watchdog for our republic, they have to try to be as impartial as possible in reporting the news. Unfortunately, in large part, the media has not chosen to take the high road and do that. So, it's no surprise that they are viewed as biased.

The more intriguing question is whether the "negative" Trump ratings will decline at some of the mainstream media outlets who are engaging former Fox personnel. One of my staunch progressive friends used to say derogatory things about Greta while she was on Fox. Now he's telling how much he likes her show on MSNBC because she asks the tough questions and doesn't let guests off the hook or change the subject. I'd expect a similar no change approach from Megyn Kelly on NBC. Time will tell if their new venues affect a change in their perspective and approach or not. As for Fox, I don't expect much change as what Trump does falls into the wheelhouse of the conservative bent of the channel. But Trump won't get a free pass, either. Shepard Smith, who I believe is one of the major news editors, has shown no reluctance to criticize the President when his actions warrant it.

Harvard is hardly a bastion of right wing thought. So when they say the extreme amount of negative reporting about Trump gives gravitas to a perception of media bias, that's important. Then they follow it up with comments about getting back to objectivity as a means to build rebuild credibility with the public. It's about as gentle a way as possible to say to the mainstream media that their reporting isn't fair and balanced, that is, it's biased. The problem is that a bias impedes objectivity and can color the reporting of the news. It reminds me of a scene from "All the President's Men" where Woodward and Bernstein were trying to figure why they got a story terribly wrong. They concluded "we heard what we wanted to hear not what he said". Fortunately, most of the public is smart enough to see through the bias and that's why the media is even lower in trustworthiness than politicians.

You've zeroed in on the key issue concerning a slam by noting your concern about partner's holding in ♥. When moving toward slam depends on a specific control (♥), it almost always means you to need to cue bid which may allow partner to show if the control is present. The best chance to get an opportunity to do that is by using a Jacoby 2 NT forcing game raise. Assuming standard responses to Jacoby, the only problem is that partner with a flat distribution minimum hand would bid 4 ♠ and you'd still have no clue about ♥. Then you're sort of stuck playing 4 ♠. However, if partner finds any other response, you can initiate cueing to try to get information about ♥. After you've agreed upon a suit in a game forcing auction, any new suit bid shows a control with slam interest and asks partner to show his/her controls by cueing also. But you do need to have some agreement on your cueing -- some folks play any A or K control, some As before Ks. Of course, you might get really lucky and have partner rebid 3 ♥ showing ♥ shortness. Then you can directly move to RKCB as a ♥ control is present.

Well, the public believes the media is biased. So it would seem like their reporting regarding President Trump needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt. A recent Harvard study of media coverage in the first 100 days shows major media sources were overwhelming negative about President Trump. CNN and NBC 93% negative, CBS 90% negative, NYTimes 87% negative, WashPost 83% negative, WSJ 70%, and Fox 52% negative. Stories concerning President Trump's fitness for office ran WashPost 96% negative, NYTimes 87% negative, CNN 82% negative, NBC 80% negative, Fox 33% negative. So it's perfectly fair to question the objectivity of news outlets that are so negative about President Trump. As a comparison, President Trumps has received overall something like 70% negative reporting, President Obama about 70% positive, President Bush 57% negative, and President Clinton 60% negative. This is a link to the study https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/ There are several passages in the summary/conclusions that seem apropos. "Nonetheless, the sheer level of negative coverage gives weight to Trump's contention, one shared by his core constituency, that the media are hell bent on destroying his Presidency." "At the same time, the news media need to give Trump credit when his actions warrant it. The public's low level of confidence in the press is the result of several factors, one of which is a belief that journalists are biased. That perception weakens the press's watchdog role. ... The nation's watchdog has lost much of its bite and won't regain it until the public perceives it as an impartial broker, applying the same reporting standards to both parties" "Journalists would also do well to spend less time in Washington and more time in places where policy intersects with people's lives. If they had done so during the Presidential campaign, they would not have missed the story that keyed Trump's victory -- the fading of the American dream for millions of ordinary people. Nor do all such narratives need to be a tale of woe. America at the moment is a divided society in some respects, but not a broken society and the divisions in Washington are deeper than those outside the Beltway." But beyond the bias, one has to ask what was the hard information the sources for the story saw that made them make their claims. Was there a verbatim transcript of the meeting or just a summary based on some meeting notes they were basing their comments on? With the American attendees asserting nothing inappropriate was said, anything other than a verbatim transcript would seem pretty iffy for upholding the source's assertions.

The problem is that there is too much "it's been reported" or "somebody said that something may have happened". The "somebody" might have misconstrued, misheard, or purposely colored the "facts" they are disclosing. We've all probably played the party game where one person whispers something into the ear of the first person in a line of people and each person in turn whispers what is said to the person next to them. At the end, what the last person reports is usually dramatically different than what was originally said. The differences take place because people have different perceptions of what is being said and expressing how things are said to the next person. I think the legal term is "hearsay" and the court's don't normally admit hearsay as credible evidence. Another problem is that the "might have been" gets reported, then by repeated mention of the assertions, the might have been starts getting treated as fact. Additionally, the manner in which the "might have been" is reported can be biased. For example, the story may not provide appropriate context about what is being reported so that it misinforms about the real impact of what is being reported. I'm thinking about the news story about the President giving classified information to the Russians in a recent WH meeting with them. The story was sensationalized by neglecting to provide the context that Presidents do share such information from time to time when deemed appropriate. But the story was presented as if the information provided were a horrendous gaffe or complicit espionage. The story lost a lot of its legs when subsequently ex-CIA Director Brennan testified that sharing classified information wasn't unusual when pursuing cooperation on common interests. Brennan did say that there was a specific format that needed to be adhered to in order to protect the sources and origins of such information. The three other Americans in that meeting stated that the President didn't do anything inappropriate. Yet the story attributed to former and current members of the intelligence community asserted that the President revealed the source and origin of the intelligence to the Russians. So a question that needs answering is "How did these 'sources' get their information?" It would seem like you would need to know the verbatim conversation to be factually correct about the assertions.

Pass. This hand looks very dangerous. It's a 4 loser with 2 "winners" being unsupported Ks. At unfavorable vulnerability, I think it's not good enough to unilaterally bid 5 ♣. If the opponents bidding is ultralight, say 10 vs. 11, partner can only have 6-7 points at most. If they have full values, partner could have zilch and a potential number looms in 5 ♣x. So, the decision comes down to either pass or double. A double might work out if partner who is marked with some ♠ can sit for it. If also might work out if partner has an undisclosed ♣ fit and complimentary red suit shortness and pulls to 5 ♣. But with a doubleton ♥ and the opponents potentially having lots of ♠ (10+), it looks like partner might be the one holding some ♥ length and pull to 5 ♥. So, reluctantly I'm passing.

Cherdano, thanks for the thoughtful critique. How about this opinion piece from the (ugh?) Washington Post by a fellow non-Trump fan? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-not-learning-from-the-trump-story--because-weve-peeked-at-the-last-page/2017/05/18/08cd5412-3be0-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html?utm_term=.d1d100ef6642

With ♠ xx ♥ KQJx ♦ A9xx ♣ KQx, double seems right over the 4 ♠ bid. Typically, doubles through 4 ♥ would be takeout oriented, while doubles of 4 ♠ and above are more penalty oriented. But these doubles all show values what is exactly what this hand has. I agree with an initial pass on ♠ - ♥ Axxx ♦ xxxx ♣ A10xxx as you don't have any idea where the remainder of the points are after the opening seat preempt of 3 ♠. Once partner shows values with the double of 4 ♠ and with your ♠ void, a 5 ♣ bid would seem normal as a follow up. After 5 ♣, doubler should probably just sit as there's no way to know if a 5 level red suit contract is any better. As others have said, you have to make these bids, but they are fraught with danger. It goes with the territory. But at IMPs, 4 ♠x making may not be the disaster it rates to be at matchpoints. It potentially costs you only an extra 200 points or so versus 4 ♠ undoubled which is only a 5 IMP swing.

I'm rising with the Q. In the 2 cases that matter, KJ7 and J107, LHO will virtually always play J from KJ7, but may choose to vary what is played (J or 10) on the second round of the suit from J107. So it seems like a restricted choice situation.

I think the operative word that describes why all these "smart" people do stupid things is "hubris". To some extent, it applies to President Trump. It certainly applied to the Nixon White House, and definitely to the "entitled" Clintons. I would ask you to compare the approach of the Lynch DOJ to the Sessions DOJ in these investigations. And in doing so, I think you have to consider that the DOJ under Jeff Holder, and, subsequently, under Loretta Lynch had clearly become politicized. When Jeff Sessions was linked with some meetings with Russians, he promptly recused himself from the Russian investigation. Subsequently, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, who has a pretty squeaky clean reputation of being apolitical, took over the oversight of the investigation. After only 2 weeks in his job as Deputy Attorney General (due to the Dems slow walking all Trump appointments), Rosenstein decided a Special Counsel was appropriate to remove all doubts as to the integrity of the investigation and whatever resulted from it. His choice was former FBI Director Mueller who also has a strong reputation of being apolitical. Whatever transpires going forward, it will be hard to attach any political motive/influence to what happens. When her dubious meeting with Bill Clinton became public, Loretta Lynch did not officially recuse herself from the Clinton investigation. Instead, she said she would leave the decision on what to do with any findings to the DOJ's "career prosecutors". That might be OK, but with no way to make it apparent that whatever followed was without any political influence, it made whatever followed very problematic.

4 ♥ --look's like a pretty standard NV preempt to me. Make it ♠ Kx ♥ QJ1098xxx ♦ A ♣ xx and it's got too much defense to preempt. Slam doesn't take much from partner, either.

A 4 ♠ bid should never be an option with your hand. I think 4 NT is right getting partner to choose between the minors. You have longer ♣ but they're not so good. So partner's input is important. At the 4 level, it more about getting to a decent contract rather than being perfect. If 4 ♠ is making, partner has to have 5+ pretty good ♠, so why isn't partner bidding 4 ♠?