jjbrr

2♠

lol

jethro? eyeing little girls with bad intent

Fred, Uday, Inquiry, and others of that ilk provide a great service for us.

I've always used it under the impression that it's neutral. If the demonstrative pronoun "that" in "people of that ilk" refers to something with a negative connotation, then obviously the expression becomes something negative, and I think that's the most common usage. So "ilk" is often associated with something negative, but it doesn't have to be. imo. For example I see nothing wrong in a discussion about particularly wealthy or intelligent people to say "people of that ilk" to describe their peers, which I would hope doesn't automatically convey a negative connotation.

I typed inexplicable and deleted it. This isn't the first time I used a word and it started a debate about usage. I like keeping people on their toes.

until then... http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/5348/iheartbaconwomenseca9f8.jpg

icwudt

sitting on a park bench......

How did you know this came from the UK?

kettlingur imo

while normally i would appreciate that humor, i even prefaced it with "stupid question." you might be shocked to learn that i did actually google this earlier, which is how i know the prices of walmart's cheapest vs other average ones! if i was interested in roasting pans for thanksgiving, it would have been very helpful. on the other hand, i don't very much respect the opinions of LOLs on the random internet and somewhat value the opinions of BBF.

stupid question: can someone educate me about roasting pans? will a $25 thing from walmart work or should i get a good one for an extra $50 bucks or something? what's the difference? i'm craving chicken ldo.

Maybe "tilt" has different meanings to different people, but I dont think the feelings of partner bashing me are the same as what I feel when partner does something tilty, which, in my own opinion, can only really result from something annoying or bothersome or stressful, like a quirky habit or a silly or unexplainable mistake. if partner berating me is tilt inducing, then I agree with everything said and would say that for certain that's a great way to ensure that I play horribly the rest of the day.

The times when partner has ♠ support, I think he rates to have really good ♠ support as part of an unbalanced hand. However I think he's much more likely to have short ♠ as part of his unbalanced hand, and thus I think it's better to raise partner now. Partner almost always has 6+♦ in this auction, and raising immediately will very likely be best for our side. Partner knows 2♣ 2♦ 3♦ auctions are pretty bad and will try to avoid them if he can, so you can be sure a raise will make him very happy.

every bid besides 3♠ looks pretty terrible imo

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3186/notsureifwant400x400.jpg

While I'm not as optimistic that the auction won't be a disaster as Phil seems to be, I think double is my choice. I'd follow up same as Phil, but I'm worried when partner tries to rebid ♥ after I try to correct. I'll never convince him I'm void, and playing a 6-0 fit violates that rule that Europeans seem so attracted to.

While I get the idea, I think there ARE things Russia would like better. Like kittens. Who doesn't like kittens? I don't like kittens.

I think it's funny "on tilt because of partner" is the leading problem. I learned in kindergarten that every time you point a finger at someone else, there are three fingers pointing back at you.

Well, "friend" because she used to be a school junior of mine, but I find her very off-putting for reason mentioned above plus the fact that she's rather arrogant in doing things. Tell him what I've taught you, gwnn.

I'd open them all 1♦ except the last one. About half the forums will swear 1♣ is right. I don't think it matters. The last one I'd open 2♣ and treat as balanced.

you have a lot to learn... never hit old women. only hit young insecure girls to show them who's boss. they like that. old women just get loud and obnoxious. I tried to find a cat dressed as a sexist pig but Google failed me B) try googling "try hitting her" with the quotations and google won't fail to show you it's a joke!

As josh pointed out, solid 5 card suit and top tricks galore. It seems clear to upgrade it by at least 1 point, so compare to "typical" 26 counts. Would you rather have this hand or AKx AQJx AKJ Axx, or KQJx AKQ AQ KQxx. The actual hand has 9 top tricks pretty much (and 10 on a heart lead), not something you can say about the vast majority of 25-26 balanced-ish hand. The only flaw with this hand compared to the other 2 posted is the lack of clubs. I wouldn't have rebid 3NT at IMPs or a strong field, but when you can be fairly sure the field aren't bidding slams, seemed better at the time just to outscore them (and who says they will even lead a club?). If we are to give partner a yarb, then it seems he needs at least 4 diamonds or 5 spades for a slam to be good. Otherwise, we can't ruff enough times. (even xx xx xxxx xxxxx is pretty much on a finesse. The other main reason for treating this as balanced is that I hate auctions which start (GF opener)-(relay)-3♦, if partner bids 3♥ I can't even be sure it's a 5 card suit (xxx Jxxx xx xxxxx?). Because of this, if treating it as a balanced hand is a logical alternative, I will treat is as such. Partner's hand was x Txx 9xxxx AJxx, heart finesse was working so emerged with 11 tricks beating everyone who stayed in 5♦. It was a top at the time of scoring, but I suspect 1 or 2 pairs might have bid it. I will check next time I'm at the club. How often does partner bid 3♥ over 2X 2Y 3♦ without ♥? This seems like not only poor evaluation but a poor system as well. Partner's actual hand is a great example of why it's not great to call this balanced, even if he should have bid again.

nit It tilts me that you guys keep saying "solid 5-card suit" Neither of you have ever seen anyone with Txxxx before? /nit