shyams

During the GOP primaries in the 2022 Senate (and Governor) races, the Democratic Party was reported to have spent money on the "crazy" GOP candidates so that their Dem rivals eventually have a better chance of winning the actual seat against a "crazy" opponent rather than a traditional GOP opponent. It was considered a very risky strategy, but clearly that strategy worked quite well. Maybe there are covert efforts underway in the Dem establishment in the belief that defeating Trump will be much easier than defeating anyone less crazy.

On the topic of "enemy", the people in power (the mega-rich/donor class & the establishment that kowtows to their every whim) are it. I am going to make a prediction (I may very well turn out wrong on this, but I want to post it anyway). As part of his reelection campaign, Biden will find that donor money is not so forthcoming as it did in the past. He will have to make the necessary adjustment in order to reclaim the donors' largesse. The adjustment? They will "promote" Lina Khan and move her to some non-consequential role; they will also move/promote/fire Jonathan Kanter. Believe me, the actions taken by these two (as Head of the FTC and of the Anti-Trust division of the DoJ respectively) will benefit the average American over long periods of time going forward. That's why the true enemies of the average American will ensure they are stopped in their tracks.

Sorry, I erroneously added the phrase. My fault

The issue then is --- given that 2/1 is GF --- which action pays off more statistically? 2♦ or Dbl? I am genuinely asking because I think the Dbl puts us on a path that more often leads to a worse outcome than a 2♦ overcall.

Since this thread has been unexpectedly dormant for a long time, here is a piece of news: The US courts have granted civil and criminal immunity to all members of the Sackler family from future lawsuits related to Oxycontin. Sadly, the socialist Courts extorted almost $6 bn of restitution costs from the Sacklers. I almost feel sorry for the poor things; they will suffer when they lose around 40% of their entire wealth!!!!

I am curious. Do people think the South hand is too strong for a simple 2♦ overcall instead of a double? I am not seeing a game for our side if partner is so weak that they can't conjure up a bid if it goes (1♠) - 2♦ - (pass) - ??

I don't have a dog in the fight; I am not American. However, here is a childishly simple view that I hold: 1. All politicians are corrupt; none have the interests of the average citizen at heart. (Note: broadly applicable to many nations, not just the US) * US politicians are specialists in getting filthy rich, and getting repeatedly reelected. At least the British politician is (on average) not hellbent on becoming millionaires. 2. The Romans had learnt two thousand years ago that the masses can be kept satiated with "panem et circenses" (bread and games/gladiator fights). In modern times, issue-based divisive politics serves the function of circenses. 3. Some citizens engage in these "existential" issues (many of which are trivial, some of marginally importance). In doing so, they feel invested that they are defining the future of their nation. Concurrently, those with real power are defining your nation --- and finding innovative ways to get even more powerful and richer. This pernicious divisiveness foisted upon average citizens by those who want to control you is the key problem. One way to thwart those who want to control you is to do the opposite --- have dialogues, make friends, go on dates or generally hang out with those that hold the opposite political views. In my limited experience, Americans are the only people who reject engaging with people of "the opposite party". Sorry if this sounds like cliched baloney. But to me, a distant observer, you all are destroying yourselves by fighting these irrelevant fights.

I am not American, but if I were asked to opine on this question, my answer would be a resounding no.

I thought it was a 9-0 decision, although 4 of 9 dissented with the majority 5 for the rationale behind the (unanimous) decision.

I am not sure I would be able to defend this perfectly either. However, there is a clue available to North. On the second round of heart, partner played the ♥9. This means the heart intermediaries are such that West still has a stopper even if South is on lead & switches to heart. Consequently, I think it is correct for North to chuck the ♥4 and keep holding the ♠8. This should defeat the contract, shouldn't it?

The federal debt ceiling could have been raised during the 117th US Congress, right?

I used the output from the link provided in my previous post. I also listed the conditions. Okay the calculator works for two suits and the absence of an option to include the third unknown suit (♠) split will affect the calcs.

As a postscript: I excluded some holdings in the heart suit in my post above: * With a heart void, West would not ruff trick 3 * With a singleton or doubleton, West would discard his hearts to obtain a ruff at trick 4 (again, no ruff at trick 3) * If West held a 5-card heart suit, East would have underled at trick 3 compelling West to ruff and get a heart back for a ruff. Even if East overlooked it, West may have found it easier to lead a heart at trick 4. I am also excluding sleepy plays by West (e.g. forgot to throw a ♥ at trick 2 from ♥xx, woke up at trick 3 & conjured up a potential escape hatch.

I used a (hopefully more appropriate) calculator from RPBridge website (link here) Conditions: (1) West has 12 & East has 7 vacant spaces; (2) West has 3 or 4 heart cards. There are 4,185 combinations where West holds 4 hearts vs. 6,370 combinations where West holds 3. If I rise with ♣A, my contract is safe 60.3% of the time (i.e. all combinations where West holds 3 hearts). If I finesse, the ♣K will be onside 57.7% of the time (that's 6,090 combinations across 4-1 and 3-2 heart splits). I hope this time my calculations are more robust and more accurate. What I am discovering is that yes, it is still better odds to disbelieve West and go up with the Ace.

I used the "Suit Break Calculator" on RPBridge website. According to the output to my query, the hearts are splitting 3<->2 39.7% of the time, 2<->3 19.9% of the time, any 4-1 33.4% of the time. The 6.3% incremental probability is enough to not try a finesse in clubs. I am rising with the Club Ace and playing for a 3-2 split.