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.

I am no expert on Laws but I believe that such a hand signal is a valid way of communication provided the auction has not begun. It is akin to a verbal discussion to adjust tactics --- (e.g.) if opps are already at the table, a hand signal is a permitted way to convey the tactical adjustment. I am quite certain any such signal needs to occur before either player pulls out the cards from the board.

I'm bidding 2NT. The odds are low that I will get doubled and go for a huge minus. On occasion, I would have converted a small plus into a small minus. On the flip side, there is a reasonable chance that we have game (or a partial) in a suit.

As I wrote in an earlier post, this is a fictional situation based on a real incident where we (partner & I) bid somewhat like this but in our real-world situation the bidding continued till we ended in a high-level absurd contract (and scored 0 MPs)

Situation A. Let's say screens were in use. West does not alert his own 2♦ (natural, weak 2) and does not alert partner's 2♠ (natural, forcing). I assume there is MI but no UI and (assuming the TD is called upon the conclusion of the auction) the TD will offer South to withdraw his last pass and reopen the auction. How is this any different? Situation B. Let's say West alerts but nobody asks, and the bidding goes as before. When the TD asks why West alerted and what would be his explanation, West says "I would have explained that we play Raise-only-non-force and that 2♠ is natural & forcing". Does that absolve E/W? Can the TD or any outsider invent a meaning for an impossible bid, even when the offending pair can demonstrate with written notes that 3♦ is impossible? For sake of clarity, something like this happened to me many years ago (I recall it was partner who misbid). I recall we went totally offscript, landed in an absurd doubled contract and got 0 MPs on the board. Opps were happy to take their 100% and no TD call was made. To that extent, the situation I described is fictional but it would have been possible.

In an uncontested auction, E/W are a regular pair that play a specialised 2♦ opening. This one time, West misbids 2♦ to represent a weak-2 bid in diamonds. The bidding continues: West : East 2♦* - 2♠** 3♦ - pass! * As per system, East correctly alerts 2♦ and, when asked by North, states that 2♦ is "18 to bad 21, balanced or semi-bal, no singletons" ** West does not alert 2♠, South does not ask and passes. West bids (reasonably in tempo) 3♦ The issue: As per E/W documented system, 2♠ acts as a relay and West is compelled to bid 2NT. a. When West bids 3♦, East knows (despite the UI arising from no alert) that the wheels have come off. It is easy for East to logically infer that West holds a weak-2 in ♦. Now (say holding a non-descript 8-10 HCP bal hand), East decides he can legally pass. b. Let's look at the situation from West's perspective. If he meant it as a weak-2 in ♦ (something West plays with other partners), then 2♠ is natural and forcing for one round. The weakest response from West is to revert to his own suit to convey no ♠ tolerance & a min hand. So, despite hearing the UI from partner, the 3♦ is "a normal action" for a person making a weak-2 opening. Question for people knowledgeable in Bridge laws. 1. Is East's 2nd round pass legal? 2. Is West's action to bid 3♦ legal? 3. Should East call the TD before the 3♦ is passed. I assume East should definitely call the TD if the auction ends with 3♦ all pass. Anything else wrong or worthy of comment? Please feel free to add.

A caveat before you read this. I understand practically nothing of programming or machine learning. I had a thought that I want to share (in the unlikely event it helps). Say we load a million bridge deals where South is dealer and we include the raw scores that can be achieved for each deal (using some DD solver). If the first step (or node?) is to get your program to bunch all South hands into "neutral", "constructive" and "obstructive" before the first pass of your program, will it help with the development of the hierarchy?

I'd bid 3NT.

I don't watch Fox News. The most I have done is occasionally watch clips of Tucker on YouTube (barely 5-10 such clips in my lifetime). My takeaway from it was that his partisan rants were full of exaggerations and untruths. What I found surprising is a trivia factoid that was circulating on one of my WhatsApp groups. It seems Tucker had the highest viewership of a cable news programme among the Registered Democrat Americans. I responded saying that's ridiculous and must be wrong. However it seems there is some truth to it. I don't understand this!

South knows partner does not have a serious game-type hand. South also has nothing special (3622 is probably the worst shape). So 5♥ was simply not warranted.

1NT opening is 15-17. Normally, 1m - 2m will deny a 4 card major holding. Your post refers to a very valid point i.e. would one be prepared to lie about the hearts? This is perhaps the core issue. I thought the disparity in length+strength between clubs & hearts was so huge that I was happy to hide the heart suit and lie to partner.