jjbrr

I had a similar experience once when I ordered burek, one of my favorite dishes, at my first visit to a Serbian restaurant recommended by friends. The waitress asked wide-eyed, "Just for you?" And the burek did turned out to be bigger than usual, but there was no way I wasn't going to finish it all. I had to google Börek since I hadn't heard of it. After reading more on the wiki page, I realize now that I actually had Börek when I went to Turkey without even realizing what it was. I'm sad to say the cafeteria that cooked for us was less than stellar, so that explains why it wasn't a memorable experience. Now I know. Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge makes life way more interesting imo. I also order way too much food at Indian restaurants, but generally the waiter doesn't say anything haha

I'll lead the T

righty 3rd seat w/r... doesn't take a rocket scientist...

4nt

Everytime I order sushi, the waitress looks at me funny and tells me i've ordered a lot of food. So even if I do order too much food, I have to eat it all just to spite her for thinking I don't know how much food I've ordered. Luckily that's never been a problem.

Gavin and Joe are both younger

I guess intelligent conversations are so infrequent for fox watchers that the novelty of such a thing in television programs is attractive to them.

I think more appropriately, since this is a case where the uneducated masses of BBF don't have all the details, this is much like when a player obtains a penalty kick and his fans agree that there was contact and a PK was justified while his opponents scream that he exaggerated the physical contact and boo him and curse his family and the ref and cry about sportsmanship and the like. The point is there may very well have been a legitimate foul.

How is anything on TV these days supposed to be interesting to people? Yet they watch it. As for Buffy, that was an awesome show. So was the spinoff, Angel. In particular, the final episodes of both shows were outstanding. Chuck has its moments. Note: Buffy, the TV show, was a lot less campy than Buffy, the movie. I liked the movie, too, but for different reasons. There's quite a contrast between the two. I have a lot of respect for the fact that both you and jlall offer the same opinions. I'm convinced. I'll give it a shot. Trip report to follow.

I would not overcall that hand in that position. I would expect partner to have a pretty decent hand to bid there.

Why? Because game will very often have a great chance of making, so it is important not to miss it. Add this to the (very small) chances that LHO has a problem and wants to bid against a weak 4♠ and pass against a real 4♠ and I think the jump to game is perfectly clear.

I feel like I'm in the minority, but I try to overcall aggressively at the 1 level and tend to be sound for my jump overcalls. in fact, i prefer intermediate jumps unfavorable. So a hand like KQxxxx xx xxx xx I feel more comfortable overcalling 1♠ than I am overcalling a weak 2♠. even a 6331 hand with similar honor structure, to me, looks more like a 1♠ overcall. I guess this means I try to overcall a major liberally, considering I can have very few HCP to overcall at the one level, but I certainly don't consider myself a crazy overcaller.

I've never heard of it. In an attempt to sort of align myself with mainstream TV culture, I try to watch House when I can. I don't see how this show ever got popular. Every episode is EXACTLY THE SAME. if you havent seen it, save yourself the trouble. The doctors find a patient for whom they can't diagnose the problem, they try 3 or 4 different treatments that dont work, House figures out the solution, everyone lives happily ever after. The doctors have relationship problems. How is this supposed to be interesting to people? Edit: Not a TV person ldo. Justin tells me I have to get into Buffy. Anyone?

An honest question: Do you think the top players have a very good idea of who the foreign and/or junior players are for whom you think the current system is treating perhaps unfairly? I mean if Team Precocious Somalian Juniors registers for the Vandy and gets a terrible seed despite being very, very good for their level of experience, do you think the Nickell captain would be able to accurately identify them as a team that deserved to be seeded much higher than they actually got and thus would avoid picking them? Are captains well equipped to make these kinds of decisions? Obv this is all subjective... I'm just wondering if you think the captains are better barometers of skill than the system of seeding points, given the collective knowledge of the seeders and the potentially limited knowledge of the captain.

This was the first thing that popped into mind, and as jdonn would say this is reason #1376 why strong club is good. With the given options I will make whatever bid will ensure we don't miss game. I won't bid 3♠ LR if partner can pass.

655321 is a living legend

I'd double as well. If he pulls, at least we have trumps for him. If he sits, we got some D.

A lot of those are appropriate for the Pictures that Say 1000 Words thread. Visually impaired cross country skiing is a head-scratcher to me.

Ya, making a takeout double with AKQx in their suit and Q in the other major can't be right. I'd bid 2NT if that showed 22-23 or pass if it showed something else.

Please confirm that Meckwell had played against this pair in one of the first two quarters.

As an aside, I had an experience slightly similar to the one you presented. I was declaring a doubled contract and my lefty cashed a winner at trick 10 or 11, on which my RHO discarded another winner. When I claimed the rest of the tricks, RHO claimed that he hadn't pitched the winner and that he had instead pitched a loser. LHO agreed with me, until the director came and his story suddenly changed to "I didn't see what happened." Since pitching a winner there was ridiculous, the director agreed that he hadn't pitched it and had in fact pitched something else. Draw whatever conclusions you want as it relates to your story.

If you were playing me in the Vanderbilt, found out I was playing multi but didn't bring the required defense, would you call the director? I know that's rhetorical, but... I don't really see how this or the other story are relevant to this discussion. I am neither as good as Meckwell nor am I making my living as a bridge player due to my success in big events. You don't play multi. Your hypothetical is a very big "if," though we both know that if you and I sat down at a table right now, I wouldn't call the director. They frequently allow the players at juniors championships to have a written defense at the table, and I never brought it with me, though I can't recall having a competitive multi auction where the bids were anything other than natural or stayman after a double or whatever. But like I said, Meckwell have much more interest invested in playing as perfectly as they can, which I simply cannot relate to. If defending multi correctly was a contributing factor to me making a very substantial amount of money, as Jdonn said earlier, I would definitely call the director on you, since I haven't memorized all the defenses. Perhaps with one partner I might play one defense against a weak-only multi and a different defense against multi with a strong possibility. I would certainly be disadvantaged. I would definitely not call the director for the purpose of making sure you can't play the convention. I might ask if it's possible that the director could go to the director station and quickly print one off the database; I suspect no one at the table would mind waiting. I might ask if partner and I can discuss our defense to multi in a live auction the first time if you sprang it on us without us realizing what you were playing. I assume you trust that I would do this as ethically as I could, and I can tell you I'd discuss option 2 as best I could with my partner, because that's my preference. Against people who aren't you, I might well call the director and not be so lenient towards the director or anyone else helping them out. Against you I would consider it more a fun match against friends, since there are very few consequences of me losing the first or second day of the Vandy. Against someone else I think it's fair game to enforce the rules. But again, this point is moot. You wouldn't show up without the defense, and if you did I know you'd have a copy in your hotel room or something and would offer to fetch it quickly. If you sat down at the table and alerted your partner's opening pass as an opening hand or better, do you think I'm not supposed to call the director or something? Would you not expect Meckwell to? You can't really argue that they're disadvantaged, because they're both great at bidding theory so I think most would agree they'd be just fine. How is this different? Maybe they're disadvantaged and maybe they're not. I don't think it's fair to automatically assume that they're not disadvantaged or at least inconvenienced by the lack of a written defense. They wouldn't be disadvantaged if the Singapore guys hadn't brought convention cards to the table at all, because they could ask what the bids mean. Would everyone feel the same way about Meckwell if they called the director for that infraction? Edit: I was careless and failed to realize that Han does play multi. I apologize to him for my assumptions.

hanp is leveling us "they would definitely have called the director. " lol

What is the auction under "the bidding is simply" and then some nonsense? 4♠ is hopeless. redbl would show 1st round control then it can go 4♣-4♦. I admit I'd never get to grand, and wouldn't feel too bad about that!

3NT for me. It's better to be plus 490 than minus 50