pooltuna

With east having showed up with the AK♦ I would not play him to have either the ♠A or the ♥A. Consequently it may be right to play the K♠ when I lead a small one towards dummy rather than plan for West to hold AQx. Presummably the auction actually started P (P) 1♠

This is probably in range if both sides were light openers and 2nd seat will feel compelled to raise with LR values.

The call should be a non-constructive 2♠ raise or equivalent if available but 2♠ if nothing else is available. 3♠ as a preemptive raise is also a playable choice.

If you want numbers I suspect something like "total points/IMPs/MPs scored as declaring side"/"total points/IMPs/MPs scored as defending side".

Of the apparent choices; pass, 2♥, 3♥, maybe 3♦. I like pass the least. I would actually consider the Hamman bid since I have a ♦ stopper and 7 tricks in ♥ assuming an entry, or 4♥.

I suspect the unusual play of small to the T might be right. This assumes you anticipate no offsuit defensive ruffing problems

I suspect the intersection of the groups you are talking about is an empty set or has relatively few elements

Well I see 4 options; pass, X, 3♣, & 3♥. Pass: This lets you back into the auction with some idea of who has what but possibly at an uncomfortably high level. As the opps don't rate to bypass 4♠ you should have 4NT still available. X: This tells partner it really is our hand but without being sure you really want to play 2NTX 3♣: This gets in your longest suits but not sure you will be ready to bid 5♥ over 4♠ and 4NT will then tend to show a shorter(maybe too much ) second suit 3♥: This gets in your major and makes the 5♣ call over 4♠ easier. Personally I think I will risk LHO's psychic pass of 2NT and try and back into the auction. So pass for now.

then why not splinter in ♦ but not sure if that is 3 or 4

I would go through F1NT for that hand as it does not fit my definition of a constructive raise

so let's see what has happened in the auction partner loved his ♥ suit so much he didn't bid them at every opportunity and he never found an X of ♠ yet he has the assets for our side, well most of them. I think the X is asking for a ♣ lead and I lead a small one

yep partner needs to evaluate his 3 count in the light of partner having support and a near 2♣ opener so that xxx xx T9xxxx Kx is a game bid

I am in agreement that my lead ATT would have been the ♦A and I hate to lead from this particular holding (as does, I am sure, Justin) but there are occasions where it rates to be more right than other leads.

hmmm I certainly agree with you assessment of the double but the name issue should be related to how weak your hand is. I.e. as your hand gets weaker the more important it is to bid with a takeout X but the reverse is true with a "convertible" X :)

I don't think there is a fast way to learn these. The fastest has to be reading books. I would start with Watson's "Play of the hand" and rather than read thru the solution try to work each one like a problem.

Clearly you lack imagination. ♦6 must be right! How is partner supposed to know to ruff the ♦A to give us a heart ruff?? I thought that was why you lead the ♣2 :)

Bridge with jokers? mmmmm. nothing new there as this seems to adequatedly define most of my pickup partners

I would lead the ♠K expecting ♣ to be badly placed.

I assume you mean partner calls 3♥ instead of 2♥. That being the case what agreements are we using for the bid. If preemptive I am inclined to pass. If it is a SJS (I know it is hard to imagine) then 4♥

Support with support 3♣

...because you have a minimal hand with no obvious fit and you have a partner ;)

either 2♠ or 3♣ depending on what partner should expect

If nothing specific is available, bite the bullet and call 1NT. Being conservative on this hand usually works pretty well at MP. Hard to tell at IMPS but I suspect it is OK.

Should Timothy McVeigh have lost his citizenship? How about Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge? Seriously, where does it stop? I don't know but my question which you didn't try to answer was where does it start? I do not support what Obama did here at all I just thought it raised a question worth asking. Should some acts risk your citizenship, and the rights to, for example, not have a hit put out on you by the president (in theory)? I couldn't answer your question because I do not know. I responded as I did because at first your question about citizenship seemed to me to be a reasonable argument. The more I thought about it, though, the more I realized that losing one's citizenship is still a punishment without due process - and yes, if we go down that road, where does it stop? Who says there wouldn't be due process? He probably gets the same due process any wanted outlaw gets who has moved out of US territory but still threatens the lives of citizens within US territory. Let us not forget that the "war on terror" is actually a police/military action against outlaws. Any war is against a political state that willfully harbors and abets them.

nah, just highly anti%age and some might argue anti partnership :)