bd71

Hmm...seems to me 4♠ says "I have at least 6 hearts, the ♠A and am interested in at least small slam." I want to say "I have 7 hearts, the ♠A and am interested in grand slam." If we try to return the captaincy to partner (who may be reluctant to take it as he has defined his hand narrowly), is there a way to get across that full 2nd message?

For us, 2♦ is a catchall that includes any hand that doesn't qualify for a positive response (including busts). Agreed standard for 2M response to 2♣ is 5+ card suit with 2 of top 3, so we don't quite qualify with Hand Two. 2♣-3♥ not defined for us.

What do you recommend instead?

My mistake...I screwed up the auction on HAND ONE. After 3♥, there was a 3♠ cue and then a "serious" 4♣ cue. Partner has 3 keycards. I will edit OP if I can. My fear about cue-bidding on HAND TWO is that I pass up the direct/known opportunity to find out about the ♥Q through keycard. When you cue-bid, do you have some type of alternate approach to figure that out? I think I'm willing to bet against the parlay that (a) the 7-8 points we are missing are EXACTLY the ♦AK, and (b) that they lead diamonds first two tricks...all in order to keep grand in the mix.

Playing 2/1 in the Sunday Swiss at a local sectional, you face this decision twice in the same day... Please answer questions assuming bidding as given, but as always other comments are welcome. HAND ONE [hv=pc=n&s=s4haj542dakckq982&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=p1hp2dp3cp3hp3sp4c(serious)p4np5d(0%20or%203)p]133|200[/hv] NOTE: This hand was edited to insert 3S and 4C cues after the first reply made me realize the omission. 5♠ would ask partner to bid grand with the ♥Q. 5N would ask for specific kings. No other relevant agreements. HAND TWO [hv=pc=n&s=sa74hkjt8643dj6cj&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2cp2dp2n(22-23)p4dp4hp4np5d(0%20or%203)p]133|200[/hv] Again, 5♠ would ask partner to bid grand with the ♥Q. 5N would ask for specific kings. No other relevant agreements.

Re: the suggestion from P_Marlowe and gszes that it's significant that partner didn't cue-bid after 3♠, I'm a bit confused. If partner has a decent spade holding, isn't his first priority to clue me in and set the strain? It's also not clear to me that a 4m bid here should even be a cue-bid in support of spades...after 3♠ in this auction, wouldn't you want to bid 4♣ naturally with a hand like x AQJTxx Qx AKxx?

[hv=pc=n&e=saqt753hkdak73c93&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1hp1sp3hp3sp4sp]133|200[/hv] Matchpoints. Club game. Playing 2/1 with 1430 and cue-bids past game showing only first-round controls. Obviously grand is a (strong?) possibility, but even small slam is uncertain depending on partner's club holding. I felt my options were: 1. Trust that partner has a club control and bid 1430 to see if we have all keycards for grand. Bid 7♠ if partner has 3. If pd has only two.. 1A. Bid 6♠ and trust that one of them is the ♣A or that they don't lead clubs, or 1B. Bid 6♥ to protect a potential ♣K holding by partner. 2. Establish the club situation with certainty by cue-bidding 5♦. This eliminates the chance at grand because I lose my method to find out about the ♠K. Possibly relevant points: 1. We don't have specific agreements about how strong the heart suit needs to be for the 3♥ bid...I would think AJT9xx is likely the weakest possible. AQTxxx is certainly possible, perhaps even AQxxxx. 2. Again, no specific agreements but I don't believe partner would bid 4♠ with a stiff, even the king. Areas where I welcome comments: 1. What you would be thinking about and your chosen approach. 2. Whether switching to teams scoring would change your thinking and approach. 3. Whether a tougher field would change your thinking and approach. 4. After cue-bidding 5♦, do you have methods to find out about the ♠K or get partner to bid grand if he has ♠K/♥A/♣A plus reasonable other holdings? 5. Are you giving any thought to a NT slam at matchpoints?

Does partner have any significant tendency to open NT with a singleton? If not, I like your Texas transfer. If so, AND I have a method to show a 5/5 GF hand, I might use it. For some, this would be a 3S response to 1N. For us, we can transfer to spades, then bid a GF 3H, and bid 4H over a 3N response by partner. But I'm probably just bidding the Texas transfer. The other table approach seems like a bug.

The Supreme Court decision did NOT give states the right to opt out and not run their own Exchange...that was always part of the law. The SC decision allow states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion and still retain the federal subsidies for their pre-existing Medicaid programs.

Except MAYBE Kxxx Kx xxxx Axx, those hands aren't minimum limit raises. I'm not real sophisticated yet at using constructed hands to make these types of decisions, but it seems if you have to assume an extra trump beyound what partner has shown, you're likely in a danger zone.

(a) Yes. This should be automatic with no suggestion of extra strength. (b) Yes. I guess you could have agreements that you're not forced to cue-bid controls beneath game-level in a GF auction when partner has shown great strength, but I don't think that's wise. Need to cooperate and show the club control, still not suggesting any extra strength. © No, strongly. Not strong enough to force slam. Knowing partner has at least a wasted king in spades, have a really hard time constructing even a perfect minimum limit raise that makes slam near cold. Best I can do is Kxxxx Kxx Qxxx x, which is still an iffy slam. Partner might not have a minimum, but he can show life himself if so. Also don't want to stretch for slam at matchpoints if I think I'm competitive with the field. Only partner knows whether his spade holding is such that 3N is playable, so he's the one who needs to risk the slam to escape a likely bad matchpoint result in 5D.

I don't think it's fair to accuse E/W of playing games with two ways to win. (I was East, for what it's worth.) We called the director after the auction, so we had no idea how 3♦ would play out before raising our concerns.

Not sure what you mean. There was only one director on site and no preparations for appeals committees or anything like that (this was a standalone 12-table B class event, NOT something that was part or a larger sectional or regional). My understanding was that adjudicating the appeal would have required calling multiple other people to serve as the committee (I didn't ask who), and they on-site director said he'd only organize that if it mattered. Since both pairs involved ended up the two-session event right around 50%, there was no impact on the overall standings and the appeal was never heard.

[hv=pc=n&s=sa543ht6da63cakqj&w=skqt87hk73dkqjc98&n=s2hj542dt8742ct73&e=sj96haq98d95c6542&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1sp2s2np(asked...see%20story)3dppp]399|300[/hv] Matchpoints. NAP-B district championship. At his 2nd turn, West asks about 2N. North says N/S haven't played together much and he's not sure they have an agreement. He offers to speculate, but E/W decline. After the auction and prior to leading, East asks about 2N again and points out to South that he should be correcting his partner at this stage if he thinks they have an agreement. He states "it's all on the card." N/S convention card, in the section for "Notrump Overcalls" shows 15-18 range and "systems on". N/S are playing Jacoby transfers. Of course, the CC doesn't have a place to mark whether this applies to a NT overcall in this particular auction. E/W call director, claiming that if South believes his 2N call is a natural strong NT, 3♦ should have been announced as a transfer and South should have bid 3♥. Suggestion is that South took advantage of UI from his partner's uncertain response to the 2N query. Director says play on. Table result is N/S -100. Director then rules that N/S should be playing in 3♥ down 3 for -300. N/S appeal claiming they in fact had no agreement for this auction and South shouldn't be forced to bid 3♥. Appeal is never heard because in the end it didn't affect the overall results of the pairs contest. How should be the result of the appeal?

[hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1c1n(11-14)p2h(tx)p2sppp]133|100[/hv] Following this auction, as North is considering his lead East gives what he believes is a late alert that West's NT overcall has an 11-14 range (overwhelming standard is 15-17 or 15-18 in our area). We do a quick check-in w/ the director, who claims that the NT overcall is not alertable or annoucable regardless of range, and that North/South need to ask or look at the convention card to verify the range. Is this true...do we have to ask/check every time to cover the 0.5% of the time that opps are using a non-standard range here?

I held the South hand at another table and opoened 1C-1S-3C. Thoughts? How many would open NT?

[hv=pc=n&s=sj7hkq5dak853ca73&n=sqt9542haj742dcq6&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p3dpp]266|200[/hv] Matchpoints. You can expect East to have a traditional/solid 3D pre-empt, even non-vul. Questions: 1. Would you have done something in direct seat as South? 2. As shown above as North, do you commit your side to a major-suit game? 3. As South, if you initially passed and partner shows the majors and commits to game, what are your thoughts on slam? If North's bid is 4♦ showing majors, what would you do?

The answer depends almost entirely on what partner's pass means (and it should absolutely mean something). Our agreements put the onus on responder to determine how we should react to the (presumably) penalty-oriented double, not opener. The pass in your auction would force a redouble and would show either a hand that wants to play 1NXX or has a good single-suit to show. If you have different methods, then opener should go with those methods. Your question is probably based on the idea that partner's pass suggests sitting for 1NX. If that's so, then I'm going to almost always trust partner unless I have an understength/off-shape NT opener like Kx Kx QTx KQJxxx, where I'll bid my suit.

[hv=pc=n&s=skj42hk2dk9862ck3&w=s763ha6dq43cjt765&n=sa985h874d7caq982&e=sqthqjt953dajt5c4&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1hp1n(forcing)p2hppp]399|300[/hv] Matchpoints. NAP-A district qualifying. -110 for N/S was a matchpoint zero with a spade fit and the balance of the points. What should N/S have done to get in the auction?

[hv=pc=n&e=sa942haqda6ct9872&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2spp]133|200[/hv] Matchpoints. NAP-A district qualifying. N/S are one of the better district pairs, and you've seen them be very aggressive with pre-empts in the past. What's your call?

[hv=pc=n&w=st9743haj863d75c6&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1n(15-17)]133|200[/hv] Matchpoints. You are playing DONT, so can show the majors with 2♥...do you do it? Are there any shifts in conditions that would change your action?... ...if W/W or W/R? ...if declarer was particularly bad? ...or particularly good? ...at IMPs?

I think your empirical claims in (a) and (b) are wrong, and while © may be right it's misleading. (a) You suggest health reform "encourages free market competition" Point 1: "heavily-regulated competition" is not the same as "free market competition"...through the exchanges, the health reform law is consistent with the former but definitely not the latter. Point 2: I think being "consistent with" competition is a better description than "encourages" competition. Competition is already happening in the markets for individual and small group insurance. In some markets, that competition is limited due to significant monopoly advantages of some Blue Cross plans, but that is also going to be true on the Exchanges. Other than goosing the market with subsidy dollars, the health reform bill is doing nothing else to really "encourage" competition. (b) You suggest health reform "lowers taxes" through the credits/subsidies. There are lots of new tax changes coming through the health reform bill; the tax credits through subsidies is only one part. In net, this bill is adding significantly to the national tax burden rather than diminishing it....and it's not even close. © You suggest health reform is "market-based" rather than "government-based." Slippery words. I guess this may be accurate in a vague sort of way if your point is that it's not actual government confiscation and ownership of the health care industry. It all depends on your benchmark. The post-health reform health system may be "more" market-based than many other nations' approaches to health care. But I think this is incredibly misleading...the full extent of local, state, and federal rules and taxes that touch health care make it one of the most-regulated industries in the United States. That was actually true even BEFORE the health reform bill, which adds a significant amount of new rules. So sure, it's still a "market", but to suggest that it's NOT also "government-based" as well is misleading. For what it's worth, the government pays/finances well more than 50% of all health care bills through Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and current/former government employees health benefits (including veterans). Still care to describe our health system as NOT "government-based"?

We are trying to tune our bidding approach to matchpoints, for what it's worth (I recognize that was not in the OP). And I think the target is more than "a bit bigger" there...4N will be superior to 5C many many times. Also, not sure it is right to say we'd be giving up on slam bidding entirely if we have no ace-ask. Even with no ace-ask is available, we can still cue-bid our way to slam. AND, the very interesting meta-rule proposed by Fluffy (4N=ace-ask if you first cue-bid) seems like it adds to the arsenal.

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c3d4dp4n]133|100[/hv] How do you play 4N here? Is it ace-asking or to play? Actually, the more precise question is that assuming you are NOT playing Kickback, how do you think 4N should be played here (i.e. if it's not an ace-ask, then there is no ace-ask available)? Would your answer change in any way if the pre-empt suit were a major...1C-(3M)-4M-(P)-4N ?

Thanks to folks for responses. Not everyone explained their reasoning, and I was hoping people would discuss how they valued the QJ combos in this hand (better NT holdings) vs. the A and singleton (better suit contract holdings). I thought my partner made a reasonable blast to 6N, which went down after they found the right lead and a finesse was off. My hand was... AKx AJx KQJT ATx