nigel_k

My rule of thumb is to play 3NT with 4333 opposite 5332 and 4 of the major otherwise. There will be more hands that play better in 3NT but it's quite hard to identify them because it depends on precise placement of the cards.

Could this be fixed with a joining fee? For example, pay $10 at the start and then you can play as much as you want in the 'free' tournaments. Obviously if you run too much you would be excluded and could create a new ID but would have to pay another $10.

I think Phil misspoke slightly by saying 'tax rates' but his reference to GDP makes it clear what he meant. Of course total taxes are much higher now than in the past. After adjusting for inflation and population growth there is approximately a 50% increase since the 1970s. This comes back to what I suggested earlier, that if government spending could just be prevented from increasing faster than the rate of inflation there would be no real problem balancing the budget and having lower taxes.

Maybe you're right. I was working on the assumption that West has J86 in clubs. Then he can play a third club when in with the ♦A. I can overruff and play two top trumps but then if I cash the ♦K West can ruff the next club and exit with a diamond, and if I don't cash it, he can ruff and exit with a low heart. We need to know more about their opening style and carding.

Cash second club, ♠K and A, run clubs discarding hearts. I could also pitch a diamond but then if West ruffs and plays ♦A I have to discard a heart instead of ruffing.

Double is fine. The hand is worth less than 15 (possibly less than 14) due to the shape, lack of intermediates and honours in short suits. RHO's heart bid makes it even worse. But you have support for the other suits and sufficient values for a double. If NT is correct it should be played from partner's side. You could pass I suppose but I would definitely double.

I would not overcall 1♦. I prefer pass but, like gnasher, I am also tempted by the misleading, unilateral, partnership destroying, 4 digit conceding, gross misstatement of my hand. I wonder how much extra the vilifiers would need for this to be a double? An extra jack would be enough for me.

If a country has a 'single payer' system then doctors are on a fixed income. Maybe not each individual doctor, but all doctors as a group will be. This means that supply will not automatically increase to meet demand. Also, since costs are not paid directly by the recipient of care, there is no way for price to exert downward pressure on demand. Hence demand will exceed supply and the result will inevitably be rationing. Where I live this rationing takes the form of waiting lists. It is quite possible to go to your local GP with chest pain, be referred to a specialist, spend months waiting for a specialist appointment, then be recommended for an angioplasty for example, wait some more months and then die before ever seeing the inside of a hospital. Unsurprisingly, the government can save a lot of money with a system like that. Meanwhile, if your dog gets sick, he can have surgery within a week but you have to pay for it.

I'll try 2♠. It will be wrong most of the time but is a 3-5 IMP loss against a 10 IMP gain. Still very close though.

The fly in the the ointment is new spending that Congress will no doubt pass in the future. It would be hard to come up with a game that included decisions about that spending when we don't even know what it is yet. I actually think the 'no new spending' assumption is sufficient by itself to eventually balance the budget, i.e. you can keep tax rates where they are and also keep all current spending, increasing it at the rate of inflation.

I'd pass initially. There are too many bad things that can happen if I open and I'll usually get the chance to describe the hand much better by passing and bidding later. Highly aggressive bidding by a passed hand should be a two suiter, since a three suiter won't be strong enough and a one suiter would have opened. So I can just bid 3♠ if it comes back to me at 3♥ or maybe even 4♠ over 4♥ if I decide to risk that. On the second part I would bid 5NT. For the same reason as above, this is likely to be a two suiter and partner should bid accordingly. Though probably it should be a two suiter even if unpassed. 6♣ suggests the same hand but with first round club control and grand interest.

There is enough data out there that anyone can cherry pick something to support their conclusion. For example, to avoid the problem of comparing across different time periods, you could look at effective top tax rates vs growth in North Korea compared to South Korea, or East Germany compared to West Germany. But you probably won't find that helps you. The bigger problem is that, in real terms, a tax increase is not paid for by those who have their wealth reduced but by those who are forced to reduce their consumption. If you make Bill Gates pay more tax, he will not reduce what he spends on himself. He will either switch to investments that are taxable in other countries or will simply reduce the amount he invests. Either way, the real losers are those whose jobs are destroyed as a result of the reduced investment.

As people have alluded to, the real problem is voters. It's easy to come up with a 'deficit reduction plan' but it's hard to convince voters that reducing the deficit is more important than them continuing to be able to consume more than they produce. Surely anything that further erodes property values would be politically suicidal, for the next few years at least. Spending reductions will help but I doubt that sizeable cuts can be made and last for any length of time. If there is a solution, it will be a combination of capping spending at it's current level while trying to grow the economy enough to pay for that spending. You certainly won't do that with Adam's suggestion of increased taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals.

Good question and I doubt there is any standard treatment. I think you were right to respond 1♥ rather than 1♠ or 2♣. Over partner's second double you don't really have any choice other than 2♠. This is more likely to be 3-4 or 3-3 than 4-5. In fact with 4-5 you should probably rebid hearts to avoid this problem though I wouldn't have thought of this before I read your post.

I prefer to just play all of these kind of doubles as takeout. There are too many different sequences to have rules for all of them unless you have a much better memory than mine. Relying on both partners to decide at the table what is logical in any given auction doesn't work that well either. The case for double by the 1NT bidder being penalty in this precise auction is fairly strong but I still think you won't lose much by playing it as takeout and will save a lot of headaches.

My general principle is that choice of games takes priority. I also think that the form of scoring might influence whether it is choice of games at all. Anyway I would definitely treat 4♥ as an offer to play even at IMPS, especially when slam interest hands have so many other options.

Agree with 2♠. If you play 2♠ as artificial GF then you should play 1♠ as forcing so I would do that. Apart from the shape, it is too strong for a 2NT rebid (KNR = 20.7) so you should have opened 2NT if planning to bid that way.

I agree with your initial double. Over partner's double I would not bid 4♥ as I don't expect partner to pass 4♦ when he has hearts but he may double just to compete in either minor. This is a style issue though. 3NT is possible but having Ax makes a suit contract preferable. So I also agree with 4♦. When partner bids 5♣ he has one of two hand types: a slam try in clubs or a hand that was looking for 3NT with 5♣ as a backup. Again this depends on style and agreement. There is not much that is really standard when opponents preempt. Anyway I would pass 5♣.

Pass. I normally respond with 5 HCP but two queens and a jack outside partner's suit are bad because they may be opposite partner's shortage and so not worth anything. In comparison, a hand like Qx Kxxxx xxx xxx is worth a lot more despite having the same shape and high card points. We might miss a game if partner has four hearts but even then it will be a thin one. Any time partner doesn't have four hearts we are better off passing.

There aren't too many hands that can double 3♦ vulnerable after passing 1♦, even in a balancing situation. With Gerben's example I would definitely double 1♦. I wonder if partner has an offshape hand, e.g. KQxx xx x KJxxxx. In that case 3♥ is definitely enough.

You aren't going to bid NT with two or three small hearts and if you are too strong for a nonforcing 3♣, then surely 3♦ could be 3244 or 2344 and maybe even 2434 with four small hearts or possibly 2254.

I don't think there is a standard approach and you need an agreement, e.g. above one of a suit any pass of a redouble is for penalty.

Since you have so many shapes to show, you really have to give up garbage Stayman to make it work. Plus with your structure you have already lost the ability to invite with 2NT and still locate a 4-4 spade fit. You are getting to the point where you may as well just play 2♣ game forcing. Once you do that there is no point is having natural responses so you should aim for a structure that makes responder declarer (i.e. opener doesn't bid their major naturally) and is as symmetric as possible to assist with memory.

1. Low club 2. Trump. Second choice is a club. Really hate the spade lead and would very seldom lead from Jx in an unbid suit. It has little upside compared to a club and a much greater chance of blowing a trick.

Pass. If 1♥ is not a psyche we probably don't make much and could collect a penalty if LHO bids or partner can reopen. If he has psyched, chances are either LHO or partner will call. Either of those could lead to a nice penalty or at least we will get to show our hand type accurately by bidding hearts after having passed. If it does go all pass and we can make 4♥ then the psyche will have succeeded and we'll just have to be content with gaining on other hands where their psyche doesn't work so well.