rmnka447

Most CC's I see mark doubles of preempts as takeout through 4 ♥. Doubles of 4 ♠ and above are usually "penalty", but it seems like most people tend to take them as cooperative (i.e. values) than purely penalty. I'm passing with this hand. 4 ♠ doesn't rate to be a particularly good spot, but then again preemptor's partner has not been heard from. With LHO holding the right big hand and with preemptor holding a stiff or void in ♦, 4 ♠ could be a make. If partner finds a reopening double, playing 4 ♠ doubled looks a lot better.

Pass for now, how can you do anything else with what looks like 5 full tricks in hand. BUT there needs to be caution if the weak 2 bidder runs about being in a possible "rat-tailed" double situation.

The hesitation/fumbling could be any number of things -- on the edge between 2 NT and 1m/2NT, long minor, etc. Neither major looks right at MPs. ♠ look to be at least 5+-2 and a ♠ lead could give away the whole suit. Too much danger of a ♥ lead giving away a trick. If they have 26, partner should an 8 count. So it looks like a minor lead to me. I think I'll lead 8 ♦ to avoid having partner think ♣ 9 is positive from an inner sequence.

The OP hit on one of the anomalies in "standard" bidding. If a simple rebid of 2 of opener's suit or 2 of responder's suit is non-forcing, then a jump rebid in those suits could be either invitational or forcing, but not both. The usual way to treat a jump rebid has been as invitational for years and years. With the advent of checkbacks/NMF, it has allowed a third sequence to be used to show a similar hand. So folks using checkbacks can specify which sequence is GF, and which is invitational. Of course, if you do that, you better be in sync on which sequence specifies which hand. Back in the olden days, as I still am with one partner because we don't play checkback/NMF, you have to make a forcing bid with a 3rd suit then rebid your suit or opener's suit to make the game force. In principle, the 3rd suit is real and treated as real, but occasionally you just have to do it to create the game force.

IMP scoring is much more like rubber bridge where scoring game contracts are worth more. In rubber bridge scoring, the important scores are the scores associated with the exact contract you have bid. If the value of the contract you make is at least 100 points, you score a game toward rubber. If you can score two game contracts before your opponents do, then you win the rubber. When one side or the other accumulates 100+ points for the contract(s) made, they score a game and both sides start from scratch to try to win the next game. Let's take your example. At one table, 4 ♠ was bid and made. The value of a 4 ♠ contract is (4*30)=120. Since it is worth more than 100, it means a game has been scored and with the next hand both sides would contest for the next game. At the other table, the contract was 3 ♠ making 4. The value of a 3 ♠ contract is (3*30)= 90. Since this is less than 100, it is scored toward game, but does not score a game. So that side has scored only a part score toward game. They would receive credit for the extra trick elsewhere on the score sheet, but it doesn't count toward game. (In rubber bridge, both sides would continue to contest for game with the next hand. If the side with the part score was able to bid and make any contract, then there cumulative total would over 100 and they would score the game. If instead, their opponents bid and made a game contract, they would score the game instead and both sides would start over towards the next game.) The bonuses added in duplicate of +50 for part scores or +300 for non vulnerable games reflect the amount that would be received for them at rubber bridge in an unfinished rubber. The +500 bonus for a vulnerable game reflects the rubber bridge bonus for winning a 3 game rubber. At rubber bridge, if you win a rubber by scoring 2 consecutive games, you would receive +700 bonus. But, for whatever reason, duplicate awards just +500 for any vulnerable game. So to recap -- 3 ♠ making 4 reflects a value of (3*30)for the contract + 50 for the part score + 30 for the overtrick =170 4 ♠ making 4 reflects a value of (4*30) for the contract + 300 for making a non-vulnerable game= 420 IMP scoring goes one step further. It takes the scoring one step further to adjust for outlying results in team matches. I believe at one time team matches were scored on a total points basis. But that makes it possible for one or two huge results to decide a match virtually no matter what else happens. So at some point, the IMP scale was developed to dampen big total point swings have so that matches will be decided more on the skills of the players throughout the match than on one outlaying result. The result of the example you used is a net of +250 or +6 IMP swing for the team that bid game.

Pass. Depending on what partner holds, this hand could go down in 2 ♠ or make 4. No way to which it is, so just sit. The only thing you know for sure is that partner didn't super accept. Stiff Q shouldn't be full value so is a flaw making it a 7- hand. Like others, I might consider another bid if its "value" was moved into the long suits.

I agree with previous passes. The hand certainly isn't an opener, then certainly don't want to be pushing 4 ♠ or higher if partner has made a light double. Well, now that partner has shown extras it's time to come alive. Stiff ♥ A is a useful card if opponents have pushed to 4 ♥ on a 10 card fit. 4 ♠ is out as partner probably would have bid ♠ at some point with 5+. So the choice comes down to 4 NT showing 2 places to play and letting partner choose, or, just taking a preference to 5 ♣. If I had some decent ♦ spots I'd be apt to bid 4 NT. But ♦ 8542 seems pretty meagre, so I'm opting to bid 5 ♣.

So if NV the hand were ♠ KQ9xxx ♥ Axx ♦ xx ♣ xx would you pass out 3 ♦? Somehow I'd think most people would find a 3 ♠ bid with that holding to fight for the part score. If that's the case, then partner will never be able to decipher that 3 ♠ might be bid on this actual 16 point 6 loser hand. So it comes down to either doubling and hoping to bid ♠ in the 2nd round, or, bidding 4 ♠ straight up. Take your choice, but do one or the other. Me, with a reasonably good ♠ holding, I'd bid 4 ♠ and hope for the best. Don't know if it will make or not but it puts the opponents under pressure to make the next decision.

Responder has said a lot about their holding by bidding 3 NT. It's not only what is bid, but also what is not bid that should be considered. If responder had a 4 card major it would be normal to make a negative double instead of bidding 3 NT to try to find a major fit if one exists. If responder had a 5 card major and opening count, it could be bid at the 2 level and be forcing. So likely partner has some kind of ♦ fit and definitely some ♣ stoppers, along with stoppers or probable stoppers in the remaining suits. I'll stand corrected that opener should never bid, but in IMO, it'll take something extraordinary to pull 3 NT. Either you've got a moose of hand and want to explore for slam, or, something really freakish. With a run of the mill opener, I'm sitting, even with the void. Wouldn't be surprised to see partner with ♠ Kx ♥ Q9x ♦ KQxxx ♣ AJ10, ♠ Kx ♥ Kx ♦ Kxxxxxx ♣ KJx, or even ♠ QJx ♥ Kx ♦ Kxx ♣ AJ109x.

No, I wouldn't open this hand. I wouldn't bid over 3 NT, either. 3 NT isn't seeking more information it's a signoff. Partner knows you have a an unbalanced hand with ♦. You don't have a clue what partner's hand is. Partner might be a little miffed if 3 NT doesn't work out because of feeling you opened a bit light, but that's another discussion. Better that discussion than trying to explain why you took a bid over 3 NT which makes and got some place that goes down. It should be a part of partnership confidence that if partner makes an unusual bid or play, you trust your partner. In short, don't "save" partner.

I'd definitely Stayman with the hand because of the normal advantages of a 4-4 major fit. In this particular hand, neither 3 NT nor 4 ♠ was particularly good. Those are the breaks sometime. You might not "prefer 3 NT on the South cards" if partner's ♥ and ♣ were reversed. Then 3 NT can go down off the top with a ♣ lead. The point being that you can't always judge what's right solely from your own hand.

3 ♥ is a bad bid, but like gszes the double of 3 ♥ is the absolute worst call IMO. With 10+ ♥ between South and East, can South reasonably expect North to sit for a penalty double? If not, what suit is North likely to bid? Diamonds, of course, South's void. OTOH, a pass of 3 ♥ leaves the opponents in not a particularly good place. How would competent defense go against 3 ♥? South starts with ♣ AK followed by ♣ 3 which North wins with the ♣ Q. North returns ♦ 3 which South ruffs low. South returns the ♣ 6 which North ruffs, North returns another ♦ which South ruffs low and there's still two top ♥ to collect totaling 8 tricks for +200 versus nothing.

Amend your original comment to read "How can we ever know what is in the minds of the citizens of a state who have now both elected Jessie Ventura and Al Franken?' Then your comment is correct and makes perfect sense.

Assange claims the information WikiLeaks released wasn't from the Russians. But how can he know? It could easily have been funneled through several hands to uncouple it from the Russians. So anything Assange says has to be taken with a huge grain of salt. However, in yesterday's testimony, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper made a couple things clear. There is no evidence that the Russians hacked or otherwise interfered with the mechanisms of the election. (So, the implication is that the vote was a true reflection of the people's will.) Also, the intelligence community can't define what effect, if any, the Russian attempts to affect the election had on the final result. Those comments differ from the slant of stories from unattributed intelligence sources that attempt to insinuate that Russian interference turned the election for Trump. As far as I'm concerned, any such unattributed stories amount to fake news or political hyperbole until they are confirmed by public on-the-record declarations by intelligence agencies. So far, that hasn't happened.

One more for this line.

I'm bidding 3 ♥ and sitting for the fix, if it occurs. OTOH, partner is allowed to have a ♥ fit and we get to the right strain. If I double and get a minimum pointy suit response, I have no idea what to do other than pass. Then, we might end up in a 7 card fit rather than a perfectly good 8+ card ♥ fit. If partner instead finds a 3 ♠ call over my 3 ♥ overcall, then I can at least consider bidding 4 ♠.

I think West is far too strong to splinter 4 ♣. I regularly see hands where people splinter with a 16-17 HC count as opener often with some flaws. This hand has a 21 count with good suit textures and controls in all the suits. It's too much to expect responder to help evaluate slam prospects with a rebid that can be that wide. I think a jump shift 2 ♠ rebid that is virtually game forcing, if available, would be better. First, it should show good values in these 2 suits to begin. It also tends to increase the value of ♦ and ♠ honors in responders hand once you set ♥ as trump. It also let's responder give some indication of their strength. Here after a 2 ♠ rebid, responder will make a positive response which lets opener keep slam exploration alive. With the actual 4 ♣ splinter made, I think responder should bid 4 ♦ as the hand still has extras even though concentrated in opener's short suit. 4 ♥ could be bid on as little as ♠ xx ♥ Jxxx ♦ xxx ♣ Axxx. Responder's hand is considerably better than that.

In this regard, Van Jones, the CNN commentator who called the election a "Whitelash", had a very interesting town hall forum on CNN called "The Messy Truth". He went to Ohio to talk with some Trump voters who were Democrats and showed the film of that as part of the town hall. It certainly changed his opinion to some extent as to what happened. He concluded "We've been talking past each other." during that visit. He also had conservative Rick Santorum, Ana Navarro, and (at the end) Michael Moore on for their comments. He and Navarro asked Santorum some tough questions that I'm not sure Santorum answered well. Michael Moore went on one of his rants at the end, but overall interesting nonetheless. I noticed recently it was available on my cable system, Xfinity, still had it available on Xfinity On Demand under CNN Specials. I think it's a good thing for everyone to see if you can to better understand what happened.

I don't buy this whole "parents are too dumb or disinterested to make a good decision for their kids" argument. The biggest complaint parents in impoverished areas have is about the quality of their schools. They want a good education for their kids like everyone else. There are also ample examples of parents examples of parents' going to extraordinary efforts to get their kids into good schools. There was a documentary out a couple years ago "Waiting for Superman" (and available on DVD) that showed what one single parent went through to try to get her son into a Charter school. It also talks about some of the problems that plague our public education system. I think it's something everyone interested in our education system should see and reflect on. You may not agree with everything it asserts, but, at least, it's a starting point for discussion.

You had a very thoughtful post that really needs no comment. I just wanted to concur with your last thought that getting the education problem solved is critical for America's future. For everyone, but especially for underprivileged kids, getting a good education is vital. Hopefully, it enables everyone to take the next step up the ladder in our society. Without it, it'll be nearly impossible to break the cycle of poverty and dependency that puts the underprivileged in.

I think the "1 NT opener" hand is at the cusp between a clear cut strong 3 ♦ jump rebid hand and a minimum 2 ♦ rebid hand. If the ♦ suit were poorer, say something like ♠ Kx ♥ Axx ♦ A98xxx ♣ Ax, I think 1 NT would be a clear cut bid. Playing 3 ♦ opposite a small doubleton or stiff with this alternative hand might not be very appetizing. OTOH, if the ♦ suit were stronger, say ♠ xx ♥ Kxx ♦ AKJ10xx ♣ Ax, playing opposite a small doubleton or stiff wouldn't be much of an issue. So the question is "At what point does the ♦ suit quality get good enough to emphasize the ♦ versus bidding NT?" I'd be apt to say they were plenty good with this second example and open 1 ♦ planning to rebid 3 ♦ even though it's only a 15 pointer. The actual hand asked about is between these examples. I think the suggestion to open that hand 1 NT indicates that the "expert"(?) feels this hand just doesn't rate an upgrade to a jump rebid hand. I'd probably do the same. I think my absolute floor for a jump rebid hand would be ♦ AK109xx instead of ♦ AK98xx. The second hand broaches the question of how much you need for a 4th seat opener. It does so in a couple ways. First, it's an 11 point, 2 1/2 QT hand minor hand. Second, points plus ♠ only equal 14 -- not enough according to a popular rule of thumb. If the ♣ were a major, I doubt that many people would have a problem opening it. But there is some rationale for passing a minor hand. I'm probably a glutton for punishment, but I'd open anyhow.

On the first hand, a 2 ♣ overcall is fine for a first call. I'd make that bid myself. The double by opener is fairly automatic these days if opener is short in ♣. That's because most people play negative doubles after an overcall. So there's no way to penalize the overcall when holding a trump stack except to pass and hope that opener reopens with a double. Opener will also sometimes double holding extra high values with ♣ enough to make a stack in partner's hand unlikely. In that case, opener is hoping to find responder with something that could let them find a part score to play. Your hand is a really good playing hand. Unless you get a 5-0 trump break, you rate to have no more than 2 trump losers which leaves you with 8 playing tricks in hand. So your hand is good enough to compete further, even Vulnerable. I think 3 ♣ is about right with this hand Vulnerable. It takes away bidding space from the opponents while doesn't rate to go down much, if at all, if the opponents defend. Your partner should realize that the additional bid is based on extra club length. With a strong (16+) and good ♣, you'd double first and rebid ♣ instead. And, because you didn't preempt in the first round, you must have some values outside of ♣. On the second hand, barring any special agreements, 2 ♦ is the right bid to start. As others have said, how you continue depends on your specific agreements. With a random partner, I'd take 2 ♠ as 5 card minimum in balanced or a 6 card suit. After 2 ♠, you have a big problem exploring for slam. 3 NT will almost assuredly end as will 4 ♠. If you bid another new suit and ultimately support ♠, partner is likely to think you are short in the 4th suit. With a random partner, you want to be in game, so I think your choice was between 3 NT and 4 ♠. If you were definitely playing 2/1 game force, then you would have additional bids available that would let you explore for slam -- 3 ♠ would show a hand with 3 ♠ and some slam interest, 2 NT would also be forcing but tend to deny 3 ♠. 3 NT and 4 ♠ would definitely be signoff bids. After 3 ♠, partner would likely bid 4 ♣ showing a ♣ control and you could cue 4 ♥ showing a ♥ control. Partner should get excited about slam after that and take control. I wouldn't be too worried about your partner abandoning the table. Your partner didn't exactly star in this auction. Partner's hand is on the cusp between a 2 ♠ rebid or 3 ♠ rebid. With partner's points virtually all prime values (As, Ks) and plenty of intermediate cards especially in ♠, I think this opener is worth a 3 ♠ rebid versus a 2 ♠ rebid. If partner bids 3 ♠, I think you'll have no trouble pushing toward slam. In any case, I've had a lot of partner's bail on me hereabouts if they didn't like a result. It's sort of way of life and often as not it wasn't justified.

BTW, Ivanka isn't Donald's wife, it's his daughter. She was travelling with her young children and apparently handled the situation with great aplomb. The strongest reaction seems to have been from women. They were very concerned about the traumatic effect that such a confrontation would have on the toddlers. Think of it this way, how would you react if you heard, say 2-4 years down the road, that Chelsea Clinton was travelling with her child on a commercial flight and was confronted by a right wing zealot ranting about what a crook, liar, and despicable person her mother was. It would be as entirely out of bounds as this incident was. The airline handled it exactly right as there was no guarantee they'd be able to handle the situation if it flared up again during the flight, so they took the protesters off the plane. So the only real penalty the perpetrators of this instance paid was the time and inconvenience of taking a later flight. As for Trump's policies, let's be realistic -- Repealing and replacing ACA has to include some viable means for most, if not all, people covered by ACA to have healthcare insurance. It would be political suicide to do anything different. So the contention of 25 million without any healthcare is just progressive propaganda. Clearly, ACA is in a death spiral now. People with family coverage for $1000 a month and a $12,000 deductible know that's not any real insurance just high cost catastrophic coverage. Certainly, it's not affordable care. Trump has already endorsed retaining "stay on family insurance til 26" and "no pre-existing conditions" and these are things a majority of Republicans have always been for. Any repeal would also include a several year transition period to whatever the replacement would be according to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. Let's see what Trump and the Republicans come up with. On education, apparently you missed President-elect Trump's emphasis about wanting school choice for all. This would include a voucher system where student funding followed the student. The student could attend any school that had space for them. Apparently, some pilot programs have shown success with this approach, not only for students changing schools, but also for the schools students were leaving. These "underperformers" were forced to compete and therefore had to make changes that improved learning for all the students that remained. A Democrat, an ex-DC Councilman, who is a strong advocate for better education touted these results. Betty Devos, Trump's choice for Education Secretary, has long been interested in education and an activist in trying to improve our education system and strong advocate for educational choice. He thought she'd be a good choice to help implement this program. Certainly, something has to change in our educational system to get better results. The US spends the most per capita for education of any country and we were something like 137th in the world. Just tossing more money at the problem isn't a real solution.

Playing 2/1, I'm bidding 2 ♥. Even playing strong jump shifts(SJS), I'm bidding 2 ♥. Because SJSs take up so much bidding space, they ought to convey the message -- "I've got a big hand with this suit. Our final contract ought to be in your suit, my suit, or NT." Here, ♦ could also be a final strain for the contract, so a SJS is inappropriate.

With the first hand, you're 1 NT opening is entirely normal if playing strong NTs (15-17). After 2 ♦, you should pass and let partner initiate any further action. Partner's hand can be anything from 0 points ( ♠ xxxx ♥ xxxx ♦ xxxx ♣ x) to unlimited at this point. If partner has less than invitational values he/she can pass. With invitational values or better, partner will make another call. One discussion you should have with partner is what a free bid by you over 2 ♦ should show. If you play "garbage Stayman", then it's probably better to restrict a 2 ♥ or 2 ♠ free bid to hands where you've opened 1 NT with a 5 card major. If partner reopens with a double, you can bid 3 ♣ with the actual hand you had. If you would have had a 4 card major, you could bid it over the reopening double. If partner bids a suit it ought to be 5+ cards -- so a 2 ♥ or 2 ♠ reopening bid ought to imply 4 cards in the other major else responder would have just transferred. With the second hand, I also agree with overcalling 1 ♠ rather than doubling. Normally, a double followed by a rebid in a suit shows the approximately 16-18 point "strong" overcall hand. Over 2 ♦ here, you pass because your LHO(East) has shown 4 ♠ behind you -- so ♠ likely won't play well and there's no guarantee of another fit. But let's say that LHO(East) had bid 2 ♦ (6-10) passed back to you. Then you could reopen with a double showing a willingness to compete further with a 5 card ♠ suit, about opening count, and 3+ cards in the unbid suit. Your partner ought to have a pretty good idea about where to place the contract from that description.