nigel_k

I don't think you can take the phrase 'to regulate commerce ... among the several states' and just break it down in the way that Lobowolf did. It may be correct that health care is commerce, does involve more than one state, and is being regulated. But the context makes it clear that as much as possible is left to the states. The federal government is empowered to regulate commerce between states because the individual states may not agree. So it's going much too far to say that the commerce clause authorises Congress to establish an entire health care system and levy taxes to pay for it. That should be left to individual states. Of course, the courts have seldom found any exercise of governmental power to be in violation of the Commerce clause, but that's a different issue from what the clause actually means. And courts may overrule their previous decisions anyway. The reality is that Obama is on record as wanting a 'single payer' (i.e. state monopoly) health system. He just stopped saying so when he ran for President. That is why the Democrats are so anxious to have a 'public option'. Once that option is in place they can use regulation to drive up the costs of private providers while pouring taxpayers money into the state option until most people move away from their private providers 'voluntarily'. This kind of nationalisation by stealth is a fairly common tactic and has been used by socialists in other countries many times.

1. 1NT. I don't like it all that much and minor suit partscores can be worth more matchpoints than people think. But you are between 2♣ and 3♣ and they probably can't run many tricks given their lack of bidding. 2. Pass. Partner will usually reopen with a doubleton heart and, if not, you are better off passing. If you do play 3♣, either they lead through partner's heart holding or your mixed pairs partner is declarer. 3. 3NT. Partner's failure to reopen with a double means that 3♣ may be distributional rather than having a lot of high cards, but still passing is too pessimistic with this hand.

I'd play relays, but if you go with option 2 I strongly recommend you have a way to bid your suit immediately when you have an unbalanced positive. So don't use 1D as any GF. That is too vulnerable to preemption. Same applies if they overcall.

My best guess is natural and GF, could be either choice of games or slam interest at this stage. It probably won't be 5332 but could be only a 5 card with some shape. May or may not have a major as well. I'd guess you are responder because if you were opener you would not have passed so there would be no story.

Yep, a very important principle when playing with screens. Otherwise a lot of cases are created out of nothing when the screen mate protests about a break of tempo that really wasn't noticed at the other side (which is where it matters). I agree with the TD that this is a very easy 'result stands' when the call is from the wrong side. Had it been from the right side, and a significant BIT was established as a fact, the case would have been a delicate matter. I'm leaning towards judging 'result stands' on the basis that it's obscure what one really can deduce from a BIT behind screens here. East can't really expect west to take forever finding out about min/max, so a significant BIT is quite likely to stem from something else (e.g. questioning and/or south wanting to bid, or west thinking about system, which would not be an incentive for east to bid on). IMO a good example of the merits of playing with screens. Sorry I must be dense but I'm still not getting this. The tray goes to the SW side, remains there for a while and then comes back and East bids 3NT. The issue then is whether the delay makes it more attractive for East to bid 3NT instead of a logical alternative. This depends on the logic of the auction - the relative likelihood of South, West or both being responsible for the delay. If West hesitated unduly in circumstances where it is more likely that West, rather than South, would have a problem, then East has unauthorised information. This is so despite screens being in use. I don't understand why North, but not South, may draw attention to this fact after East has acted or certainly at the end of the hand.

Ok I understand that the hesitation is not an infraction. If South called the director when West hesitated and before East bid 3NT, then he needn't have done so and I have no problem with a regulation saying he may not do so. But there clearly was as infraction by East in bidding 3NT after the hesitation. The OP seemed to suggest that only North could have called the director - South may not call the director at all when the hesitation occurred on his side of the screen, even after the play reveals the infraction by the 3NT bidder. Alternatively, the fact that South called the director 'too soon' meant that N/S lost all ability to get an adjustment for the damage they suffered due to East's infraction. That doesn't seem right to me. Surely the score should still be adjusted even if a procedure penalty is imposed on South.

Half of the 3-1 breaks will be a stiff honour so we can make in those cases plus all the 2-2 breaks so that's 65% in total. We have that 65% chance if we play ♣A and we have zero chance if we hook and they get a ruff. So you can't just compare 5-1 vs 3-1. Wayne is right that we can rule out Kx in clubs for the opening leader and this makes the play of the ace a bit better.

Agree with the other posters. Also, I think you must be giving up more than just the ability to pass out their overcall. If you play double is takeout, immediate suit bid is a one suiter and pulling the forced double is a two suiter, won't you also have problems with perfectly ordinary moderate balanced hands unsuited for a takeout double, where you would just choose a contract after partner's takeout double?

2♠. You might pass with three spades and an ordinary balanced 13, but this hand is much better than that and has good playing strength, especially if partner has five spades. You can raise spades with three, with or without a shortage, if your hand is suitable, which this is. If you don't have a 5-3 spade fitm then partner has three hearts at most and NT should be played from his side. If you are playing normal (up the line) responses, partner is quite likely to have five spades anyway. However, it would be helpful to know partner's approach. Will he respond 1♠ with 4 spades and a diamond suit? What will he do over 1NT with five spades?

Pass is a logical alternative to 3NT or 4♠ and a hesitation by West does make bidding on more attractive. From East's point of view, it isn't clear that the delay was due to a hesitation by West rather than South but that is a separate issue. I am not a rules expert by any means, but surely a player must call the director when he/she becomes aware of an irregularity. So a regulation that prevents South doing so is contrary to the laws. Even more so, if South's action also bars North from asking for a ruling.

1. Pass 2a) Pass 2b) Signoff 2c) Invite

I would definitely raise. It's unlikely they will pass out 1♥ doubled and even then we may be better in 2♥ doubled. :( If LHO bids 3NT next I want to make sure partner leads a heart. If not, even the mild preemption of 2♥ may make it hard for them to work out whether they belong in NT, clubs, spades or diamonds.

West 80%, East 20%. West should have bid 3♥ at either of his last two turns and certainly after the double. East's second double is better than 3♥ if you know partner will understand it but he gets 20% for choosing to put partner under pressure when he has a very decent alternative. I would not raise 2♥ directly with East though it is somewhat close considering some of the garbage I balance on.

While pass by East could be best on some layouts, it is not a logical alternative because the percentages are so heavily against it. Bidding could lose if West has 3352 shape but there are so many other possibilities.West may have four spades, or three clubs, or a playable six card diamond suit, or you might survive anyway or they bid one more.

The ace wins when the lead is a singleton and trumps could have been played for one loser. Low wins when the ♣K is onside and trumps cannot be played for one loser. The chance of playing trumps for no loser is 65%. Before the lead, the chance of a singleton club in West is 7.25% and the chance of the king in West is 50%. Let's assume West would always lead a singleton club ( though he might not with Qxx of trumps). (0.0725 * 0.65) / (0.5 * 0.35) = 0.27 So you should play the Ace if West would lead a club 27% of the time or less when holding the king, and should play low if he would lead a club more than 27% of the time when holding the king. This is pretty close since any of the four suits could be right on the auction though he probably doesn't have an attractive trump lead. I would probably play the ace.

1) X and pass if partner bids clubs. This has several ways to gain compared to the alternatives. 2) 4♦. I have some defence but not enough to be happy going slowly. 3NT for us is possible but I think it's unlikely.

I agree with Cherdanno - 2♥ is forcing with game interest. There may even be hands where partner bids 2♥ and then passes 3♦ with a void, eg AQxx AQxxx - Kxxx

Surely the play to the first two tricks means the remaining top hearts are split so there is no squeeze, and the heart menance is in the wrong hand anyway. You just need to unblock diamonds and discard one club on a diamond so the clubs run. Then take the spade finesse.

Go to BBOTV and open the other table in another window: http://www.bbotv.com/vugraph/

It's gonna be hard to beat Olegru's story.

Disregarding the silliness of bidding 2♦ on the actual hand, the problem is there are two possible hand types for the 2♦ bidder: 1) He didn't double because he is (sub) minimum and/or has a club void, eg Kxxx Qxx AQJxxx - or Kxx xxx AQJxxxx x. In that case 2♦ is enough. 2) He didn't double because he can't tolerate a heart response, eg AQxx Ax KJTxxx x Obviously 3NT is pretty good opposite the second hand and it's not clear what that hand is supposed to do after doubling and hearing 2♥. But you do need this hand type to have Ax in hearts and a club to be sure of making 3NT, though it may also be ok without ace of hearts if they don't lead one. With a better hand than my example I think I would double and bid 2♠ over 2♥. Since partner could have either and 2♦ will often be sufficient even on the second type, I think pass is probably correct.

Pass. Your values are too soft. I'm not so worried about partner passing, but probably he'll bid game and go down with anything good enough to make a three level contract. While LHO can be weak, he can also be stronger than usual so I don't think you can reason that partner must have quite a lot.

It depends on why you are taking up a big club system. If you just want to try it out then I'm sure other people's book recommendations are fine. If you are doing it to improve your slam bidding then IMO you need relays (google "Symmetric Relay"). You don't have to master the basics first. I've never played a strong club without relays and doubt I ever would. You need the accuracy gain of relays to offset the other losses and make it worthwhile.

If playing a weak 2♦ opening I think it's fine to use 2♦ as Drury and 2♣ as natural. The responding hand is narrow enough that you don't need an extra step after 1♥-2♦. I don't know why more people don't do that. Maybe somebody can explain.

Normally, cashing the seond diamond before switching would have a strong odour of fish about it. But if East's ♠3 is reverse attitude then maybe he intended to clear diamonds but changed his mind after seeing the signal. Being at the table might help to decide which it is, but normally I would just stick with the percentage play as Justin said. You definitely should have an escape mechanism after 1NT-X. If you need, I can sell you a used one for half what it's worth.