rmnka447

Well, we'll never know as President Hillary Clinton didn't happen. When Harry Truman was President, he had a sign on his desk saying "The buck stops here." If Obama would have had a similar sign, it would have said "What buck?" Likewise, Hillary's sign would have said "How many bucks?" The donation to the Clinton Foundation to worry about would have the one the Russians made to get access to US uranium. Proof of a clear cut quid pro quo (Clinton Foundation donation for approval by Sec. Clinton of the uranium sale -- clear bribery) held by the Russians would have seriously compromised her as President. If she would have continued President Obama's policies toward our Middle Eastern allies her reception would likely have been the same as his. Obama kept talking about a coalition, but didn't provide leadership to make it a reality. It was just talk on his part.

Obama's idea of foreign policy was to ignore and punish our friends while trying to suck up to our enemies. So, it isn't surprising that a new administration which says to our friends and allies "We've got your back" and means it would be treated far differently. BTW, isn't it interesting that the great "Islamophobe" Donald Trump is being feted by the Saudis while the great "Islamophile" Barack Obama was given short shrift by them? You'd think that if Donald Trump remarks about "radical Islamic terrorists" were very offensive to them that they'd treat him no differently or worse than Barack Obama.

Nice try. Plenty of people have cited potential criminal charges that could have been brought against Sec. Clinton related to the mishandling of classified information. So, that was clearly a criminal investigation. It needed outside management by an independent counsel to remove any taint of the "fix is in". The investigation into the Trump campaign hasn't yielded any criminal charges as yet. Some may be forthcoming or not. The counsel was put in place to help make the result of the investigation to be beyond reproach whatever it finds. Most of what has been reported so far has been smoke rather than fact. Most of it is attributed to "unnamed sources" which amounts to unconfirmed allegations not facts. Yet those tenuous assertions are repeated and treated as dead certain fact by the left. Sorry, but former Director Mueller is a "Special Counsel" to independently manage the investigation, find the truth, and take it where that leads. He's not a "Grand Inquisitor" like you'd like him to be.

Pass. Partner heard you show extras with your first double and then heard you ask for T/O with your second double. Partner also heard your LHO redouble to play 2 ♥xx. If playing 2 ♥xx is hideous/distressful to partner, then partner needs to bid over the redouble. So passing should show a willingness to defend 2 ♥xx.

1 - Pass. Your hand looks to have 3 tricks in Diamonds plus another 1 1/2 QTs. If partner has full value for the reopening double, opener could be going for a number. Even with a light distributional double you'll still likely to beat 1 ♦x. 2 - 1 ♥ - The diamond values are somewhat wasted and partner is normally assuming points in your hand to reopen. So your hand falls into a minimum category.

It looks like the Deputy Attorney General made an excellent decision in appointing former FBI Director Mueller as a Special Counsel. By picking a highly respected, apparently apolitical person to manage the investigation, it eliminates any appearance that politics plays a part in whatever the investigation finds. This is in stark contrast to handling of similar scandals by the Obama administration's highly politicized Department of Justice. Unlike Attorney General Sessions, Attorney General Lynch never recused herself from the Clinton e-mail investigation, but only alluded to letting the professional Justice Department prosecutors decide what to do. No matter what followed from that would always have the taint of being political. Hence, all the Director Comey drama that followed to try to obviate the impressions that "the fix was in".

South's hand is a tough one to bid. Like others, I think the lack of a 4th ♠ tips the balance towards pass rather than double. If you double, North is almost always going to bid 4 ♠ with a 4 card suit and you're in a pickle as to what to do. With RHO preempting, it less likely that ♠ will break evenly enough for 4 ♠ to play well on a 7 card fit. Pass also gives you side an additional option. Partner just might find a reopening 4 ♠ call which would settle what the strain should be.

If ♠ were better, I might bid 2 ♠ at matchpoints. But the suit is abysmal, so 2 ♦ is my bid. Your ♦ are useful in filling in gaps in partner's suit and might provide a ♣ ruff or two. Additionally, 2 ♦ means partner can still bid 2 ♥ with a 0-4-5-4 hand.

I can sympathize some with Red Spawn about the quality of his partner's weak 2 bid. However, if being a "substitute" means playing with someone you've never played with before, then making any assumptions about partner's preempts is dangerous. That's especially true on BBO where player's chosen skill designations often have little bearing on the player's competence. There is sentiment that the weak 2 presented was nothing unusual. Fine, if that's your style and partner is aware of how "light" you open weak 2s in 1st or 2nd seat. But something to consider is the overall range of weak 2 hands that you are opening. If you'll also open something like xx KQJxxx Kxx xx as a weak 2, you'll make it more of a problem for responder to visualize where the hand belongs. That's especially true in competitive situations where you lose tools, such as Ogust, to provide information about the weak 2 opener. Opposite OP's weak 2 hand, 4 ♥ has no chance, but opposite my example hand 4 ♥ is a good bet. Somehow that does get lost on free and easy weak 2 proponents who emphasize the jamming aspects. Against weaker competition, that jamming can be very successful. But against really accomplished players, it is much less so. Those better players will still find their games and slams, but also discern when healthy sets are in the works and double. How you play weak 2s is a choice. But make sure you understand what you gain and lose making that choice. As for the actual hand -- Doubling 4 ♠ versus an unknown partner is a bit of a crap shoot. I'd probably pass. As for the opening lead, I'd fall back on the Fred Will (a very good Detroit player 50-60 years ago) approach -- "I never do anything in the bidding or play that I can be criticized for in the post mortem." So, if partner bids a suit, Fred would lead partner's suit unless there was an overwhelming reason not to. A trump lead might be mandatory if the opponents showed a lot of distribution, but there's also a good chance that leading a trump might aid overcaller in bringing in the trump suit for minimum loss. So ♥ 10 for me. Assuming declarer can see the need for ♣ pitches, I'd expect declarer to play the ♥ J from dummy and win in hand with the ♥ K maintaining a ♥ entry to dummy. Declarer has to tackle ♣ immediately. If he touches ♠ at all, it'll be easier to find the right defense. So ♣ 10 should be next. As the cards lie, the best defense is to duck the ♣ A and have partner give count. I'm not so sure it would be easy to see at the table. If ♣ 10 is singleton, declarer has ♦ length and can't ruff out ♣ to provide needed discards even if the lead is overtaken in dummy. Let's say partner shows an odd number of ♣ and declarer ducks the ♣ 10. If declarer continues ♣, partner is in perfect position to give a suit preference signal with his/her remaining ♣ when you take your ♣ A. If you rise with the ♣ A at trick 3, it'd be more of a guess. But the one thing you know is that partner had only ♥ Q and nothing in ♣. So partner ought to have something in either ♦ or ♠ for the weak 2 bid. If ♣ 2 under your ♣ A is count, then underleading in ♦ is less likely to cost anything. Unless overcaller started with 7 ♠, overcaller ought to have at least 3 ♦. If declarer takes a round of trump after winning the ♥, it exposes that partner likely doesn't have anything in ♠. So the only way to beat the contract is to get 3 ♦ tricks. Underleading is then right to prevent blocking the suit.

I'd probably bid 2 ♣ with this hand. IMO, this is a tactical bid. The vulnerability is favorable and 2 ♣ forces them to try to sort out a major fit starting at the 2 level. My alternative call would be pass which I certainly would do with red pockets. I'm sitting for 2 ♦x. My hand looks to at least 3 tricks, possibly 4 if a 2nd ♣ trick comes home. Fortunately, 2 ♦ doubled making isn't yielding a game swing just 180 which would be likely be a part score swing their way. Even 2 ♦x making 3 (380) isn't a major disaster. OTOH, any set of 2 ♦ is likely going to be a very good reslult for us.

The essence of your comments is that any contact between Russians and anyone associated with Trump was inappropriate, but any similar contacts with Hillary or her team weren't. No one knows whether that's true or not either way. But progressives seem to be absolutely sure any contact with Trump's campaign weren't. It's a belief not a fact as yet. That's why the FBI investigation needs to get completed to get to the truth.

Just some food for thought -- The Russians aren't fools. With Hillary Clinton heavily favored to win the election by most analyst and polls, wouldn't it be very likely that Russia would also try to put in place some "friends" to influence Hillary as well? So, after the current investigation is completed (whatever the outcome), it would probably be worthwhile to look for possible infiltration by the Russians among the Democrats.

+1 for Stevemoe

AMEN!!! If you have the convection to make a bid, then stand by that convection and take the consequences.

Penalty. If responder wants to compete further, then he/she must normally either bid a suit, bid NT, or raise partner. The only exception is when responder has a monster hand and cues 3 ♠. Also, the partnership needs to have an understanding whether a new suit by an unpassed hand I forcing or non-forcing in this situation.

I wouldn't be surprised if most of the pairs allowed to play 4 ♠ or 5 ♠ had started with a strong NT rather than 1 ♠. North will ensure that they reach 4 ♠ and compete to 5 ♠ if necessary. Even if West intervenes over 1 NT, I'd think many E/W's would have problems competing past 5 ♠ because of the fog of the hand.

As you count winners/losers and start to develop a plan of play, there's a good question to mentally ask yourself. "Which hand is the master hand?" or "Which hand am I trying to set up?" It's something my mentor impressed upon me eons ago to help me clarify my thinking about hands. It's also something I've passed along to newer players to help their planning process. Just thought I'd interject it here as a teaching moment to newer players looking at this hand.

You might consider what would cause West to bid 5 ♦ over 5 ♣. Since partner started with 3 ♦, there are 10 ♦ between the opponents. If you think it's not likely that West would wonder into this auction with just 5 ♦, then the odds of East holding either of the Ks is greater by a vacant places consideration. If West holds 6 ♦, then East holds 4 ♦ meaning vacant places in their hands are 7 and 9 respectively. So it's 9/7 that East holds a particular king. If West holds 7 ♦, then East holds 3 ♦ meaning vacant places in their hands are 6 and 10 respectively. So it's 10/6 (5/3) that East holds a particular king. So if you're just going to select a finesse, playing East for the ♥ K is more probable. Zel's line gives you some extra chances in addition.

Well, the issue always is the additional memory load that you incur from the increased complexity versus what you gain . That's especially true as you get older and are subject to more memory lapses. And unless you're National/International level players, it certainly comes into play when you sit down and your opponents are Meckwell or similarly capable players. So it's up to every partnership to choose what works best for them.

With weak 1 suited minor hands, responder makes the transfer and then corrects to 3 ♦, if that's the minor held.

Dbl. I'm definitely balancing on this hand at matchpoints. Vulnerability is favorable, you have distribution, and 2 ♠ making probably isn't getting a lot of matchpoints.

Obvious pass, it satisfies the rule of 9 -- 6 ♠ + 2 ♠ honors + 1 level contract.

With my partners, we take a very disciplined approach to responding to a 2 ♣ opener. 2 ♦ waiting. We play very strict rules about positive responses. For a positive 2 ♥ or 2 ♠ will at least 1 1/2 QTs and 5+ suit headed by 2 honors. 3 ♣ or 3 ♦ requires at least 2 QTs with a 5+ suit headed 2 of top 3 honors. So we'd make the 2 ♦ waiting bid and follow P_Marlowe's sequence. Part of the reasoning for the additional requirements for the minor positive is because it raises the level of the bidding quickly. But even with a potential minor positive response hand you might want to consider just making a waiting 2 ♦ response, so that opener can make some preliminary description of his/her hand. It's something to consider especially when you hold both red suits and partner is likely to be bidding on a black suited hand. Consider also if partner has one of those huge NT type hands, where you might have a laydown slam in either red suit. Keeping the bidding low may allow you to show both suits and find the slam where it might be difficult with the positive minor response. OP hands illustrate this principle nicely.

+1 for P_Marlowe.

You're 0 for 3 on that one.