Kaitlyn S

That makes sense when you are playing with a partner with which you have an agreement that 3S is forcing. That probably doesn't work so well with a random "expert" in the Main Bridge Club who might not play "all strange bids are forcing".

This is an interesting subject to me and it's too bad that I currently don't have time to research it further to discuss it intelligently. Mike made some very good points about school vouchers. Vouchers' proponents think that the schools with good teachers and administrators will prosper and those without good teachers or administrations will die out and will eliminate the union teachers that are just putting in their time (as those promoting vouchers are likely to want to get rid of teachers' unions also.) Mike pointed out some problems - that lazy or too busy or misguided religious parents may either be stuck with an inferior school. Plus, the theory behind getting rid of the bad teachers at under-performing schools may get rid of some good ones as well; and a school may underperform for reasons other than the teachers being bad. Mike, I support some of your ideas. If we had a way to weed out those teachers that were simply putting in their time and only keep those that aspire to teach like Elianna, I would support doubling their salaries and would be the first to volunteer to pay extra taxes to make that happen. Doubling the salaries might attract more talented teachers who have avoided the field because they wanted a higher lifestyle. I can also see the merit in increasing funds to the worst economic areas as long as real learning rather than babysitting or behavior control happens. Delinking school funding from local taxation will never happen because too many people believe that the Federal government already has too much control over education and federal money usually comes with unwanted strings. I hope I can convince you that it's not wonderful. Instead of helping public schools, it will greatly diminish the number of qualified candidates running for public office. Quite possibly most of the elected officials will not have children or grandchildren and won't understand what being a parent entails. Do you think that would help our education situation? (I assumed the 'delusional' comment meant that you didn't think it would ever happen, not that you didn't think it was a great idea.)

Since Jinsky edited his post, I'll get rid of my response to it :)

I have a bridge book from the 1920's. One of the tips is that you shouldn't bid a suit unless you have the ace or king in it.

Let's say the opener has a hand like: S-A Q 8 6 4 3, H-A J 2 D-K 5 3 C-9. In theory your 2D response showed 11+. (You may say 10+ but you're probably talking HCP. In practice, most 10 point hands without a 5 card suit should respond 1NT so saying 11 counting length seems reasonable. I may get some disagreement on this as standard methods in Europe may be different.) So you have 16 counting length and very likely want to be in game. If partner has a couple of spades you want to play 4S, and while your spade length may be disappointing if partner has a singleton, your club singleton will be enough of an asset that 5D might be a good contract opposite a minimum 2D response with diamond length, or 3NT might be fine if partner has clubs. However, if you play 2S nonforcing, you have to bid more than 2S on this hand. You can bid 3S, but that will make the 3NT/5D decision much harder when partner doesn't have two spades, and almost impossible when partner has strong clubs and no heart stopper and you belong in 3NT. One of the regulars on these forums will trot out 2H, which should be absolutely forcing since 2H could be bid on an 18 count as well, and will come out all right as long as partner doesn't raise to game in hearts. However I wouldn't recommend that. Playing 2S as forcing gives you room to find the best game. In fact, decent players would bid 2S with stronger hands with six lousy spades rather than jumping to 3S which sometimes leads to 4S on a 6-1 fit with lousy trumps because responder has nothing good to do. That being said, it is playable to play 2S nonforcing here, but many experts (and apparently your partner on this hand) believe that it is inferior to do so. I agree. When the opener shows 13+ and the responder shows 11+ you almost always have enough for game, and the emphasis is finding the right game. A good percentage of the time that both partners are minimum, it will become obvious and you'll be able to get out below game, such as: 1S-2D-2H-3D-P; 1S-2D-2NT-P; 1S-2D-2S-2NT-P; 1S-2D-2S-3S-P; 1S-2D-2H-3H-P; 1S-2D-3D-P* In each case the final bid showed a minimum for the earlier bidding and is not forcing; when the partner is also minimum, the pair stays out of a bad game. The final one is controversial - a few standard players think this is forcing. So it might be best to stay out of game when it's obvious and get to game otherwise and once in a great while you'll be overbid. There is much to be gained by playing that 2S rebid as forcing (in 1S-2D-2S) and much of the time you don't belong in game, responder will bid 2NT, 3D, or 3S and play it there. Don't feel bad about messing up a 2/1 auction; many bridge teachers that don't teach 2/1 game forcing tend to avoid the subject because there are a lot of disagreements among experts about the meanings of the bids. For example, S-AQ653 H-95 D-K63 C-A74 You open 1S, partner bids 2D. Do you bid 2S, 2NT, or 3D? It's a matter of partnership agreement; there are no right or wrong answers there. The 2/1 game forcing players have the same problem. You'll find many 2/1 game forcing experts voting for each of those three choices - it's their personal preference for their partnership. Some will say that 2S always shows six. If you do so, you must bid 2NT without a stopper sometimes or bid a 3-card suit or raise with 3. Some will say that 2NT always shows the other two sutis stopped. If you do so, then you either have to bid 2S sometimes with 5 or make up a suit. These potential problems exist whether you are playing 2/1 game forcing or Standard American (which implies that 2 over 1 is only a one round force.) An expert or teacher may tell you that only one of the above approaches is correct. Don't believe it. If you can find a regular partner, you can agree which approach you take on 2 over 1 auctions. Does it surprise you that many teachers (those that know there is not any one right answer) try to avoid standard discussing 2 over 1 auctions altogether? When we teach social players, we tend to teach that the 2S rebid shows six, not because it's superior, but because it's easier for them. It's consistent with 1 over 1 bidding (where 1H-1S-2H shows 6 for sure) and they're used to rebidding 1NT with an unbid suit unstopped so they really don't have to learn anything new. For a newer player, there's some merit in consistency; it's hard enough to remember all the bidding rules and making them inconsistent even makes them harder. On your S-5 4 H-10 9 D-A K 10 9 4 C-K 5 4 3 example, I would raise 2S to 3S hoping that partner had 6. Sometimes the doubleton heart will be enough to make 4S.. For example, if your partner has S-AKxxxx, H-xxx, D-Qxx C-Ax, your doubleton heart makes game for him when trumps are 3-2 . If the opponents lead a club, your partner gives up a spade trick at trick 2 and your doubleton heart stops the defenders from taking 3 hearts. Now partner can draw trump and make 4 as long as diamonds run (and he can trump a diamond to set up the fifth diamond if diamonds are 4-1 the wrong way, as long as the CK is still an entry.)

I'm with Rik and the OP. I'm no stranger to 1NT on 5-4's and 6 card suits when the conditions are right. They aren't right here. If I open 1D and rebid 3D and partner passes, we're plenty high enough and I'm happy to have a trump suit. 3NT is quite likely to play better from partner's side even after we give the opponents information in the auction. Besides if partner has a good hand with a small doubleton spade, I'd rather be in 5D on a spade lead than 3NT on a probable spade lead. I have no clue who Bob Jones is but I disagree with him this time.

Let's test that hypothesis. The most attacked people in the Water Cooler are Al_U_Card, jonottowa, Kaitlyn S, jogs, (did I miss anyone?) Wow, it's just awe-striking how much truth there is to that statement! Same here. I'm pro-choice, pro environment, and pro-gay rights. Still considered an alt-right wingnut in most places though.

You're welcome. You're giving me lots of fodder for new problem sets. I was running out of ideas :P If you think of how seldom you would want to make a penalty double would make sense when your partner hasn't bid and they're in part score, you'll realize the merit of playing virtually all low level doubles of suit contracts when partner hasn't bid as takeout. Very good assumption. The problem is that 3NT is essentially a decision and unless partner's hand is highly unusual for his earlier bidding, he's going to leave it. After all, how would you bid this hand? [hv=pc=n&s=s5haktdkqt62cjt53&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp2dp2sp]133|200[/hv] You think you belong in 3NT and don't want to risk bidding 3C because partner might raise and take you past your best spot. Your partner was rude. Hopefully you don't let these things bother you because there are plenty of rude people here as well as many nice people. Blackwood is a tool that is used when you believe you have the strength for slam and just want to make sure you're not missing two aces. If you don't know if you have enough strength, OR if you don't know what, if anything, should be trump, Blackwood is not appropriate. Here, you aren't sure you have the strength for slam so Blackwood doesn't help. Some more points: This was one of the rare partners who realizes that 2S is forcing and trusts partner to know that. One of my just past beginner students would have thought that 2S was non-forcing and would have bid 3S and it would have worked out very well on this deal as you would have easily reached slam. Maybe there's something to my students' methods after all! Also, I missed an obvious solution (although with so many players playing weak jump shifts now days, it could backfire.) If you play strong jump shifts, which probably should be standard when not discussed, the standard meaning nowdays is: 17-19 points (with 20+ you know you have a slam so you don't need a jump shift) AND one of the three following hand types: (a) you know you are going to play in partner's suit - you jump shift and then support (b) you know you are going to play in your suit - you jump shift and rebid your suit © you suspect you are playing in notrump; you are showing your long suit (typically 5 cards) and then rebid notrump. More advanced pairs have rebids by the jump shifter that show controls and either (a) or (b) by partnership agreement. However, the main reason of playing these jump shifts (called Soloway jump shifts) is to find the slams when each partner has about 17 points, as in your case. Many experts require a five-card suit (which you don't have) or two of the top three honors (which you don't have) and some require 4 trumps for (a). However, if you relax the requirements (which help experts evaluate their hand), you can use the strong jump shifts to find slams on 17 opposite 17. When you feel your bidding judgment has reached a very high level (perhaps higher than mine :) ) you may put some of the requirements back in. If you play weak jump shifts, you can ignore the whole discussion. Frankly, the jump shift solution didn't even occur to me because I usually play weak jump shifts.

WARNING: This entire response is advanced material. 2C isn't forcing in the auction 1D (1H) 1S (P) 2C. With the 6HCP hand you gave, I would have no problem passing. Make your hand KJxxx xxx Qx Kxx, and now I may bid 2D to cater to partner having 17 or 18 points (he shouldn't have more; he didn't jump shift.) I'm fully aware that partner might have had to bid 2C on 4-4 with no heart stopper; but I feel like I need to keep the auction open in case partner wants to try for game, and most of the time partner will have five. Yes, with this hand opposite the original hand I gave, I am playing in a 4-2 fit, and would have been better off bidding 1NT without a stopper. However, I feel that in the long run I'm going to lose more IMPs by bidding 1NT with an unstopped suit when partner raises 1NT to 3NT and they run hearts than I will gain when the 2C bidders play in a 4-2 fit. As I said earlier, a more experienced pair can avoid this by playing as you suggested and using the cuebid to make sure the suit is stopped. A newer player shouldn't try this with his friends and I wouldn't try it undiscussed. i play in a partnership that is strong enough to have the cuebid available. However, I still like to have the stopper to bid notrump, and the cuebid will say, "Do you have the suit stopped enough"? [hv=pc=n&w=s42ha63dk9853ckq6&e=saj765h2dqjt4caj4&d=w&v=0&b=1&a=1d1h1sp1np2hp3dp5dppp]266|200[/hv] 1S shows 5 1NT shows a heart stopper 2H still shows doubt about notrump (it could show some other good hand also) 3D yeah, I have doubt too, and probably 5 diamonds 5D cool! we might have found one of those rare times 5 of a minor is right [hv=pc=n&w=sk8ha653dqjt5ck62&e=saq754h2dk74ca875&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1d1h1sp1np2hp2sp4sppp]266|200[/hv] 1S shows 5 1NT shows a heart stopper, denies 3 spades 2H still shows doubt about notrump (it could show some other good hand also) 2S don't have 3, might have a doubleton honor but I have doubt about notrump with only one stopper 4S looks like the 5-2 will play better than notrump [hv=pc=n&w=s75hakjdk832cqt74&e=sqj863h2dqj54cakj&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1d1h1sp1np2hp2np3nppp]266|200[/hv] 1S shows 5 1NT shows a heart stopper, denies 3 spades 2H still shows doubt about notrump (it could show some other good hand also) 2NT says well stopped 3NT (East could bid 3D here to show even more doubt but West would bid 3NT anyway) How would these go when your 1NT doesn't show a stopper?

I did! Thank you! Hope the rest of you did also. I generally don't answer questions involving eight-card suits because anything could be right. I like your 2C overcall. You could double and then correct to clubs to show a strong hand if you thought you had one, but with your great shape, it's not unlikely that your LHO will make a preemptive jump and partner may bid a spade or heart game expecting support. You can now bid 5C but you'll be too high if partner's game bid was also based on distribution. RHO's double is takeout. It makes very little sense to make a penalty double opposite a passed partner - even if East had long diamonds and long clubs and could double for penalty and fold his arms over his hand to convey a penalty double to partner (highly unethical, but I'm trying to show that the double can't be penalty), you (with a different hand) or partner could foll East and bid a major, making his big diamond-club hand almost defenseless. So East with strong clubs would pass 2C and defend rather than let you run to something you might make. If the pair plays negative doubles, he may be doubling with short clubs even with a minimum hand to cater to his partner having been dealt a hand that wanted to make a penalty double of 2C. Pretend for a minute that East had opened 1H and you overcalled 2C. His double would still be takeout even though he had shown five hearts, and his partner often takes out to hearts even with a doubleton because East showed five. I can't say the same thing here when East opened 1D because East could easily be 4-4-4-1 or even 4-4-3-2. I think redouble shows a hand at the top of the overcall range. You might think that it would be okay to redouble and then bid clubs over any auction but if partner doubles the opponents, he will be disappointed in your defensive prospects - although you probably have 3 tricks against any contract. I probably wouldn't do this but I don't think it's terrible. I wouldn't bid 4C undiscussed because some partners might think it was strong and others would think it was preemptive. I would probably bid 3C. An interesting hand. It seems like many answered as if you were playing 2/1 game forcing. If you are, this is easy. Respond 2D, then raise 2S to 3S showing three trump and slam interest. I am going to assume that you, like most newer players, do not play 2/1 game forcing, so for you 1S-2D-2S-3S is invitational. With most newer players, it is probably safe to jump to 4S because partner has a minimum hand. In theory, 1S-2D-2S is unlimited. However, I have a story to tell: I had the opportunity to substitute teach for a class of about 15 tables of social players; the level was mostly just beyond beginners but many had played in their home groups for years and few would ever play duplicate bridge. I had the unfortunate task of giving a lesson on standard 2/1 bidding with prepared material. At one point I had to discuss the auction 1S-2D-2S. I wanted to teach it as forcing (the "correct" meaning) but I decided to ask them who thought it was forcing. Zero hands went up. I asked how many thought it was minimum and could be passed. In a class where the normal teacher never saw more than ten hands for any question, I saw about sixty hands go up. So I told them, "The experts think this bid is forcing, and if you ever get to play with a really, really good player, they will probably expect you to bid again over 2S. However, if you're playing with your normal group, you can expect to be passed in 2S." Yes, I know it wasn't proper bridge, but I thought I would be doing this group a great disservice telling them that they had to play 1S-2D-2S as forcing because sure as heck, they would bid 2S on their 17 points "because Kaitlyn said it was forcing" and they would play in 2S. Practically, they're probably going to have that auction maybe 6 more times in their lifetime and half the time they're going to be passed in 2S so let them play it as non-forcing. At least they all understand each other. If I told them that it was 100% forcing, half of them would forget and one that remembered would bid 2S on 17 and the one who forgot would pass. Based on this, I think it is probably safe to play 4S. Let's assume for a minute that you are playing with a possible decent player but you aren't playing any conventions. You could jump to 5S to invite a slam but I think that shows about 18-19. You could bid another new suit and then jump to 4S, but I don't think partner will get the correct message; they may think you're short in the fourth suit, or they may think that you are avoiding notrump with weakness in the fourth suit. I do have an alternative solution for this hand. If you and your partner have agreed to play a 3NT response as 16-18 or 15-17, I might anticipate the problem and just respond 3NT to get the strength problem right. Assuming this is not a convention, you probably will play in notrump unless partner has six spades. However, in most cases, 3NT will make when 4S does, and 6NT will make when 6S does. The nice thing about the 3NT response is that partner will place the contract at the correct level. About the only things that will hurt you is if partner has a singleton small club or diamond and raises to 6NT and the opponents lead partner's singleton.

I haven't heard that but this treatment is playable - you rebid 1NT and then partner can cuebid the opponent's suit to see if you were serious. As I am writing this for newer players, this is unlikely to be in their arsenal, and if one of my target audience rebids 1NT without a stopper, his partner is likely just to raise to 3NT with game values, possibly even with a singleton heart and a long minor. Your fear of losing a spade fit with a 5-card suit isn't going to apply to many partnerships which employ Negative Doubles. I open 1D, LHO opens 1H, partner bids 1S. If partner had four sp1s, he makes a negative double, so he should have five spades when he bids 1S. I can raise on three and the fit won't be missed. I realize that this treatment isn't universal - I believe it's the most common in the USA but there are other possible treatments that allow responder to bid 1S after a 1H overcall sometimes with four trump. However, for the majority of pairs that play Negative Doubles will find a 5-3 spade fit. However, my actual example only had 2 spades. Let's pair my hand with your example hand. [hv=pc=n&s=sa2h432dkt73caq65&n=skj765h765dq2c732&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1d1h1sp]266|200[/hv] What are you suggesting? I am suggesting a 1D opener and a 2C rebid (because I think a 1NT rebid shows a heart stopper after the overcall.) North would pass. 2C isn't a great contract, probably down one or two. But what is better? You want to rebid 1NT without your stopper. If partner passes, you might have some chance if queen third of spades is onside but otherwise it's likely to be a debacle. Would you rather have partner rebid the five-card spade suit he has already shown? You're losing three hearts and a diamond off the top and have an almost certain club loser. If you find queen-third of spades in West and can only lose two tricks in the minors, you'll make 2S, And yes, 2S is a better contract than 2C (but not much) but you have to admit that your example was chosen carefully. I could just as easily choose S-xxxxx H-xxx D-Q C-KJxx and say "Look how awesome 2C is!" but that would hardly be fair.

As Tramticket said, I was showing the problem with a 1NT rebid after opening 1H. When people discuss the requirements to open 2C and then rebid in a suit, you often hear 22 points (above the "maximum" for the one level) or 8 1/2 tricks (yes, I realize those are two different things, but it's different experts talking). Because your rebid likely forces you to the three level, and perhaps higher if you don't rebid your own suit, many experts will rebid 2NT on a balanced or semi-balanced hand rather than rebid a suit. For example: [hv=pc=n&s=skq654hak3da7ckqj&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=2cp2dp]133|200[/hv] This hand has 23 points counting a point for spade length but has nowhere near 8 1/2 tricks. If you rebid 2S here, it's forcing and you'll get at least to the three level. If partner has a very poor hand, you might prefer to play 2NT than any 3-level contract and I would suggest a 2NT rebid here. Note that I was talking about an alternative of 2S, a bid that would let you get out at the 3 level. When the experts give their advice, they warn you that if your rebid is 3 of a minor, which will usually get your side to 3NT or at least the 4 level, you need even more strength. Consider that you could be playing 3NT or 4 of a minor opposite nothing, and that is only if your partnership has methods that will let you get out in 4 of the minor. Many partnerships play 2C-2D-3D-3H-4D as forcing so you're playing 5D opposite what could be nothing. So, let's say you're dealt the following: [hv=pc=n&s=sqhkqjdaq7653cakj]133|100[/hv] You have about 22 points (I can't count both diamond length AND the ♠Q.) If you open 2C and rebid 3D, you may play in game opposite nothing, but even if you can stop in 4D, it's no bargain. Without a diamond fit and opposite nothing, this hand might produce 7 tricks with diamonds as trump. I believe most experts would open 1D and try to catch up later. If everyone passes, you probably not missed a game. If you can't stomach only opening 1D, then you can open 2C and rebid 2NT - I assume the new ACBL guidelines allowing notrump openings with singleton A, K, or Q applies. It's even worse with 4-4-4-1 with a small singleton. [hv=pc=n&s=sak73hakq5daqj6c4]133|100[/hv] If you open 2C, then what? A rebid of 2 of a major shows five and will likely get you to 4-3 fit with the opponents making you trump clubs early. 2C-2D-3D is just awful, partner will play you for lots of diamonds and you might end up playing 5D on a 4-2 fit! You might survive a 2NT rebid if partner rebids Stayman but if you rebid 2NT raised to 3, your club singleton may be a problem. Many experts will open 1D. If partner responds a major, they will get very active. If you play no conventions, it would not be unreasonable to open 1D and raise a major suit response to slam, counting 3 points for the singleton club. My point is that most experts take their 2C opening bids very seriously. You should probably do the same.

Several years ago, the Bridge World magazine had a Master Solvers' club problem where the auction was 1S (P) 1NT (3H) 4D P ? where the hand was a huge fit in diamonds with the CA. A year or so later they had the problem 1S (P) 1NT (3H) 4D (P) 5C (P) ? Of the 32 experts, 9 of them managed to play in 5C with a huge club fit playing with themselves (they thought 5C was a control bid the first time and natural the second time.) So it's good to have an agreement but I don't think that either interpretation is "right".

I would bid 2H whether playing 2/1 or not. Also, surprised nobody got dinged by the problem and bid diamonds. Usually the order is S, H, D, C so people might erroneously think the long suit is diamonds.

We will never know if my fears were irrational or not. It's possible that I was correct and am going called crazy anyway.

I, and many other conservatives expect, that cases that would fundamentally change America away from the original intent have not been brought before the Supreme Court because they would not win. However, have Hillary put a justice or two on the court and the math changes. America would become exactly what the progressives want it to be - which the conservatives fear is a nanny state. Winston and awm: I am not saying our fears are correct. It was asked why people voted for Trump. I am telling you why I voted for Trump and why I feel many others did. If one peruses the discussion in any 9-12 group before the election, you will see this fear over and over again. I was asked the question; I answered it. I don't feel like I have to justify my answer - I'm not telling you why you should have voted for Trump; I don't think you should have with your current beliefs. Many of you would be quite happy with the America that I feared would result if Hillary won. I know I wouldn't be so I voted against her. But when people are searching for reasons why one would vote for Trump, the best I can do is give my honest answer, and let you know that I think others feel as I did. To answer that question, I don't have to show that my feelings are justified; I have not convinced a single one of you that they are and I am not going to this time either. However, when several of you ask the question "How could an educated person vote for Trump" I thought the least I could do is to answer it.

I would like to wish everybody a Merry Christmas. To those who feel offended, please accept my wishes for a Hanu Rama Kwanzmas. In other words, enjoy your holiday :)

I've been wanting to answer this but I've been quite busy. But maybe this will give you insight into the mind of a Trump voter because this line of thinking is quite common. Barack Obama couldn't kill the America as we know it because the best he could do is get a 4-4 Supreme Court. He did the best he could; he appointed two justices that do not rule on the basis of what the Constitution says, but instead rules on the basis of what they would like it to say from their progressive standpoint. Many of us who love America as given to us by the Founding Fathers think that this would be the end to America as we know it, with justices that could effectively rule that the Constitution is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has already made a mockery of the ninth and tenth amendments (State's rights? The states got no stinkin' rights) and most of us believe that Hillary would have put on justices to nullify the Second Amendment and shortly after, the First Amendment. (Newspapers want to say something against the progressive movement? Not in Hillary's America!) For those that think this is total nonsense, I have two words for you: Lois Lerner. Maybe our fears were unfounded but there are very VERY many Trump voters IMO that thought that Trump would be a terrible President but the country would survive him, and that the Constitution would be a worthless piece of paper under Hillary's presidency. So, perhaps I am saying that Hillary is not worse that Obama or Bill Clinton, but she had the setup to ruin America as we know it and they didn't. If Scalia had died in 2013 we probably would have already seen the dismantling of America. NOTE: Obama has set a very scary precedent putting on politically motivated justices. If Trump follows suit (out of vindictiveness or just because he can) and the court rules that the heartbeat abortion law should overrule anything that states have passed, I will realize that I had two choices that could both ruin the country and had no good out. I essentially bet that Trump would not abuse his power in such a way but that Hillary would. It's possible that I am wrong and that either one could potentially ruin the country. I will be quite upset if Trump pulls this or if Trump appoints justices that rule that gayness should be treated like a disease and forces this nonsense on the American public. However, it will be very hard to convince me that Hillary would not have fundamentally changed America with her SCOTUS picks, and IMO in a very bad way. Trump was a flawed candidate. If the Democrats had put up a candidate that I thought might put moderate, non-political justices on the Supreme Court, I would have had to consider voting for zhim.

When the bidding has gone 1D Dbl Pass 1S P, the advancer is about 0-9 and the doubler is unlimited and there is a reasonable chance for game. With both partners having such wide ranges, you need to use your room to determine whether you have the strength for game, and raising to 2S just to show four spades makes doubler's ranges too wide for effective communication. Note that both responder and opener passed on their last turn so letting them in now to compete successfully after a later 2S bid (you pass 1S now but will later compete to 2S eith 4 trump wuthout misleading partner) isn't too much of a concern. Yes, it is a small concern but I think getting the game decision right is a larger concern. The equation changes if opener buds again. Say it goes 1D Dbl Pass 1S 2D. Now you have to worry about lot about the declare/defend decision and a 2S bid to show 4 puts partner in a good position to know what to do over responder's 3D bid if it comes, and also stops opener from buying the hand in 2D if partner can't compete. The game strength issues are still there, but opener's 2D bid has made the competitive aspect more important. I believe that Mike Lawrence says in his book on doubles that the raise after opener bids again shows 4 trump and a little more than minimum, maybe 14.

I don't like the idea. (A) You have the well-defined hand hidden. (B) The opening lead (of the bid suit) comes through the hand that is likely to have high cards in the suit.

Right, but your raise shows a possibility of making game despite his inability to make a jump advance. Since psrtner's maximum is about a bad 10 points, you need at least 16 counting distribution to raise. I would raise with your hand, judging the five card support and a singleton diamond to make the hand worth about 17. It's by partnership agreement. If you played 2D as showing the majors (a possible convention by partnership agreement, definitely not standard), you would not tend to show the majors against the opponents' Stayman so it is not necessarily the same thing. Normally when playing against a strong notrump, your overcalls are nuisance bids to make their bidding more difficult; you are conceding that your side doesn't have a game so you are essentially preempting without jumping. (Make sure partner is on her same wavelength.) Even if you wish to show strength wuth your immediate overcall, when the opponents bid Stayman, they are almost always trying for game so it doesn't make sense that your 2D overcall shows strength. I would overcall 2D on S-654 H-65 D-AQJT73 C-92 to ensure a diamond lead. Since we would virtually never have a game after the opponents' Stayman, why promise values?

I don't understand. You want to preempt a pair who has chosen to play in 2H?

You are speculating why people voted for Trump. Let me reiterate some things I said months ago. As I traveled, I overheard many people say "She should be in jail." Some of this was before Comey so people thought she had done illegal things before Comey even appeared on the scene. Why they thought that, I can't tell you. But if you figure that out, you'll have some of your answer. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the people I heard say that made over $100K/year as many were sole proprietors of their small business (hotel, store, etc.) These people would choose Trump even if they thought him despicable because they think Hillary is a criminal. This was not my reason. I can speak on behalf of some of my friends who have the same sentiment as me and probably all of us either make $100K or could if we worked harder. My reason, for better or worse, was that I feared that with Hillary, we would forever lose our country to an unstoppable train wreck of permanent Federal government control where the people have no voice anymore. You can call me stupid for saying that and many of you have, however if you are looking for a reason why educated people would choose Trump, you have this one. I have scanned some user comments from conservative websites in other areas of the country and found this sentiment echoed so it doesn't just apply to my small circle of friends; it is a widespread opinion. Many conservatives stated that while Trump might make an awful president, he was the country's last hope.

Looking forward to seeing the results, assuming somebody besides me voted :)

I'm the only one who voted? I guess I know who's winning :D