Rodney26

Again, you said that federal workers are "basically middle class." They're not. They're an upper class portion of US society. The point is to debunk the myth that you're perpetrating that taxing the "wealthy" and distributing even more income to those that work for the federal government would be some sort of economically empowering move for the country. In reality, such a proposal would result in an already wealthy class of people getting even richer. That's where this whole Keynesian utopia goes completely off the rails frankly. Higher government revenues don't result in a fairer distribution of income between rich and poor; they just mean those that work for the government get paid more. Reading hrothgar's screed about "equality of opportunity" while simultaneously defending the salaries of your average federal employee due to their education level was interesting. Do more people that come from wealth or poverty get the opportunity for extensive education? Do you think that your average federal employee comes from wealth or poverty given that your average employee has more years of education? Private sector benefit plans have worsened because workers would prefer cash to benefits where given the choice. Government plans don't have competitive checks and balances so they tend to give away the store. As it is, I don't know how a private pension could reasonably be run today given that the Fed will drop interest rates to nothing as it sees fit. The public ones are going to start going up belly up in rapidly increasing numbers fairly soon.

Sorry, it's true. http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm federaljobs.net actually uses the gap as a recruiting technique.

I pretty much disagree with everything you say admittedly, but this here is a little much. US federal employees are probably the most well compensated class of workers in the entire world when taken as a group. If they're middle class, there is no upper class. It's like how there is no longer such thing as a small coffee except in reverse. Their average total compensation (including bennies) is twice as high as your average US private sector worker (120k/60k). Reading this blog, you'd think it was at least the other way around.

Why does Phil have to be the ideologue and you the realist? Ever consider it is the other way around? Sure seems like it to me (especially when the tsk tsks start coming). What you're missing is that governments can control three things -- what it taxes, the various rates of those taxes and its spending. They can't control revenues because ultimately that is based on the performance of the entire economy and various aspects of it. They are plenty of examples in history in the US and elsewhere where raising marginal tax rates did not increase government revenues. There are also examples where it did. The performance of the private sector always will vary and so will government revenues. You can say over and over that Bush's tax cuts caused the increase in the deficit but it simply isn't true. Bush's reckless overspending caused that, and Obama has been much worse. The solution is to spend less. It amuses me to no end that people that point out this fact to you get accused of believing in a free lunch. However, those that believe we can add 40 million people to the health insurance rolls and reduce the deficit simultaneously are apparently "realists." The US economy will not come back from the doldrums until it becomes much more productive and much less consumptive. There are 6 billion people on the earth and we need to make stuff for them; instead we run a huge trade deficit and are the world's biggest debtor nation. That's the essence of the problem.

I think the best thing to do is respond 1♠ initially. Textbooks aside, that's the only lead I can stand if the other side buys it, which seems likely. I know there is no upside to my playing a contract if partner persists but I'd like to beat the others on defense if they start by bidding hearts with my hand. If this auction pops up, I do the best I can with two ♥ on the second round. Everyone else is likely to be in the same torture chamber. Whatever plan you choose, I don't think rebidding a 3 card suit will ever be right.

Thanks everyone for all the replies (except the ones at the end). At the table, I bid 2NT followed by double, thinking it was best to show my partner 10 cards and values. I now think the womanly approach favored in the poll of 2 doubles is superior. At my first call, there really are still four strains in play even if hearts and NT are unlikely. I'm never going to get to either intelligently by starting with 2NT when the two higher scoring strains are right. It happens to be one of those hands where 4♠ is cold from the side they bid it, and we were never getting more than a 30% board once they did (-790 was worth half a matchpoint). 5 of a minor gets you into even more trouble according to Deep Finesse if they double, but some went plus 1 and 200 with our cards so maybe they were taking the 5 level bait. Opener should be doubling 5 of a minor. Opener had ♠KJT9x ♥x ♦AQxx ♣Axx; dummy had ♠Axxx ♥Txxxxx ♦x ♣xx.

I don't think so at all -- it should have been a poll option. Sorry for the omission.

Red All, second chair, MP: ♠ ♥AKJ ♦KJ762 ♣KJT85 RHO opens 1♠. Whatever you do, 4♠ comes back to you with partner silent. Yes, you get a wire, but this shouldn't be too surprising. How do you think this hand should have been handled?

I like these comments. I think standard is clearly a penalty double, and that it is the correct agreement to have in an expert partnership. Opener could be stepping into a huge misfit opposite a worthless dummy. It seems flawed to expect partner to protect with a double in the balancing seat when partner didn't double the first time.

Read this. A letter from Orzlag to Senator Conrad when Orzlag was at the CBO. The cratering of revenues from tax cuts that you're constantly insisting that happened didn't actually happen. As pointed out several times, there is a point on the elasticity curve between 0 and 100 that will maximize government revenues. It is not necessarily at a higher rate of taxation.

Clinton never reduced spending, but he can be credited for keeping government spending on a steady path despite enhanced revenues for the dot-com bubble. I don't think there is a lot of evidence he was trying to pare down debt but he certainly was more fiscally responsible than Obama or Bush. I agree with the first two points on Bush, but the lower marginal rates resulted in more federal revenues, not less. So, they weren't "poorly thought out" at all -- they worked. There's just no evidence whatsoever of this. Obama's first fiscal budget was close to one trillion dollars in deficit. Saying it was better than Bush's last budget (which included the bank bailout and was also ridiculous) is like arguing who killed more people between Stalin and Mao. Both budgets were extraordinarily irresponsible. Trying to spin the second worst budget of all time as better than the worst is an exercise in futility. China and Singapore are two countries that currently have very high personal rates of savings and excellent economic growth. If Krugman's theories were correct, these economies would be in deep recessions. Instead, they are the best the world has to offer today. The expiring tax cuts probably will result in lower revenues and not higher ones based on past history. What we need is more saving, investment, and ultimately production from the US. We can't eat our way to prosperity as all these Keynesians surmise.

I agree entirely with Adam. North has to evaluate his hand in the context that he had bid a non-forcing 2C. He's got a heart misfit and setting up the clubs seems way against the odds. Doubler is behind opener so that would add to my pessimism at this form of scoring.

Partner shouldn't play us for 5 hearts on this auction, this is a standard way to compete with exactly 4 hearts and (probably) longer diamonds. If we had 5 hearts we would know we had at least an eight card fit and wouldn't mess around with diamond bids. I think it's a huge mistake to big your shorter suits first when competing with spades. I totally disagree with the notion that you would not bid diamonds at the three level if you were 5-5 or something like that. You might still have quite a good hand even though you have passed. Even if you were 4-4 with say a balanced 8 count, you'd want to bid hearts and then diamonds at matchpoints. The diamonds are longer; diamonds is probably a better strain to sustain a tap in if you play it when partner has equal length -- it has to be better to show partner this. You're bidding hearts first when you're 5-5, 5-4, and 4-4. Let partner in on the news that your minor is longer than your four card heart suit. Forget the whole major thing when it comes to hearts; against spades, hearts is a glorified minor.

What are the colors? I like 2♦ followed by 2NT on the second round, and correcting 3♣ to 3♦ if it comes to that. I don't think I'm good enough to x on the second round (I can't risk defending with one trick when partner passed 2♠) and I think a balancing 2NT has to imply the reds (or the minors) given the lack of a double on the first round. I don't like the 2♥/3♦ plan so much because partner will pick 3♥ with equal length. With the 2NT plan, partner is going to know you have exactly 4♥. The club spot doesn't matter; I actually would prefer to have x versus K.

Tax Center outlay & revenue data The data (Urban Institute and Brooking Center) doesn't support the idea that the lower marginal income tax rate on income hampered revenues when it was enacted in 2003. Obviously there are a lot of factors that impact these numbers year to year; Clinton was helped by the dot.com bubble, Bush had a nice stock market run during his second term before the financial meltdown, and I expect this fiscal year will eventually have abnormally high tax revenues because there will be lots of Roth conversions. To me, that data shows a severe spending problem for the last two administrations, and especially the current one. We're in for a rough ride fiscally as a country I'm afraid.

It's not a good comparison. There is some rate of taxation that will result in maximum revenues for the government. We know it is not 0% (where the government would net nothing), and we know it isn't 100% (where no one would work). It is somewhere in between those numbers. Suggesting that people who argue a lower number might be optimal are "fools" and "stupid" seems somewhat base to me. Taibbi misses the point on this one. This is the main problem when the government runs Ponzi schemes; why shouldn't someone who has contributed to Medicare for 40 odd years not then receive the benefit? What people don't realize is that the Ponzi style funding means later generations will perforce receive the short end of the stick; current generations are used to thinking they can get more out of it than they put in. They are like Madoff's investors before he was exposed. It's not like you have a choice to contribute or not.

Not to slight any of the other contributors, but I really loved reading both the Vanderbilt report and the MSC this month. Woolsey is my favorite bridge writer and I thought he did an especially good job picking hands from the Vanderbilt that may not have swung many imps but were interesting nonetheless.

Pass. 2nd seat V, you should have two of the top 3 honors or a feature with KJT. It doesn't mean you should play strong 2's. Your range is practically more defined in second seat after a pass.

Agree with all of this -- especially the red suit holdings. I'd add that partner's honors are not likely to be in a working position with the stronger hand on his left. The opps also haven't found a fit yet. You're likely going to be on lead so you don't have to worry about partner's club lead potentially blowing a trick. Also agree with Phil's points.

I think you just look people in the eye and tell them the CBO projection is absurd, and they will believe it. You don't need to be a brain surgeon to understand that insuring 32 million more people can't result in the government spending less money without other significant consequences. American voters understand better than ever there is no free lunch and are going to work hard to get those out of office who insist otherwise (on both sides). No more wars without paying for them, Ponzi pension schemes or tooth fairy style funding for comprehensive health insurance.

Club ace followed by four diamonds looks like a straightforward way to six tricks on defense in hearts -- many other ways as well. I'm sure a couple North players rebid 2H over 1S. I like pass; I'm not sure a hand where one strain splits 3-2 and the other 5-1 proves its merit but like it nonetheless.

You've come up with a nasty hand, but are you sure standard auctions will clarify it? 1♥-1♠-4♥-4♠-5♦-?? 1♥-1♠-3♦-3♥-4♦-4♠-5(♣, ♦)-?? 2♣-2♦-2♥-3♥-4♦-4♠-5(♣, ♦)-?? As responder, you're always going to know you're off the club ace and have a hard time finding out about the spade king. I don't think opening 2♣ creates the guess.

I would open 1♦, but I think this argument against 2♣ in general is overplayed with a one suiter. You're faced with a nasty guess over the first auction as well. 1♦-(2♠)-p-(4♠) 2♣-(2♠)-p-(4♠) Partner's pass on the latter auction might actually be more well defined than on the first depending on your agreements (we double with a bust). Opening 2♣ with diamonds should be avoided if at all possible; these are very rare hands.

The series has been On Demand for the last few months so I have watched through it again. I also liked season 3 the best and am happy others think so. Season 1 was not as good as I had remembered; season 2 on the other hand was much better. Season 4 is funny. So many of the best original characters are either gone or barely in the storyline. Then those last two episodes bring everything together and you realize just how superlative it was. It is by far the best show I have ever watched. Second place is miles away.

1NT unless they are playing Precision. Then pass.