rmnka447

Exactly, every year a week before my yearly physical, I go in and get all the lab work done before seeing my physician. And, that testing is also used to meet the needs of some other physicians that need to see me on a periodic basis through some record sharing. I think there's several issues that need to be addressed to increase the availability of care as we move to universal health care: 1) Is there a capability to increase the number of doctors available without endangering care? That would include looking at whether the capacity of medical schools to produce doctors could be increased. It would also look at factors that are causing doctors to retire earlier than normal -- a more recent phenomena. 2) Are there ways to relieve doctors of some more mundane parts of their jobs -- physician's assistants, nurse practitioners, etc. ? 3) Other ways to make the health care delivery more efficient so overall care can be expanded? As for yearly physicals, they help with preventative care. First, as I said, the doctor builds baseline data of a patient's health. That makes it easier for the physician easier to detect changes in the patient's health. For example, the physician may be able to detect prediabetic rises in a patient's blood sugar. That may enable the patient to make life style changes that can curtail the onset of Type II diabetes. Even if that doesn't occur, it may allow the physician to start treating the condition with cheap medications that retard the advance of the disease. Likewise, for coronary artery disease. For other diseases, such as cancer, early detection may be critical for increasing a patient's chances for survival or for a complete cure. So at the expense of some increased face time with patients, the need for extremely expensive care may be reduced resulting in an overall savings in medical expenses and amount of care required. That doesn't take into consideration the quality of life issues that can result from the early detection and treatment or early detection and cure of diseases. Unfortunately, many diseases don't have many discernible symptoms until they get very serious. So letting things go undetected can have some dire consequences.

Doesn't bringing the bible up make you a deplorable Christianophobe? By progressive's own standards, anyone who mentions anything about Islam is an Islamophobe. So logically, applying the same standard to comments on another religion, Christianity, ought to result in a similar characterization -- Christianophobe.

Same to you, buddy.

Nice try, but I'm not buying it. You are placing left wing spin on my comments. It seems like maybe you've been labeling people "deplorable" so long that you've started to believe your own propaganda. Sad. Just understand that this last election was a significant change. Donald Trump was an iconoclast in a good way. He refused to play the game by your unfair rules. You know the ones where you put a label on someone who opposes you, then they have to cower and essentially go away. No, he stood up and fought back -- his own "I'm mad as hell and won't take it anymore" moment. It changed the game. No longer are you going to control the conversation by labeling and intimidation. No longer are you going to be able to use political correctness to stifle the free clash/exchange of ideas. And, in the end, the violence or threat of violence that the left has started to use to try to stifle debate and gain control again will fail also. In the process, he tapped into a well of dissatisfaction by ordinary people who lived a real reality far different from the kum-by-yah, everything is rosy world progressives were trying to tout. It gave those people cause to have their own "I'm mad as hell and won't take it anymore moment" and refute the progressive real BS.

Maybe, they discerned how out of touch Hillary really is/was. Didn't Hillary say that half of Trump's supporters were "deplorable"? Think about what that means in terms of the overall population of our country. So she was indicting about a quarter of our country of being really bad people. That's either a terribly dark view or out of touch with reality. The term "deplorable" also infers some sense of aloofness, snobbishness, elitism or special privilege. How can self-professed "champions of equality" spew that out and really be for equality? They can't. It just showed the extent of the hubris and lack of respect she and those who agreed with her had for others. Sorry, but sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and Islamophobic are labels progressives like to put on anyone who disagrees with them. Bragging about being "one of the deplorables" isn't accepting those over-the-top characterizations, it's standing up for people's rights as individuals and saying they won't be intimidated by anyone trying to foist off that type of guilt by association.

B) Cue 5 ♣ Partner could have just bid 4 ♠ with any hand with shortage where just game is the probable contract. IMHO, a splinter here has to show extras and slam interest. ♥ AK probably aren't worth as much when partner has shown a shortage in ♥, but I agree with ahydra that they might provide a valuable discard.

You might want to start having yearly physicals and establish a relationship with a primary care physician. The physicals will establish a baseline for your health. That can be very useful to your doctors if you do, in fact, get sick.

US player here. What you do depends on your bidding style with weak 2s. Currently, I think the broad bridge population here is all over the lot on how to bid weak 2s. Some open anything anytime including 5 card vs. 6 card suits. Others take a very disciplined approach. Many are somewhere in between. Traditionally, weak 2s are supposed to show 8-10/9-11 (depending on agreed range), a 6 card headed by honors and presumably no more than 1 1/2 QTs. So ♠ KQ10xxx ♥ xx ♦ KJx ♣ xx would be right in the wheelhouse as a standard weak 2 bid. But what about ♠ xx ♥ AQJxxx ♦ xxx ♣ xx? It has a good enough suit, 1 1/2 QTs , but is a point or two shy if you strictly interpret the requirements. Yet, I doubt that any good players wouldn't open it 2 ♥. So, the requirements are more flexible depending on the hand. Over the years, I've come to the opinion that there is a continuum for hands with 6 card suits that stretches from pass to weak 2 bids to 1 level openers. What you bid depends on how you feel where the hand falls on this continuum. If a hand isn't a 1 level opener then it is either a weak 2 or a pass. So holding something like ♠ J109xxx ♥ Axx ♦ Ax ♣ xx, which is a bit shy of a 1 ♠ bid, why wouldn't you open 2 ♠ in 1st or 2nd seat? If partner inquires with a 2 NT call, you can rebid 3 ♠ playing feature or 3 ♥ (good hand, bad suit) playing Ogust. OTOH, something like ♠ 876542 ♥ Axx ♦ Ax ♣ xx would be a pass instead of 2 ♠ for me. For some really aggressive 2 ♠ bidders, it would be a solid 2 ♠. Different strokes for different folks. Whatever you do, try to be consistent with how you bid weak 2s. Some hands to think about -- ♠ Q109xxx ♥ Axx ♦ Ax ♣ xx ♠ AQ10xxx ♥ Axx ♦ xx ♣ xx ♠ Q86432 ♥ Axx ♦ Ax ♣ xx ♠ AKQ10xx ♥ xxx ♦ xx ♣ xx ♠ QJ7542 ♥ xxx ♦ Kx ♣ Ax ♠ QJ7542 ♥ xxx ♦ Ax ♣ Ax ♠ QJ10xxx ♥ Kxx ♦ xx ♣ xx There are no right or wrong answers for the above, just how you'd decide to bid them. BTW, if you pass ♠ xx ♥ AQJxxx ♦ xx ♣ xx, you play in 4 ♥/5 ♥. If you open 2 ♥, your partner with a 20 point bomber is able to find a lay down 6 ♥ contract. The difference is that with the weak 2 partner is able to visualize your hand better and push to slam. Without it, partner can never believe your ♥ are as good as they are because you didn't bid 2 ♥. Oh, the above applies to 1st or 2nd seat, in 3rd seat anything goes.

I just play a very simple structure with most strong NT partners. 2 ♣ (Stayman) followed by 3 of a minor (doesn't necessarily have a major) - forcing 2 ♠ transfer to 3 ♣ - weak - pass or correct. 2 NT - invitational 3 ♣, 3 ♦ - invitational

I agree double is right with this hand. If you're playing the Lebensohl 2 NT response to doubles of weak 2s, then 4 ♥ should be almost automatic as partner has shown 7+ with 4+ ♥ by bidding 3 ♥ directly. The 2 NT response followed by 3 ♥ over the 3 ♣ relay shows less, so would rate a pass. Vulnerable, at IMPs, you've got to be aggressive bidding games as the IMP scoring methodology says vulnerable games with 35%+ probability of making are break even or better in the long run and should be bid.

The South hand is huge. 4 losers, 17 HCP, honors/intermediates in all suits and a void. The ♦ suit is solid and will play opposite a stiff (52% chance of 6 tricks [3-3 or doubleton J]). So, I think 1 ♦ followed by 2 ♠ is right. The question then depends on your agreements for responder rebids over jump shifts/reverses. Using something simple like the cheaper of 2 NT/4th suit as possible start of a signoff, I think the possible rebids are 2 NT (deliberate underbid to let opener tell his story), 3 ♦, or 3 NT. I think responder (North) has to realize that with ♦ Jxxx, a doubleton in opener's second suit, and controls in the other two suits, a ♦ slam is a distinct possibility. So for me, 3 NT is out. It does show about the right values but often makes it harder for opener to go on when it's right to do so. 2 NT is too much of an underbid. So, 3 ♦ seems right. It shows a positive hand, ♦ fit, and still has some possibilities of bidding NT later. After a further 3 ♥ by opener suggesting at least 4=3=5=1, North could then bid 3 NT. That should suggest only 4 ♥ (else a 4 ♥ bid with 5+) and 3+ ♦. With a flat 3=4=3=3 hand or 2=4=3=4, responder might just bid 3 NT directly over 2 ♠ with stoppers. So 3 ♦ followed by 3 NT is a little more encouraging with regards to a ♦ contract. 4 ♦ by South is now a slam try and North should cooperate with a 4 ♥ cue. Then depending on your cueing methods/ace asks, you shouldn't have problems sorting out whether to bid slam.

Indeed, when I play K-S (basically 5 card majors, 2/1 with weak NTs), the problem hands over minor suit openings are the 8-10 hands. So FSF is used as one round force to help sort out those hands without getting too high. The important thing is to thoroughly discuss the meaning of various auctions whichever way you play FSF. One of the big advantages of FSF is to provide a means to distinguish between invitational and game forcing hands in certain auctions. For example, 1 ♦ - 1 ♥ 1 ♠ - 2 ♥ is usually a sign off, but 1 ♦ - 1 ♥ 1 ♠ - 3 ♥ can be either invitational or GF but not both. If you add 1 ♦ - 1 ♥ 1 ♠ - 2 ♣ (FSF) 2 ♦ - 3 ♥ you have a 3rd auction showing ♥ and can now differentiate between sign offs, invitational, and game forcing hands depending on how you use FSF. The key is to be on the same page with partner on what each bidding sequence means.

I'm not sure I agreed with everything Felicity said, but the rebids were spot on. Otherwise, it would have been a simple "+1 for FelicityR".

Where 1 ♠ might be right is when the quality of the suits is poor and level then could become an issue. Make the hand something like Axxxx Kxxxxx x A and 1 ♠ and 2 ♥ rebid would be right, not with the strong playing hand being discussed.

With 60 below the line, your LHO opponent could be sandbagging over 4 ♣ if slam seems a remote possibility. There's no incentive for LHO to bid on as any making part score of 2 ♣ or better secures the rubber. If LHO does have values, a sacrifice at 5 ♠ could be costly for little effect on the rubber. You do have a good fit with partner, but not much else. Partner is unlikely to have more than a doubleton in ♣, so the stiff isn't necessarily as valuable as it seems.

No matter the natural bidding system you use, the hand is good enough to initially bid ♥ and rebid ♠ twice up to 3 ♠. The hand is a four loser hand and the suits are headed with top honors and intermediates. Whatever the hand lacks in HCP for such bidding, it makes up for in playing strength.

There's aggressive and then there's aggressive. When you're 4th to speak and both opponents have bid, even with RHO making a limited call, you need some solid values or big distribution to come into the auction. LHO hand is still unlimited in this auction. The example hand is rather disjointed, no good suit just heart length and some values. Change it to xx KQJxxx Ax A10x and I'd bet everyone would bid 2 ♥. The ♥ suit quality and length make setting the hand much more difficult and 2 ♥ a safer call.

+1 for the rebids over FSF. With FSF, the idea is to make a descriptive bid to help find the right strain for the contract. With all the examples, responder should have a very good picture of opener's hand and can move to place the contract or explore further.

From North's point of view, only ♥ KQ ♦ Q ♣ KQ are missing outside of ♠ honors. With any reasonable opener, South probably isn't missing more than one of them even with a ♠ control. So slam should have a reasonable play if opener has a ♠ control. In auctions, where the opponents have bid a suit, a jump to 5 of opener's major asks opener to bid slam with a 2nd round or better control in the opponent's suit. So, 5 ♥ seems right here by North.

2 ♠ 2 ♠ should show a pretty good 6 vardf suit in this spot in the auction. That's exactly what you have. Vulnerable, it also ought to show a very good hand as you know ♠ aren't breaking particularly well.

I'll start with 2 ♦ and bid NT next over an minimum rebid by partner.

I would pass also.

2 ♣ with cheapest suit as a second negative, the bidding would start off -- 2 ♣ - 2 ♦ (waiting) 2 ♥ - 3 ♣ with 3 ♣ showing a ♣ feature. After that it's simply a matter sorting out controls and trump honors. With our specialized cueing agreements, opener's next bid would be 4 ♠ showing 1st and 2nd round controls in ♦, ♥, ♠ and a high ♣ honor. Responder now knows enough to see that at least 6 ♣ is a good contract.

As usual, +1 for Stephen Tu's comments. Indeed, the hand is JUST enough for a 2 ♠ bid. At the 2 level, a free bid shows approximately an opening hand. Here, you have an 11 HCP, 2 QT hand with a decent 6 card ♠ suit. (You can count full value for the ♥ J because partner has bid ♥.) So, this is a hand that's just shy of an "opening 1 bid", but 2 ♠ should be bid. Make the hand any weaker, say, ♠ A1098xx ♥ Jx ♦ xxx ♣ Ax and it would be right to make a negative double rather than bid ♠ directly. So, since you can bid 2 ♠ on a hand that's invitational rather than game forcing, 2 ♠ isn't strictly a game force, but a 1 round force. Responder can clarify on the next round.

I'm not at all surprised at this result for the hand on bridgewinners.com, a site aimed toward and frequented by real experts. The really key feature of the hand in question is that the long suit is ♦. So, in terms of game, the target is an 11 trick minor suit game. The tendency then is to reserve 2 ♣ as an opening bid with such minor suit hands to approximately 3 loser hands. By basic LTC, the hand is a 4 loser hand. However, a seven card suit headed by AQ isn't exactly the same as one headed by AK. So in terms of "real" losers, you might think of it as a 4+ loser hand. IMO, that's enough to disqualify the hand as a 2 ♣ opener for most experts. If the red suits were transposed, so the hand were -- ♠ AJ ♥ AQ10xxxx ♦ AK9 ♣ x I'd expect a significant difference in the results of a poll about whether the hand was a 1 ♥ or 2 ♣ opener. That's because the target game is a 10 major game. The tendency is with major suit hands to open 2 ♣ with 4 loser hands. If the results weren't the exact opposite (62 2 ♣, 2 1 ♥), I'd think it would be down to the evaluation of the long suit losers.