rmnka447

mikeh is several levels above where I am at. But our KO team has achieved enough to now be placed in the top bracket at most of the regionals where we play. That has meant facing some really good players. I can assure you that when those players hold appropriate cards, they will indeed intervene over a strong 2 ♣ opener. But as mikeh implies, those players really know how to pick their spots and, for the most part, do so judiciously. I normally play CRASH with most of my partners over both strong 1 ♣ and strong 2 ♣ openers. The only difference is that we don't use a double over 2 ♣ which shows a 16+ hand over a strong 1 ♣ opener.

At MPs, I'm passing. There's just too much chance of going for down 2 doubled versus a NV game which is the kiss of death. At IMPs, if I'm bidding anything, it'd be 5 ♦. But I'd only consider that bid if partner tendencies in bidding weak jump overcalls are to be reasonably sound at unfavorable vulnerability. Here you're not worried so much about down 2 vulnerable as a down 3 doubled or worse set. Yeah, down 2 gives up -500 versus -420, but that's only a couple IMPs at most. I'm not mentioning ♠ if I bid. RHO has splintered and has shown at a minimum 4 red cards (4 trump w/void) and could hold possibly 6(5 trump w/stiff) leaving somewhere between 7-9 black cards in the hand. I think that diminishes the possibility of a ♠ fit with partner. The other consideration is that if I mention ♠, partner who is on lead against a ♥ contract is likely to lead them. The positive to the hand is that it does have the complementary distribution that increases the number of tricks our side can take.

BTW, the same logic applies to interfering over big 1 ♣ openers. Most are opening 17+ hands and if you can get the bidding at or above 2 ♣ before opener rebids, they are trying to bid a much wider range of hands in the bidding space that "strong" 2 ♣ openers normally use. Like mikeh says, the problems get really tough for the opponents when you use methods that are ambiguous to what intervener holds.

7 ♥ makes if the ♣ ruff isn't found, but 7 ♣ is unbeatable. If the bidding goes, 1 ♥ - 2 ♣ 3 ♣ then up to 7 ♥, South might make a Lightner Double and North ought to find the ♣ lead. On the first 3 bids North knows, South can't have more than a stiff ♣. If I preempted with the West hand, I'd preempt 4 ♥. With 8 potential cover cards, East should see the possibility of slam. From East's perspective, the key question is whether there are 2 ♦ losers. After a preempt, I not sure how to figure that out. It should go easier in 2/1 over a 1 ♥ opener -- 1 ♥ - 2 ♣ 3 ♣ - 3 ♥ (Sure you normally have 3, but opposite a ♣ fit and known ♥ suit in partner's hand, ♥ KQ are golden cards.) 3 ♠ - 4 ♣ 4 ♦ etc. The other possibility is 1 ♥ - 2 ♣ 3 ♦ - 3 ♥ (if you play jumps in new suit over 2/1 as splinters) 3 ♠ etc.

There are a few top bridge players who also play poker professionally, too. One who comes to mind is one of the better younger players, John Kranyak, who now lives in Las Vegas, but is originally from Cleveland.

Play low. You know that declarer has at least 5 ♠, so the most that partner can have is 2. But it's entirely possible that declarer has 6 ♠. If so and you go up with the ♠ A, you may compress 2 ♠ tricks into 1 if partner holds the ♠ K. It's possible that declarer is leading ♠ Q from ♠ KQxxx(x) to induce you to duck. Declarer might do so if holding a hand where a strip and endplay might result, then the ♠ A is the card that puts you in to endplay you and the induced duck gets rid of your escape card. In that case, then you tip your hat to declarer for making a great play. Which would you rather defend in the post mortem? a) Going up and compressing 2 ♠ tricks into 1 when partner has stiff ♠ K, or, b) Ducking and being later subjected to an endplay. I'd prefer b.

You bid 3 NT same as you would if you were sitting South with this hand. If partner pulls it, you sit. Otherwise, you hope you can find 9 tricks. On this hand, you thank partner profusely for the lovely dummy. The good thing is that you can hold up in ♥ 'til the third round so that if East has a normal 7 card preempt, a second entry to the preempting hand will be necessary to run it.

Just in rough numbers -- 3-1 break with 4c cards is a 50% probability overall with nothing known. Since RHO can only be 3-1 that's a 25% probability. 5-1 break with 6 cards is about 14.5% probability X approximately 40% probability of 2-2 break in trump since both must be true to go down. That works out to be about a 6% probability. So making the recommended play adds about an additional 19% to the likelihood of making the contract. That's a good chance to take.

I'm passing. I don't relish bidding at the 4 level with a relatively flat 7 loser hand vulnerable. The two remaining hands remain unknown. If LHO opponent has the bulk of the points bidding can turn into a death wish. If partner has the values and reopens, then this hand looks a lot better. Also, it might just happen that partner finds a 3 NT bid and this hand looks like a pretty good dummy opposite that bid. If you bid 4 ♣ now, you preclude playing in 3 NT which might be the best contract. If it goes pass-pass and 3 ♥ makes --c'est la vie -- preempts work.

Given an appropriate hand, it certainly is right to intervene over 2 ♣. The idea is to take away bidding space and make it more difficult for the opponents to find their best spot. You do have to take vulnerability into account, but remember that the opponents are close to game on opener's 2 ♣ bid alone. You normally should have a distributional hand of some sort. The opponents are going to have a lot of values, so you need to offset that with hands where you can set up suits and/or trump their high cards. Anytime you can make the opponents have to make some tough decisions because of your intervention, you've won. Even if they end up in the right spot, you will have got their attention. The trick is to learn when and with what to jump in, so that you don't take too many phone number sets.

GuffawingOL!!! MSNBC? MSNBC makes Fox News look like the temple of virtue and truthfulness in comparison. MSNBC can't tell the difference between opinion and fact. These people created imaginary "code words" And "dog whistles" to reinterpret anything a conservative says into something sinister, racist, bigoted or worse. Now, they've got this unique insight into AG Barr's behavior, so they can claim he lied. This after claiming the US government was being run by the Russians, which was fantasy. This after decrying the end of democracy virtually every day for 2 years, it's still strong despite their best efforts. This after claiming collusion with Russia was a dead certain given, it proved to be false. In the immortal words of John McEnroe -- "You can't be serious!!"

Yes, the consensus has shifted to Double=weak, Pass=some values.

So, do you think you're making 4 ♠? If so, bid on. At this point in the auction, you're looking at -130 or possibly -150 at the worst if you pass. Stay true to your bidding judgment and pass. If you weren't willing to bid 4 ♠ at your first opportunity, don't give the opponents a potential fielder's choice by rebidding your values. There's no guarantee partner has any ♠. Partner did have a chance to raise you and didn't. If you bid on, the opponents could -- Double you for a better score, Be forced to bid a game that makes, or, Bid game and go down for a slightly larger set than 4 ♦. Your choice.

Actually, it's more dangerous to compete in these situations versus a weak NT than a strong NT as responder can have more values. With the values more evenly distributed, the defense usually goes better, too. If responder has a bust hand, partner would be close to having enough to double (opener 14 + your 9 + responder 2-3 = 25-26 leaving partner with 14-15). So the decision isn't as clear cut as you might believe. But you do have some shape and decent cards. I'd probably double nonetheless, but if we were way up, I might just pass.

I think the least odorous bid by your partner is 3 ♠. Then, you should have little problem raising to 4 ♠ for a push. After a 3 level overcall over a 3 of a minor preempt, advancer has to consider that overcaller might have strained to make a bid. Otherwise, the opponents can steal you blind from preventing you from finding a reasonable part score when the remainder of the values are split evenly. After the double, I'd just bid 4 ♠ and hope it was right.

I hate bidding 1 ♠ on such a horrid suit, but the values dictate otherwise at all forms. I might consider passing if way ahead in an IMP match or at rubber bridge.

First question when it's your time to bid -- "Are the opponents in a bad spot?" Simple answer -- Darn right!!! You're looking at 3 sure ♠ tricks in hand and the ♥ A. You're also very likely to score a 4th ♠ trick and possibly a trick with ♣ K. If double would be penalty in this position, give it a shot at MP. If not, pass and see if partner can reopen with a double, you're probably in line for a phone number set if partner can. If not, then you've still got a shot at a possible +150 if partner can produce a trick.

WTP? It looks like a 3 ♦ bid to me.

After partner bids 2 ♠, I don't think responder should pass. I think the choice is between 3 ♠ and 4 ♠ depending on how you evaluate the hand. But then again, after seeing the full hand, I'd never open 1 NT with an opening hand with a decent 5 card ♠ suit. If opener's hand ♠ 10xxxx and wanted to open 1 NT, that's a different story.

Rub of the green. 2 ♥ might not be so attractive if South found East with a 9-10 point hand. Tip your cap to declarer for the play, but the bid is a bad one that panned out

At the 3 level, responder should have more than 8 HCP for a negative double. So rolling out a perfect fitting hand that makes 4 ♥, but passes over 3 ♥ isn't likely. I'd expect pretty much opening values for the negative double very likely with 4 ♠. If the auction starts 1 ♥ - (3 ♦) - Double, then the chances of getting to the right spot improve after 3 ♥. After -- 3 ♥ - 3 ♠ opener has to decide where to play, responder should be on 6+ ♠ with 10-11 as with more and 5+ ♠, 3 ♠ would have been bid directly. and ... 3 ♥ - 3 NT 3 ♥ - 4 ♣ 3 ♥ - 4 ♦ Opener rebids 4 ♥ and responder won't expect more than a minimal opener with a lot of ♥.

The 4 ♥ rebid wasn't good. 3 ♥ is better, then keep bidding ♥ and partner will eventually figure things out. --> Lots of ♥ and enough to open but not much else.

I'm probably in the minority here, but use primarily HCP and quick tricks as the main tools to decide opening or not. Typically, an opening bid would normally be at least 12 HCP and 2 QTs. With more or less QTs, the opening HCP scale slides down or up respectively. So 11 HCP and 2 1/2 QTs, 13 HCP and 1 1/2 QTS are also openers. When you get to 14 HCP hands or hands with 3+ QTs, they are generally all openers for me. This approach is best characterized as reasonably sound/middle of the road opening. If you want to lower those some to be more aggressive, that's OK. Top American expect, Larry Cohen described his three major partners over the years in terms of their approaches to bidding. Marty Bergen, his first partner, was uber-aggressive. Ron Gerard, his second partner, liked very sound bidding. David Berkowitz, his current partner, is more middle of the road. Larry has won National level events with each of them. His point is that there isn't one way of bidding that is necessarily superior to the others. What is important is that you feel comfortable with whatever style you adopt. Also, that you find a partner or partners, that bid in a compatible manner. We all know that hand evaluation extends into a number of factors beyond QTs and HCP. Where I think LTC is useful is in those situations where you are at the cusp between bids. It may be a tool that helps you decide to go one way or the other. Let me give some examples: ♠ Kxx ♥ Axx ♦ KJx ♣ xxxx 11 HCP/2 QTs/9 losers clearly a pass for me. ♠ Kx ♥ Axxx ♦ KJxxx ♣ xx 11 HCP/2 QTs/7 losers. While this also falls short on the HCP/QT criteria, LTC makes this look like an attractive 1 ♦ opener. ♠ A109x ♥ AQ109x ♦ xx ♣ xx 10 HCP/2 1/2 QT/7 losers and working intermediates. Again short on HCP/QT, but LTC makes this also looks like an opener. BTW, this hand fails the Rule of 20.

AG Barr said he used Mueller's criterion for deciding the obstruction issue, not his previous legal opinion. Are you suggesting AG Barr is lying?

LOL, I guess you feel challenging the progressive myth that collusion occurred is propaganda and, thus crap. Sorry to see you so brainwashed. This opinion piece that appeared jn WAPO a couple days ago says it all -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/15/admit-it-fox-news-has-been-right-all-along/?utm_term=.9f3962a57b83 Sure, Comey was not being forthcoming with the President about the investigation. And the President apparently had sources that exposed the duplicity that Comey was up to. See the following -- https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/burr-apparently-fed-info-on-fbis-russia-probe-to-white-house-mueller-says/ar-BBW55WO?ocid=spartandhp