rmnka447

If the ♠ suit was a minor suit, 1 NT would be absolutely right. You wouldn't want to have bid 1 m then jump rebid 3 m on that suit. With a premium on major suit fits, I not sure that it is right with a bad 6 card major. But then again if you use the "one card off" approach of considering what bid would be appropriate if one of the ♠ were a card in another suit. I don't think most people would have a problem opening 1 NT with J10xxx AKx KQ Kxx or similar. But maybe the best thing is to also consider possible auctions after 1 NT. Stayman is easy. But how about transfers? Would partner take a 2 ♠ rebid over a 2 ♦ transfer to 2 ♥ to show ♠? How about minor suit transfers or even an invitational 2 NT/game forcing 3 NT raise? If you feel you can land on your feet after such auctions, then 1 NT seems OK. If not, 1 ♠ might be better. Personally, I'd probably bid 1 ♠ and continue 2 ♠ over a Forcing NT. If partner makes any noise over 2 ♠, then I would come to life. That's following the old adage that "You can add value to a hand later in the auction, but it's near impossible to ever subtract values." This hand would be at the bottom edge of a jump rebid hand, at best. So a slight underbid probably gets you in less trouble than pushing the value of the hand.

Can't speak specifically to ACOL. But I think a strong jump shift is OK on this hand especially with opener known to have 4+ ♣. It fits the "your suit, my suit, or NT" hand types requirement in most write ups of SJSs I've seen. Responder's hands actually fall into a few well defined categories -- a big hand with a very strong suit with or without support for, a big hand with a decent suit and extraordinary trump support for opener's suit, or, the "rock crusher" balanced hand. The problem is that most people don't have good agreements how to continue after the jump shift. I think the bidding methodology that looks best to me is one that prioritizes opener's rebids. Here, they would be: Any splinter - agree ♥ showing shortness 3 ♥ - agree ♥ 3 ♣ - no ♥ fit, but ♣ suit to a couple high honors 2 NT - none of the above I think opener's actual rebid, whether intentional or not, actually conforms to the above. South can draw the inference that opener doesn't have 3 ♥ as there was no raise. So, the chance for a ♣ slam looks extremely good ( ♠ A/♣ A, or, ♠ A, stiff ♥ and ♣ Jxxxx would be enough). Responder must set ♣ as trump. So the possible rebids are 3 ♣, 4 ♣, or 4 ♦. 3 ♣ sets trump and keeps the bidding low, 4 ♣ set trumps and shows extraordinary trump support, and, 4 ♦ is a splinter in ♦. I like 4 ♣ as the best description.

I think everything through 3 ♠ is OK. With a decent ♠ stopper, South might just bid 3 NT as a "logical alternative". So, 3 ♠ should be asking about a stopper. With a porous ♦ suit, minimum values, and only stiff ♠ A, I don't 3 NT is right. The problem is that after a ♠ lead you might need 9 running tricks. That would seem to require running ♦ which are not assured. Otherwise, you could be going down a ton. Call me timid, if you like, but I think 4 ♦ is right over 3 ♠.

3 ♠ down 1 may be a good matchpoint result as it beats everyone who lets them play 2 ♠. Part of good matchpoint bidding is learning to compete hard for part scores. That means not only getting to spots that make, but also pushing the opponents 1 level higher and beating them. It's more art than science -- you get a feel when and how to compete. If you're always bidding one more and going down, you're probably overbidding. But if you're letting the opponents settle in part score contracts that make, you're probably not competing enough. The trick is to find the right balance between the two. If you do and can play decent defense, you'll start having some really good matchpoint games.

1. If you don't play negative free bids, then a direct 2 level bid should show a good 11 HCP or more AND a 5+ card suit. A negative would be unlimited if no 5 card suit held, or, if you have a long suit, it's a little less than enough to make a direct forcing 2 level bid, say around 8-10 HCP (plus a bad 11?). So if you double and then bid a new suit, you show that long suit hand. With a long suit and less, you simply pass and, hope to bid you suit the next time round if possible. So with the actual auction, IMO, pass is the right call during the first round. 2. Exactly, it's competitive, not invitational, and should a decent 6+ suit normally. But it can be subject to partnership agreement how good a suit you should have. 3. 2 NT should be a willingness to compete with 2 places to play, here pick a minor -- something like xxx - Q10xxx K10xxx. Double is also willingness to compete but implies some tolerance for partner's suit. So with the actual hand given, I think your choices are between pass and 3 ♣. I'd probably pass being vulnerable, but it's pay your money take your choice.

I'm making the same play for a couple reasons. First, if trump are adversely breaking (5-1,6-0), you're probably going down anyway. So I'm playing ♠ from the top and taking the 52% probability of no spade losers that implies (3-3, dropping ♠ J doubleton from 4-2 break). Second, the ♣ A lead looks ominously like a stiff. If I finesse in ♠ and it loses, a red suit under lead followed by a ♣ return for a ruff could result in going down in a cold contract.

I'm one of the 1 ♠ bidders because of the 6 loser hand. Also, in this day and age 3rd seat weak 2s are played as "anything goes" by many people. With Drury available for most pairs, most decent 10-11 3rd seat major hands are opened in 1 of a major. So 3rd seat weak 2s can be real dross. I've also noticed more recently that if you open a 3rd seat weak 2, that 4th seats with a good hand tend to push more aggressively to game after a 3rd seat weak 2. It's probably an inference about what failure to open a 3rd seat 1 of a major implies. I'm passing 4 ♥.

On this auction, opener rates to have a minor hand 5-3-3-2, 4-4-3-2 (both minors), or even a 4-3-3-3 (4 card minor). So leading a minor is more dangerous on this auction. ♥ might be our suit, but Q9xxx takes quite a bit in partner's hand to make the switch right. The opening lead has also removed our entry for long tricks in ♥ anyhow. OTOH, ♣ Q looks like a real card probably from KQ. If declarer is smart enough to false card from KQJ to induce a ♣ return, I'll tip my hat to him/her after the hand. Think I'll apply the Fred Will principle on this hand. I'll be more comfortable explaining returning a ♣ versus an unsure ♥ switch in the post mortem. Like Fred would have said "If my partner leads a suit, I return partner's suit unless there's a darn good reason to do otherwise."

I'm bidding 3 ♥ also. I think that only says "Partner I've got a really good hand" at this point. If partner has a distributional hand, there's no reason not to start bidding it over 2 ♥. Yet the hand in question has decent support for any suit partner has and is enough to show a positive holding no matter what. It's robust enough to feel like the two hands are at least on the fringe of slam. But slam could well depend on the ♥ situation and that needs to be determined.

That refutation was from April 2016. My comment was based on the videos Project Veritas released about Democrat paid agitators and how they fomented violence at Trump rallies. Those came out in October and have admitted Democratic operatives talking about how they paid and trained operatives on how to force violence against themselves. Oh, and remember that 69 YO lady on Oxygen who got popped at a Trump rally. Wasn't that despicable? Yeah, she was a paid agitator and trained for 2 weeks on how to get herself roughed up. And your rebuttal is?

It's 100% East. First, any time you hold a big fit with partner in one of two suits you know is held AND shortness in the other, you know the hands are taking a lot of tricks. So it pays to bid these hands aggressively. But further the auction has told East more. RHO has doubled for a ♣ leading indicating some sort of holding in that suit. LHO should have at least a doubleton. If both LHO and partner can ruff ♣, then partner will be in position to over ruff LHO which is a positive. Additionally, if RHO holds some ♣ pieces, then partner is more likely to hold red suit values and those values are likely to be well placed behind opener. With red pockets at IMPs, you want to bid games aggressively as any game that has 35%+ chance of making will yield break even or positive IMPs in the long run. So, I'd bid 4 ♠ in a flash with this hand. This is a good Fred Will principle ("I don't do anything in the bidding or play that I can be criticized for in the post mortem.") hand. Here, which would you really want to defend in the post mortem -- bidding a vulnerable game aggressively that didn't make or trying to explain why you didn't bid one that did. Easy decision -- bid the game. Finally, I also think West should carry on to 4 ♠ also in the actual auction. Much of the same logic outlined in the previous 3 paragraphs applies to West. Partner has invited with 3 ♠ and West's hand has "improved", so bid the game.

Some weak NTers choose to use transfers, preferring to have the lead into the strong hand. Other simply bid 2 M to play with 5+ M cards and less than invitational values. In predominantly Strong NT regions, this simple bid keeps the contract in line with the field where most openers are bidding 1 m and responders are bidding 1 M followed by 2 M over opener's rebid. Nothing's "hidden", it's just that the nature of the auction gives you less information. In our case, 2 ♣ is plain ordinary Stayman. But 2 ♦ is artificial start of a 2 suited takeout (August 2 ♦) of NT which is normally a run out, but can be up to game going values when 5-5 in the majors. Don't know how much that would help in deciding to what to do with a 2 M bid though.

Kokish, of course, was right. The big gain was over 1 m openers which have a higher percentage of strong (15+) hands. Some minimum sounding sequences are redefined as stronger to reflect this different reality. As a result, there was a gain in some game bidding accuracy and especially minor slam bidding.

I was shocked to see on my MSN page, a story about Chuck Todd admitting that the mainstream media failed to report the depth of the dislike for Hillary Clinton in the heartland during the run up to the election. Here is the reference: https://pjmedia.com/election/2017/01/30/chuck-todd-admits-media-treated-hillary-with-kid-gloves/?ref=yfp Don't know much about that website, but it does report what Todd said in a podcast with former Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleisher. What is quoted is really just a small, but important snippet from their conversation about the media and its bias. The podcast is a 1947 Meet the Press podcast and runs about 35 minutes in its entirety. It is the January 26, 2017 podcast with Ari Fleisher. I listened to it and thought it was an excellent discussion. It throws a lot of light on issues with the mainstream media and why they cause conservatives to see the media as biased and unfair.

Wonder of wonders, I agree. But you must have missed the reported raid development timelines. The raid was completely planned and approved during Obama's last months in the WH. The catch was that the raid required a moonless night which didn't occur until Trump took office. Trump reapproved it, but really had no part in the planning. Thank God, those who employed those slip-shod methods are now gone from the WH. :rolleyes:

I just don't see any justification for it. See above. That blog was excellent. It's hardly likely that they were right wing. I note that on Inauguration Day, the protest against Trump was accompanied by a similar group of about 200 provocateurs who did damage in DC. Only in that case, they were arrested and charged with felony rioting according to news reports. I'd suspect left wing anarchists. Anyhow, what they are doing isn't protest or dissent, it's criminal.

I was unaware that it was debunked. Source please.

Well struck! I'll just add a couple additional thoughts. I'll also attest to a similar experience in 40+ years of playing weak NT with my favorite partner. IMO, the biggest myth is the "big" risk of going for big numbers in 1 NTx. If the weak NTers are reasonably adroit at running out of 1 NTx, the big numbers are pretty rare. One area where the weak NT loses is sometimes playing 1 NT when 2 of major makes on a 4-4 fit as there is no way to find the fit after 1 NT. OTOH, still playing old fashioned penalty doubles by responder after a weak NT, we've gotten skads of +300 to +1100 sets when opponents walked in with poor overcall hands. It may seem counterintuitive, but you need more solid values to step in directly over the weak NT than a strong NT. One final thought, one place where the weak NT also gains is that it becomes more difficult for the opponents to bid 3 NT when it's right after a weak NT is opened. I'm not trying to advocate playing weak NTs, but trying to provide some of my experiences to go along with Mycroft's comments for those who might have to contend with the weak NT.

A couple disruptive protestors trying to disrupt Trump rallies got hit and you're saying Trump is trying to crush dissent? Let's see, one was an old geezer who apparently got enraged by a black protestor and sucker punched him as he went by. No excuse for that. The other was a protestor in a KKK uniform who was popped by an African-American supporter. There's still no justification for it. But I wonder whether a disruptive person in a KKK uniform at a Clinton rally would get out alive let alone be popped in the kisser once. OTOH, there's Chicago. Violence shut down that Trump rally. How do you justify the statements by a Democratic operative boasting that the Clinton campaign used money paid through a PAC to hire thugs to break up that rally. And they did. This behavior is completely out of bounds in our political landscape for either side. It's even worse for those who profess to holding the moral high ground. Let's be clear, that kind of action IS an attempt to stifle dissent. I'll grant that Trump used some ill chosen words to show his frustration at the progressive's attempts to crash and disrupt his rallies. But extrapolating those comments as promoting violence to stifle all dissent is ridiculous. Where is your evidence that conservative activists crashed Clinton rallies and tried to disrupt them? You're justifying this? http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mma/why-wsof-fighter-jake-shields-stepped-between-a-mob-and-a-trump-supporter/ar-AAmAYAF?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp There is no justification for it, just as there's no justification for any similar violence against folks that share your viewpoint.

Consider this, if the opponents had played Strong NTs and the bidding had gone 1 m - P - 1 ♥ - P 1 NT - P - 2 ♥ - P P - ? What would you do with this hand? I proffer this because that essentially is the situation you are in except the bidding was different because of the weak NT. The only differences are that you have less information now than in the suggested auction to consider and there's a lower bottom limit (i.e., zero) to the point count that responder could have. Close decision for me, but I'd probably double also.

So you're justifying that violence? There's no justification for Nazi tactics left or right. Open your eyes! These thugs were as much alt-left crazies as the KKK are alt-right crazies. Their behavior shouldn't be condoned by anyone.

Rioting is not civil disobedience, it's criminal violence. When outside agitators show up in black clothing and face masks, it's planned violence to silence dissent. That's behavior straight out of Nazi Germany and completely at odds with American values. I have no problem with the students at the University peacefully protesting this speaker, if they disagree with him. They can disagree and protest all they want about the speaker being at odds with what they believe are American values. That's their right and a vital part of the clash of ideas necessary for a free society. But what they aren't allowed to do is prevent someone with differing views from exercising their right to express opposing views. BUT, as mikeh pointed out, the sponsoring organization was a legitimate campus organization that got university approval for this speaker to speak. They also agreed to pay any extra security costs associated with a peaceful protest. There was no indication that the speaker or his audience would do anything other than exercise their rights to peaceful assembly. Peaceful assembly is a right guaranteed in the Constitution and goes hand in glove with free speech. Abrogation of those rights by violence is against American values. I was appalled to see the clip of a peaceful young female student wearing a "Make America Great Again" that got pepper sprayed by one of the thugs. Wearing that hat was an exercise of her right to free speech guaranteed under the Constitution. You may vehemently disagree with her opinion, but shouldn't condone the unprevoked violence against her. That violence isn't an American value.

I'm a passer also.

I don't see any real blame here either. Tough hand to bid. I agree with the auction through 2 ♠. Responder doesn't have quite enough for a 2 level negative double. 2 ♠ in the second round seems right. If there is any blame at all, it needs to be with opener. Opener might push with a 15 support value for a thin vulnerable game at IMPs by raising to 3 ♠. Even though I'm fairly aggressive at IMPs, I'm not sure I'd find that bid with this hand at the table.

I have no problem with the bidding so far. I think 4 ♥ here is natural suggesting a place to play. That still leaves 4 ♠ or 5 ♣ available as possible cues agreeing ♦. If you want to have 4 ♥ be a cue agreeing ♦, then how do you bid a hand something like ♠ Axxxx ♥ KQx ♦ x ♣ KJ10x? It seems to me that this hand is well a possibility for opener to hold in the actual auction through opener's 3 NT bid. Slam is a good bet with these cards. But if opener holds something like ♠ AKxxx ♥ Qxx ♦ x ♣ KJ10x, then even 4 ♥ might be a challenge. I'd like to explore for slam, but there's a danger that if you move past 4 ♥, you may create a vulnerable game swing. I think it's easier to defend sitting for 4 ♥, then giving up a game swing trying for slam. So I'm passing. Where you might consider pushing is if you're well behind in the match and need swings to catch up.