Lobowolf

Jumps in previously bid suits are generally invitational; responder bids new minor if he wants to create a forcing auction.

Gee, I feel better...I thought I was going to get laughed at for passing. I think the most likely danger is turning a plus into a minus when partner competes a level (or two) too high based on misjudging the fit. I'd balance with this hand, though, if 2♥ comes back to me. Partner should know that my hand isn't particularly constructive and sit tight. If partner lays off your balancing actions, you get to either play 2♠ or defend 3♥, either of which is fine with me on this hand; if partner tends to go "one more for the road" then you get to play 3♠ or defend 2♥...so hopefully partner lets the balancer balance, and hopes that 5 tricks are there on defense.

You've got my sympathies...I don't fine the redouble a particularly useful or descriptive bid here.

3♥...but I have an understanding partner.

From a partnership harmony perspective, it's a pretty good idea to discuss your general thoughts on psyching at the outset, come to a mutually acceptable compromise if they don't coincide, and act accordingly. From a partnership harmony AND a results perspective, it's a really good idea to completely forget about previous boards (unless you rationally think you need to make a state-of-the-match decision) until the sesion is over. I think that at the given conditions, it's somewhere between bad and disgusting; however, I disagree with the notion that it only works if partner has less than an opening hand. Partner is allowed to field the psyche if your subsequent bidding reveals it. If the auction goes: 1♠ - (P) - 2♣ - P P - (2♥), certainly no director will force partner to bid to game. Secondly, even if you're in game, there's no guarantee that you'll get a bad board, particularly if the opposing strength is split (so you're undoubled against their making game). Having said that...it's pretty bad.

How did Roger know it was worth exactly 5 IMPs?!

Pass...not particularly close.

There's a very wide gap between being authorized to hear cases, which by definition arise between specific parties, and being able to, for instance, strike down laws. The Court's power was extremely tenuous until into the 19th century.

I've seen stranger things happen, and heard all sorts of explanations, from the desire to get the chance to lead a spade against NT to "I didn't want to stick my neck out until I knew you had a fit." I'm not necessarily saying I disagree with 2♥, but I do think that it's more likely you'll end up making a decision over 4♠ than you'll get to a good 6♦. And if finding 6♦ (or, I guess, 6♥) isn't the rationale for not bidding 4♥ now, then what is?

If you steer toward 4♥, what's the plan over 4♠? I think Phil asked a good question...where are the spades? 2♥ is a lot more likely than 4♥ to find out.

I'd hit it, not only because I expect to beat it, but because even if I'm wrong about that, I don't expect -110 to be worth a lot of matchpoints. Bigger difference between 100 and 200 than between -110 and -670.

IMPS; Both Vul. Dealer: West ♠ xxx ♠ AQJ ♥Txxx ♥ ----- ♦KJTxx ♦ AQ9 ♣x ♣ AKJTxxx [hv=w=sxxxhtxxxdkjtxxcx&e=saqjhdaq9cakjtxxx]266|100|[/hv] P - P - 1♣ - 1♥; P - 2♣ - 2♥ - P 3♦ - 3♥ - 4♣ - P P - P Clubs 3-2, Queen onside. 4♣+7 = 190. Not a pickup of IMPs

Teams, NV v. NV. Unopposed bidding as follows: 1♣ - 1♥; 1♠ - 4♣

Pretty much. The original Power Grab was really by the Supreme Court, which was originally the weakest of the three branches, by far. The case was Marbury v. Madison, just after the turn of the century into the 1800's, and it was political genius by Chief Justice John Marshall. While addressing the dispute involved in the case, the Court also decided, by the way, the Supreme Court has the power to definitively interpret the Constitution, resolve the conflicts of law that arise under it, etc. Had the Court directly challenged the executive branch by ruling against Madison (at the time, Jefferson's Secretary of State), it might have been cut off at the knees by just being ignored. Marshall sort of semi-bluffed his way through with a mix of logic, legal reasoning, and pure politics. One of the issues was whether the Supreme Court even had the authority to rule either way, as the Judiciary Act was in conflict with the Constitution. The Court decided (and made a decent job of justifying) that is had all the authority necessary to decide the case (and a whole bunches of cases to follow down the pike), interpret the Constitution, resolve conflicts of law, etc. -- things that were by no means a given at that time --BUT, decided it in Madison's favor. They basically said, "Well, of course we'd have the power to thwart the executive branch, but the laws of the land and the facts of the case are such that they're right, so we're not going to." Probably largely because the decision itself didn't challenge the executive branch directly, the Court never really got called out on the claim of authority that went along with it, and it sort of became a given that the Supreme Court could do all sorts of things, particularly invalidate legislation (or portions thereof) that it found unconstitutional. If you look at the actual powers of the Supreme Court in the Constitution, they're extremely minimal - much less than the other branches.

I don't disagree with the sentiment; I just think it has an implication that's going unstated. Why isn't doing what's good for the country the surest way to re-election in the first place? Most voters, though, while they're dissatisfied with congress, are happy with their own congress member. Which is consistent with the framers, too, actually. Congress are there to look out for their district's interests.

With one of my regular partners, I play that 1M - 3♣ is a 4-card raise, either single raise values (a la Bergen) or limit. Opener rebids 3♦ if he cares which. Over 1M - 3♦ immediately is a 3-card limit raise. Then you don't get nailed with the auctions where your 3-card limit raises start with 1NT and the opponents jump in before you've supported.

I think what we have more of is an "Imperial Congress." For those who've actually looked at Article I of the Constitution, particularly Section 8 (powers of Congress), you'll notice a pretty common theme - Congress is there for the most part to do things that are either grossly impractical or impossible for the States to do for themselves, or to coordinate things between different states. For example: Set up a post office Regulate trade between the states Coin money Raise an army etc. "Articulating a vision of what is the common good" Uhhhhhh...

When it comes to grabbing power, the people not interested don't seem to run for office. I've often thought (half-jokingly) that we should first poll everyone in the country to see who would like to hold political office -- then draft all of our politicians from the other group.

I guess you could use the Partnership Bidding rooms on BBO to set strong hands with trump fits and give one of the hands a void. Or set DealMasterPro with similar parameters, if you have it.

The "actual system of government conceived by the framers no longer exist[ed]" long before the 21st century. That system was based with a large emphasis on federalism, or shared power between the federal and state governments, and that power has almost entirely been usurped by the federal government by a variety of means. Probably the most pivotal historical point of reference would be the Civil War, followed by the post-depression policies of the Roosevelt administration. The original system contemplated that different states with different values could and would be largely different and reflect those values, resulting in a much, much more heterogenous country. Hate abortion? Live in (insert your favorite red state). Want gay marriage? Live in (insert your favorite blue state). Part of the power grab pertains to a growing expansion by the Federal Courts over what falls under various provisions (particularly the Commerce Clause) of the Constitution, permitting federal regulation. By (constitutional) definition, powers that are not specifically given to the federal government are DENIED to the federal government, and rest with the individual states or the people. However, nowadays, pretty much everything is considered to fall under the Commerce Clause, meaning that the federal government has jurisdiction over almost everything. For example, in the Oregon medical marijuana case, the issue pertained to personal, homegrown marijuana that was never bought, never sold, and never crossed state lines. The court held that it was subject to the Commerce Clause (essentially that it "affected interstate commerce" leading Clarence Thomas, in a nice dissent, to observe that if the Commerce Clause didn't mean that it doesn't apply to this case, then it pretty much doesn't apply to anything. The States' Rights hidden lurker in every debate is abortion, btw, in case you're wondering why liberal justices are arguing against medical marijuana and conservative ones are arguing for it. The invisible part of the discussion is, "If we say Oregon has the right to permit marijuana, to what extent are we giving leverage to the claim that Arizona has the right to prohibit abortion?" Both sides of the aisle think the argument is strongest if there's no hedging, so the liberal battle cry is, essentially, that states have NO rights, and the conservative one is that states have almost all the rights they want. The other tool used to undermine states rights is Congress's power of the purse. Congress said, for instance, "OK, we can't make you have a 55-mph speed limit, but if you don't, then none of the billons of dollars we dole out in highway funds will go to your state." Pretty much extortion at its finest. You might argue, rightly, that THAT tactic is provided for in the Constitution; however, there was no federal income tax in the Constitution (or for over 100 years afterward) -- Residents of State X wouldn't need federal blessings to enact law Y if they didn't give huge amounts of their paychecks to the federal government. So, the "framers" argument is sort of a cute way to attack the Bush administration and the Patriot Act stuff, but we certainly deviated LONG AGO from the "system the framers envisioned," and we did so with the knowledge and consent, and the deliberate vision, of what would be now the strongest anti-Bush contingent - the progessive/liberal/whatever-you-want-to-call-it group that thinks that the federal government should regulate and spend money to bring about its preferred vision to the country as a whole, and that "agreeing to disagree" from state to state about things like, for instance, abortion, is not tolerable. And one of the most liberal area of the country, D.C., passed a law that would essentially make the 2nd Amendment meaningless. So it's a bit of a specious argument, if it's used SOLELY to criticize the Bush administration. Both sides pick and choose those portions of the original framework that suit their preferences, and pretty much discard the rest if it doesn't fit. Or to put it another way, the people most critical of Bush don't WANT to live in the society envisioned by the framers (just ask any of them what they think of Justices Thomas and Scalia, who are not entirely consistent, but are certainly the most concerned with the actual text of the constitution and the intent of its writers). The real complaint isn't a matter of principle -- that the Bush administration deviates from the intent of the framers -- but a matter of style and degree -- that Bush has been more successful at it than some of his predecessors, or that the aspects from which Bush wants to deviate are different in a negative way from those aspects from which Obama or Pelosi want to deviate. And if you think that (insert your favorite Democratic politician) wants to live under "the actual system of government conceived by the framers," I'm not sure that passes the straight face test. In fact, the quoted language from Bacevich makes the point in much fewer words - "The congress no longer is able to articulate a vision of what is the common good." That statement IN ITSELF suggests that Bacevich's view of the framers' vision is selective, because in THEIR vision, it's LOCAL AND STATE governments taking care of the common good of the people in their jurisdiction, and not nearly so much "Congress." But there's no mention of any other level of government - the legislative branch is the feds, period. Another curious omission...another casualty of the framers' vision was a relatively informed electorate. If Bacevich's two potential goals for Congress - getting reelected, on the one hand, and "articulat[ing] a vision of what is the common good" are INCONSISTENT. In other words, if doing the right thing doesn't help your reelection chances -- that implicates another party - THE AMERICAN VOTER - far more than anyone else.

Or any big club

A 1S overcall? How about suit quality? # for lead directing purposes? # with xx in spades and hearts, which suit do you want to play? With kind regards Marlowe I agree with the considerations of suit quality/lead direction and potential trump quality, but for me they're overcome by a couple of offsetting factors: 1. I think there's a very good chance we'll be declaring. If we're not, I'll wish I'd overcalled in hearts. 2. I'm a fan of flexibility when appropriate, and I think the advantages of showing both of our 5-card majors outweigh the advantages of emphasizing the best one. Yes, if partner has xx xx, I'd rather we were in spades, but if partner's hearts are longer, that's the one we'll end up in anyway, and if his spades are longer, I'll want him to know that I have a suit other than hearts. 1♥ has definite plusses, but on balance, I think it's too unilateral.

I posted that before seeing the actual hand, but it's consistent. Yes, I suppose if you just count points, partner has more than a minimum, but he's got a worthless K♣ and no top heart honor, and we're still going to miss a slam. Passing a 3-loser hand at the game level when partner has a response and a fit it too timid IMO.

I think the answer partly depends on your agreements regarding cuebids. Is partner expected to show the ♥K automatically on the way to game? Permitted to show it if he likes his hand for slam, but expected to bid 4♠ with any minimum? What inferences can we draw from the 4♠ bid, in other words. With respect to the comment that we've shown our hand and asked partner to make a decision which we now must respect, I have to disagree. Our 4♣ bid shows club shortness and a hand that expects to make game opposite a minimum response. In LTC terms, a 5-loser hand. We actually have a 3-loser hand. Give partner the ♠A and the ♥T98 and we're basically on one of two finesses. I don't think that means that 4♣ failed to describe our hand; I think we've started to describe it, but we have more than 4♣ showed (or any bid at the last turn could have showed). The 4C bid has limited value if partner is on a dead minimum, since he can't have any diamond cards to upgrade; however, it at least starts to suggest that heart cards will be important, though partner can't yet know HOW important (e.g. ♥KQ and NO spade honors is good enough on normal breaks). I'm bidding 5♣ unless I have a specific agreement that 4♥ would have been a mandatory cuebid if partner had the king. If partner again goes straight back to spades, I'll pass 5♠, and I'd still expect an overtrick more often than a set.

If you've seen one that's better, you're qualified to answer.