cherdanno

I disagree - partner has shown slam interest, and he does not have a club cue! I think slam is at worst on a finesse. I will still check for keycards in case s.th. weird happened, but I would rather bid 6♠ than pass. I was assuming 3♦ 100% pinpointed our club shortness, so partner would not necessarily make a club cue. But if that's the case, he should not make two cuebids with a wasted ♣K, no hope of setting up clubs (he doesn't now about the Q) and no extras. (I assume he would still cue 4♣ with the ace.) In any case, in this kind of auction it is easy for both sides to think "I have shown my values, so I will sign off". But in fact, when you add up both sides' shown values, you are pretty much assured the values for slam, and just both sides forgot to add them up.

I disagree - partner has shown slam interest, and he does not have a club cue! I think slam is at worst on a finesse. I will still check for keycards in case s.th. weird happened, but I would rather bid 6♠ than pass.

Life is full of trick questions. You are a member of Congress (heck that would be one gremium where you are less insane than the average member!). There is a roll call. Either the bill passes, or there won't be any reform over the next 10 years. Do you vote yes?

Over 3♠, any side suit bid is a cuebid, showing A, K, singleton or void in the suit. However, it is a very good idea not to cuebid with shortness in partner's suit, only with A or K. So your partner is right. In other words, just because you found one fit (hearts) does not mean you can't find another fit (in diamonds) later. However, again I think it is very unlikely that you will need to play this hand in diamonds.

Heh I was thinking the same.

Another proof that loser count is a waste of time? I also don't understand how this is not a maximum.

Raising money through premiums is not saving money or reducing costs. It is allocating costs. I am not trying to be a fussbudget about semantics. We have been repeatedly told that per capita medical costs in the US are roughly twice (or more) what they are in other countries, the UK for example.Let's say I believe this, more or less. Raising the money from premiums won't change this. Or from the student loan program. Btw, it might be worth explaining the details of these 20 billions: There are currently two types of student loans, either direct loans from the government, or loans from private banks subsidized by the government. The latter are much more expensive, with the same benefit for the students. So it seems a no-brainer to eliminate the latter. However, so far the banking lobby has been able to prevent that. However, maybe partly because it only needs 51 votes via budget reconciliation, the Democratic congress leaders think they have the votes to do this change as part of the budget reconciliation bill. This will save 67 billions, 20 of which are use to cover health care costs/reduce the benefit, and the rest is used to extend the student loan program/pell grants. I am really starting to like budget reconciliation. It seems to make it possible to pass common-sense legislation as this one. The amended bill also contains less "special deals" for specific senators than the original senate bill.

In the sessions we played against Meckwell 3 years ago I found their disclosure quite precise and helpful. I guess that's partly because they had very clear agreements in all the auctions that came up. So I find it a little surprising that they often get singled out for attacks such as Adam's. I would think there must be easier targets around... (Btw, I would never assume that 1H (P) 3H=alert is weak without asking. Why would anyone? Anyone sensible knows mixed is superior, after all...)

Raising money through premiums is not saving money or reducing costs. It is allocating costs. I am not trying to be a fussbudget about semantics. We have been repeatedly told that per capita medical costs in the US are roughly twice (or more) what they are in other countries, the UK for example.Let's say I believe this, more or less. Raising the money from premiums won't change this. Or from the student loan program. Later in the column: Her point was the dilution, but my point again is that this excise tax is a way of raising the money, not a way of reducing costs. Here is why I regard this as important: If the total cost is x dollars, then someone has to come up with the money. Regardless of exactly how this is done, surely I am one of those somebodies. If x is way out of whack with the cost in other countries then it would be really good to address this. Explaining how the costs are to be covered, however important that might be, is not at all the same thing as reducing costs. Phil tells us that all other countries are also concerned about rising costs of health care. I believe him. Still, much of the talk here has been of the much greater cost in the US. We need to get a handle on this. Bottom line: To save the consumer money, it is necessary to control the cost. Explaining how the costs are to be allocated should not be described as saving money. Then maybe you should not mix up these two issues? Saying the bill reduces the budget deficit by 130 billions is not the same as saying it saves 130 billions in health care costs. I don't think I need a WP columnist to figure that out, and I have never heard or read anyone confuse the two issues (but then again, I don't watch TV). The main reason why the bill will reduce health care costs is because via the excise tax, it will start a phase out of subsidizing employer-payed health insurance premiums. This is also a way of raising revenues, of course. I understand you have read the Atlantic-Wire article I linked to a while ago about other cost-cutting elements in the bill. I don't have anything to add to that and I am not sure I would bet my house on whether they will work, but if experts say "this bill contains every cost-cutting idea I know of" then I don't think "this bill doesn't do enough to cut costs" is enough of a reason to be against expanding coverage for about 2/3 of the currently uninsured.

I agree that the X would normally show 3 card support. Personally, I would have doubled then rebid 4♥ and not a ♦. The reason for the double was to delay to let partner better describe their hand, and to try and show a stronger hand (by rebidding after a double). Why rush when you know you have game (as long as you can make forcing bids)? Also you know you have a major fit, why not delay to see if you have a double fit. I agree that 3♦ would be non-forcing, especially if you bid 1♦ 3♦. By bidding 1♦ X 3♦ partner should realise there are extra points in the hand. I have played with a number of partners which would take-out the 3♦ to play in 3NT. Better rush to describe your hand than to misdescribe your hand slowly! After a - support double you can never show more than 3 hearts, - takeout double you can never show a hand with more than 3 hearts - penalty double you can never show less than 4 spades anymore. Double with a known fit does not exist in this auction unless you have very non-standard agreements.

I disagree with the "consequence" of your view, for many reasons. (They won't bid 4S very often on this auction anyway, if you bid 3♠ you are helping them judging to do so, same if 4♥ promises a distributional hand, partner's cuebid will help them with the lead (as he has to cater to a slam try), if you have a balanced raise you will be happy to double them anyway, and in any case partner can hardly have a hand worth bidding 5♥ even when 4♥ promises a distributional hand). But most importantly, you should still think about the lead after you had a bidding misunderstanding!

Do we actually know what happened exactly? The VuGraph operator was rather short and cryptic in his comments.

Congrats to making it to the final 34 btw, that truly looks like a gooood field.

Then we still belong in hearts (in fact, 6♥ is excellent). Not raising hearts here is a major error.

Maybe I don't know what a splinter is in standard. I thought with a typical 5431 shape it shows 10-12 hcp, or bad 13. I can't see how trying for slam can be good opposite that.

I would bid 4♠ and don't really think it's close, so I am surprised about the other replies (but I don't know what a "limit plus"-splinter is).

I don't think "systems on" here applies over doubles, I would think it just covers (1x) 1N (P) ?.

Disagree with your hcp reasoning. LHO is a passed hand. I don't think he is any more likely to double with 11 hcp and spade wastage than with 9 hcp and a more pure hand.

I think this is unlikely enough that you could count the number of republicans trying to block reform for this reason on one hand, and pay down the national debt with 5 leftover fingers. Have you read Mitt Romney's suggestions for health care reform? http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/07/mr-...s-the-rush.html It is hard to find a fundamental difference between his suggestions and Obama's compromise plan.

The OP is easy to answers. Yes Ken is insane. However, proving this by bidding 3♦ and passing 3N with the given hand seems a little too easy, even for that...

Actually I was wondering about that. It does not seem so unlikely that it is clubs - if it is diamonds, it makes it much harder for RHO to have a 6♠ bid (well maybe not _this_ RHO, but...) I actually thought if you bid you should bid 6N, for that reason.

I keycard. Love this hand. Partner will hardly ever do more with no honor in my suit and missing the top two trumps. QTxxx Axx xx xxx is already an ok slam.

I think the real conservative plan would be - catastrophic insurance for everyone, plus - ending tax exemption for health benefits. I would even kind of like that plan. To keep the government small, the catastrophic insurance should just be medicare-like, financed by taxes and paid directly by the government, so that the government doesn't have to go into the business of enforcing mandates, and deciding what is acceptable mandatory insurance. I also realize it has little to do with the Republican party of today.

You still have the same hand you opened with. But AQ9xx QJ8x x A7x looks a lot more like a takeout double of 3D than the hand your partner expects when he heard you open 1S. And the stiff K is a bonus rather than a problem (as Justin explained).

Meh I think this would be the perfect time to simulate rather than have rules. I mean if you're not gonna simulate a signoff/invite/drive slam decision then you might as well scratch simulating all together. I agree in theory but in practice I have seen GIB overbid towards slam very often on this auction (i.e. whenever the auction starts 1m-1M-2N but we don't have a fit).