rmnka447

Which means what? I'm sure we'd all love to hear what you've heard about this from them. I'm under the impression that Canada has been held up by some as an example of how healthcare should work.

If you believe in healthcare as a right, then neither insurance company board of directors nor Wall Street nor the government should make that decision. It should be a decision between the doctor and the patient. Bureaucrats are just as likely to make arbitrary and poor decisions as businessmen. If you don't believe that, then maybe you should take a look at the VA.

A significant number of voters voted as they did because Obamacare/ACA failed them. If you will recall, when Obamacare was proposed, proponents made a great deal of hay about how people in the individual insurance market were forced into "fake insurance" -- insurance policies with high premiums and high deductibles without great coverage. They averred how ACA would fix that. Well, it hasn't. ACA can say it has increased healthcare insurance coverage, but unless that coverage results in actual patient care then it really is a phony claim. Healthcare implies care not just coverage. So the critical issue is "What is the care delivered to the patient?" If you have insurance with all the coverages you could imagine but the deductible precludes you from obtaining that care, then the insurance is really just as "fake insurance" as before ACA. Voters who are in this situation recognized this and voted accordingly. Perhaps the most poignant examples occurred on a town hall debate between Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz on healthcare. A woman who was a nurse said that her family policy through ACA cost her $800/month and had a $9000 deductible. She said that she had had some screening tests that indicated she might have a specific cancer. However, follow up testing to confirm and define the cancer costs several thousand dollars. Because of the deductible and her financial situation, she can't afford to pay for the tests, so must go on not knowing if she does have a cancer growing inside of her that will eventually kill her and leave her children motherless. To be fair, OTOH, another woman with MS said that private insurance that she could get wouldn't cover an MS drug she needed that would help her have some semblance of a normal life. She was able to qualify for Medicaid under ACA. Medicaid did allow her to obtain this drug, so she's back to a pretty normal life. These two women probably define the ends of the spectrum of healthcare issues. How do we make sure both obtain/keep the right medical care?

My response was in response to and in terms of a post that suggested expanding Medicare to cover everyone as a solution to the healthcare issue. In another comment, I pointed out that Medicaid not Medicare was the program expanded in ACA. You forget to mention that in order to make ACA work, they cut Medicare by $786MM in reduced payments for services so the funds could be diverted to help fund ACA. Indeed, Warren Buffett has suggested that the caps on FICA taxes be eliminated as a means of extending the viability of Medicare and Social Security. But no one seems to be willing to get out front of that suggestion by proposing legislation. With the political polarization, addressing how to make entitlement programs sustainable is impossible. So likely no solution will be faced until we reach a critical point of failure of these programs.

Pass. Have you misrepresented your hand by a GF 2 ♣ followed by bidding ♠ twice? Once you've described your hand and partner has made a decision, you have to respect partner's decision. If it's wrong, it's on him/her. Yeah, your hand might be useless at NT if partner holds a stiff ♠, but you have no reason to believe that's the case. You're a favorite to deliver 7 tricks at NT if partner has a doubleton ♠. Bidding again is rebidding your values a second time which is rarely right.

I'm also with bidding 4 ♥ to pattern out your hand. If game was your only objective, you could have just bid 4 ♠. So, 4 ♥ has to be a mild slam try. 4 ♥ also helps partner reevaluate their hand. If partner holds something like ♠ Kxx ♥ xx ♦ KQJx ♣ KQxx, they'll settle for 4 ♠. But something like ♠ KQx ♥ xx ♦ Axxx ♣ Axxx gets a lot better. With first hand, the values are wrongly located opposite a major 5-5 two suiter. With the second, partner can start to visualize 12 tricks opposite a decent 5-5 hand.

Not right. Obamacare gained coverage for individuals through an expansion of the Medicaid program which is different from Medicare. Medicaid is a program providing medical care for those in poverty that is done through the Federal/State welfare systems. The federal government provides some money, but the brunt of the money to pay for the costs is supplied by the states (70% comes to mind, but don't quote on that). In Obamacare, they provided medical coverage to additional people by changing the eligibility requirements, so that persons with incomes up to 140% of the poverty level could participate in it. The original Obamacare law tried to force States to accept this expansion by withholding all Federal Medicaid funds if they didn't. However, the Supreme Court ruled such coercion illegal. All states had to the option to opt out of expanding Medicaid if they desired. I think 31 states opted to expand Medicaid and 19 didn't. Medicare is the medical coverage for seniors over 65 and is covered by a payroll tax all wage earners pay.

But Medicare is going broke also. There are significant unfunded liabilities that are building up in it. If I recall correctly, the system is due to run out of money in about 11 years. Since payroll taxes are the source of the revenues for Medicare and Social Security, the question would be "How much does everyone's payroll taxes have to increase to cover the additional costs associated with an expanded pool that is covered?". It wouldn't be an easy sell.

Partner's double has to show values at this level because with any bid you make means you're playing it at least at 3 ♠ or higher. At all red, preemptor likely has AQ10 seven or eight times, so dummy can't lead through you enough times to pick up all your ♥. Beside that, you hold 2 other QTs. So you're looking at something like at least 3 or 4 tricks in hand. 3 ♥x seems like it will go set something with partner showing values. Infrequently, you might find the opponents with perfect hands making, but the great majority of the time you're going to be positive. Bidding nothing seems a clear place to play So this hand seems to be one where you take your positive and move on.

Pass. Partner might be a tad disappointed with what you bid on, but certainly knows that you don't have much. Partner made a decision and penalty doubled. You might come under some criticism if it fails, but that would be nothing like what you would hear if 5 ♥X goes down and 5 ♠ doesn't make. Don't try to "save" partner. Players who do so usually end up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. That applies here and also when partner does something highly unusual. Often when partner does something like that there's a good reason for doing it.

Kaitlyn -- great set for the I/N about whether to reverse or not. I'm aboard with your answers also. Just a commnent about #6. 5-4-2-2 hands are "semi balanced" hands meaning sometimes you treat them as balanced and sometimes as unbalanced. If the high cards lie mostly in the doubletons, then treating the hand as balanced is usually right. If the values are concentrated in the long suits, then treating them as unbalanced is usually right. In your example hand, ♠ A3 ♥ Q762 ♦ K7642 ♣ AK the values are definitely concentrated in the doubletons. So, treating the hand as balanced and opening a strong 1 NT is right as Nick RW suggested and you concurred. OTOH, if the hand were ♠ 63 ♥ AKQ2 ♦ AK742 ♣ 76 everything is concentrated in the long suits, so it's best to treat it as unbalanced and reverse into 2 ♥.

+1 for ahydra's comments. Playing unusual versus unusual, 3 ♦ (showing values and ♠ versus a competitive raise) would also be my bid over 2 NT. The doubleton ♦ K has increased in value behind the player with ♦ length. The doubleton ♣ also is a positive. So in terms of a ♠ contract, it's more like 11-12 value hand. Especially at IMPs, where making thin Vulnerable games are often decisive, you want North to push opposite this hand. So simply making a "competitive" bid is overly conservative. I'm with Kaitlyn on West's bidding. White versus Red at IMPs, West's hand seems like an automatic 5 ♣ bid to me. It puts North/South immediately to the test.

I'm going to pass now. If you want to bid 4 ♣ fine. However, you better be prepared for what you'll do if the opponents bid 4 ♠. I'm leading ♣ A. If it holds, I'll have a chance to look at dummy and on occasion may allow partner to make a suit preference signal.

I'd pass here also. The ♣ J is virtually worthless. As others have pointed out, if you pass it's not very likely that the hand will be passed out. So it's very likely that you'll have a second chance to bid. Hopefully, you'll have a chance to come in and compete vigorously. In doing so, you'll have painted a good picture of your hand for your partner. If you don't have enough to open and then compete, your values must be based on distribution. When you open a hand, your partner will have certain expectations about what you have. If you're super aggressive, then it can be difficult to convince partner that you've pushed the envelope and don't have what you "promised". Partners get stubborn that way sometimes. One good bidding principle to keep in mind, "It's possible to limit your hand and then show extras, but near impossible to overbid and try to show less then expected."

It's a fair point about constructive raises. If you play them then you could have something like 4-6 and 3 ♥. If you don't, then your normal choice with 5-9 hands with 3 ♥ is the simple 2 ♥ raise. The sentences you parsed are pointed toward the 5-8 point hands responding 1 NT, not the invitational subset of Forcing 1 NT response hands. The invitational hands are going to take a second call, so opener's rebid with a doubleton ♣ isn't going to be passed out. The main issue with the 2 ♣ rebid on a doubleton is being passed out in an inferior ♣ contract by the 5-8 point hand. The subsequent analysis tried to point out the cases where that might happen so that the merits of a 2 ♣ versus 2 ♥ rebid with a 4=5=2=2 hand could be addressed. If opener has a 3 card minor fragment with 4/5 in the majors and a minimum hand, it would be normal to bid it. The subsequent auction from there would be essentially a normal forcing NT sequence.

If you're not playing Flannery, then having a discussion of what to do when holding a minimum 4 ♠/5 ♥ hand over a Forcing NT should be mandatory. Not playing Flannery, a Forcing NT response denies 4 ♠ and 3 ♥ when you hold an absolute minimum (5-8) range hand. If you held either, presumably 1 ♠ or 2 ♥ would be bid. Whenever responder holds a doubleton ♥ with such a hand, the normal rebid is 2 ♥. So the problematic hands for bidding 2 ♣ with a doubleton are where responder holds a stiff ♥ or 5 ♣ and 2 ♥. With 5 ♣ and 2 ♥, responder may choose to play the "known" 5-3 ♣ fit rather than play the 5-2 ♥ fit resulting in a less optimum result. If responder holds a stiff ♥, the problem hand is probably something like ♠ xxx ♥ x ♦ Jxxxx ♣ KQxx. Responder has to choose whether to pass and play a "known" 4 opposite 3+ ♣ fit or bid a terrible ♦ suit. I suspect most would just pass and end up playing a 4-2 fit. But how often would those hands come up? OTOH, you get to play 2 of a minor when responder has a long minor and no major fit. If responder has a maximum Forcing NT range hand, a second forward going call will be made and the 2 ♣ rebid probably won't be a problem. The foregoing has to be weighed against deciding to rebid 2 ♥ or 2 ♠ with these hands and what can go wrong with those rebids.

Partnership Limiting Move?

The example hand is exactly the reason Bill Flannery of Pittsburgh came up with his convention. Nonetheless, not playing Flannery, the standard bid would be 2 ♣. Whatever partner does over that will probably be all right. On a more general level, passing a forcing NT, usually shows a flattish absolute minimum hand with a bad trump suit. It doesn't come up very often. Something like ♠ AK6 ♥ 107542 ♦ QJ3 ♣ Q6. I'll admit to having passed a forcing NT something like no more than half a dozen times in 40+ years (thousands of hands) after a Forcing NT response.

Pass. The stiff ♠ yells misfit. With only an 8 count, it's best to sit for the moment.

If you are playing "standard" agreements, then lead your ♦. A double of 3 NT by partner of the opening leader normally asks for a lead of dummy's first bid suit. If partner wanted a ♠ lead, it would be right to pass instead of double.

It's a 3 loser hand even if the suit is only 8 high, so 2 ♣ seems normal. If you have a reasonably disciplined approach to 2 ♣ openers and responses, you should be able to work out game vs. slam pretty quickly. And, as someone pointed out, you're odds on to make opposite a stiff ♥ in a Yarborough and even make some percent of the time opposite a void.

Just to be sure, in all team games, four of the members of your team play in each round of a team game. One pair sits East/West at one table, the other pair sits North/South at the other table. Likewise, your opponents fill in the empty spaces at the two tables --their East/West pair playing your North/South pair and their North/South pair playing your East/West pair. Both tables play the same boards. Each table yielding a result for each board. When the round is complete, each team compares the results they got for each board at both tables. So, say, 3 ♠ was bid and made by East at both tables. The team's East/West pair would show a result of +140 while the team's North/South pair would show a -140 for a net result of 0. But if the North/South found a great defense and instead beat 3 ♠ one trick, the team's result would again be +140 for East/West, but also a +50 for North/South giving a net result of +190. The net result is prorated using a scale called IMPs. The team with the best total IMP results for all the boards of the match wins. There is one kind of team event that wasn't mentioned. That is the Compact Knockout. It is essentially the same as a Knockout, but conducted over only 2 sessions. It has one restriction that other team events don't. Each team playing in it must have exactly 4 players. Often, these are scheduled on the same day as the 2nd day (3rd and 4th sessions) of a Knockout event to let teams knocked out on the 1st day have a team event to play in. In all other team events, you need at least 4 players on each team but can have as many as 6. Most people tend to play 4 person teams, but the flexibility is there to have more. Some of us old geezers like to sit out for part of the event to stay fresh. It can also allow more than 4 friends to play together in an event. One other term you may see, especially for Swiss team events, is it being a "playthrough". Instead of splitting the Swiss team into 2 separate sessions, a playthrough will start at a prescribed time, then continue the event through until all 7 or 8 matches are completed instead of taking a long break between sessions. Often, these Swiss teams will start early (9-11 AM) and include a short lunch break. Some tournaments will provide an optional box lunch in the cost of the entry. A playthrough Swiss is usually done by mid-late afternoon allowing players who travelled a long distance to the tournament to return home at a reasonable time. Finally, there is a little less time pressure in team events than in pairs events. In pairs events, you have to play quite a few 2 or 3 board rounds, so the director's have to be pretty strict about maintaining completion of each round in a prescribed time. In a typical Swiss, you have to play 7 boards in 45 minutes which allows a little more flexibility. They're almost always a few hands that finish quickly, so there's usually some time available to work through a tough hand, if necessary.

4 ♥. A 3 ♥ bid could be made on a lot less. So bidding that terribly understates the hand. You will be giving your opponents an additional level to sort out their hands. If the opponents bid on to 3 ♠, then what? If you take the push, you may be giving the opponents a fielder's choice. It's better to bid 4 ♥ quickly and let them make the next decision with as little information as possible to go on. There is some danger of possibly pushing them to a vulnerable game they might not otherwise bid. It looks like you've probably got at least 3 tricks. A second ♥ trick might be iffy. But Partner has some ways to produce a fourth trick - stiff ♥ and ruff, possible trump promotion, or side suit trick. I'd also double 4 ♠, if they bid it. It only costs an extra 200 points or so, if they make, which gives them a couple more IMPs vs. an undoubled game. But if 4 ♥ makes, doubling may be necessary to offset the potential game swing as much as possible when 4 ♠ goes down.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/17/leaked-emails-dem-state-leaders-think-obama-s-new-organizing-army-is-grade-a-bullshit.html?ref=yfp Just happened across the above by accident and was a little shocked by it. So is this group a burgeoning progressive equivalent of the TEA party? Is it the Democratic Party imploding? Or is it something more sinister? Or is it just some wild musings by a disreputable web site?

I'm passing. If I'd have passed over 1 NT, why would I push us to 3 NT or 4 ♣ now? On the auction, partner is likely to have a doubleton ♥. So it looks like a 17 or 18 trump LOTT hand. If we are in 3 NT then we may need have running tricks when they knock out the ♥ stopper. At suit contracts, if they are making 3 ♥, we're probably down 1 or 2 in 4 ♣. If we're making 4 ♣, then they are probably off 1 or 2 in 3 ♥. We've pushed them up a level, so I'm sitting.