jjbrr

Obviously the problem is if you prebalance aggressively 3♣ could be bid on anything from like 9 to 18 points. Partner has no idea what to do and it's dangerous to give a courtesy raise. All the other alternatives look pretty awful on this hand though.

*kneels* Our Father, who art in grease sizzled be thy name thy skillet come thy be well done on bread as it is with eggs give us this day our daily pork And give us our strips as we give sizzlean to those who sin against us save us from starvation and deliver us from oatmeal Amen

3♣

I used to enjoy icefishing on Lake Winnipesaukee in NH immensely. Edit: Page 13!

You're right, gwnn. I have no excuse.

I have a confession: I remember that thread, and I even read it. I still thought it was aquahombre <_<

i thought aquahombre and gwnn. guilty.

lol. 103 shots?

I show the LOL at the club, but not someone at a serious event.

Come on. Sometimes people who aren't good at their jobs don't get rehired.

Your analysis seems to assume that there is a strong correlation between 1. The Laws / regulations 2. The rulings generated by some random TD My experience suggests otherwise I'll go a step further: I think that a significant portion of the rulings produced by the average TD are spotty, at best. I suspect that an average level TD who is being "helped" by a top level pro is likely to produce "better" rulings than normal. (By better, I mean more likely to be in compliance with the rules / regulations). Let us assume that said pro only "helps" the TD when it is in his interest to do so... I agree with everything you said. It supports my argument that knowledge of the rules yields good rulings. To me, it should be clear that it has nothing to do with any perceived preferential treatment.

I don't understand how your conclusion that Jeff is more likely to get favorable treatment is because TDs fear his complaints and not solely because his young, foreign opponents don't know the rules. I must have missed the discussion where TDs complained about players and their hurtful complaints. No kidding Meckstroth is likely to get better rulings as a result of knowing the rules. He knows when to call the director and I assume he can succinctly address the infraction. What does that have to do with anything at all? How can you call enforcement of the law "extremely favorable rulings"? Perhaps the TD made a poor decision in this particular case, but there is no reason whatsoever to believe Meckstroth somehow goaded him into his decision. He has more knowledge about the game in general than most people, too. Does that mean it's unethical if he uses his bridge skills against weaker players, thus depriving them of good results while unfairly earning himself his cheap "extremely favorable" results? If you know as much about the laws as he does, you, too, will get favorable rulings.

Josh?, You escaped? :lol: http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/2972/catbunny.jpg Spoiler (hidden):

I'd bid 3NT. All those ♠ looks sort of bad for a ♥ contract, and this looks like a 9-trick hand.

I lol'd at this. Han, you're brilliant.

Since the attitude seems to be to discount the opinions of anyone as to what actually happened (even eye witnesses), I don't suppose I can cite evidence that anything actually occurred. My post was making general points though about what "sportsmanship" means and whether being a bit of a "rules lawyer" is just the expected "do everything you can to win" attitude that one would want from elite players in any activity, or is somehow unsporting and taking advantage... or if the opinion is more nuanced based on the situation and who the people involved are. Certainly the "accusation" in this particular case relates very obviously to these points. It just strikes me as inappropriate to encourage conversation with the sole purpose of stoking the coals. I also can't believe one of your examples is that you perceive Meckwell get preferential treatment and thus they have the onus of taking extra precautions in regards to their sportsmanship lest you consider them criminals. That's pretty sick. In before the peanut gallery chimes in with "Back in 1983 during a club game, I witnessed Meckstroth get a favorable ruling, and therefore he can get opponents' conventions barred whenever he pleases!"

Please cite evidence that any of the above is true or played any role in the events that happened.

pass is clear

oh Kemo Sabe Raaaaaaain

Pass for me. Partner could have bid 3NT on tricks rather than HCP.

yup

What's up with this trend of painfully obvious doubles with excellent trumps?

Bare minimum, potentially mirrored, xxx in ♦. Doesn't seem too hard.

No, I'm pretty sure that's not it at all.

I read this last night and chose to think about my answers some more before I responded, because I was going to say something noncommital like "I don't feel strongly about opening or passing anything of them except hand 2 I'd always open." However I think Fred's hit the nail on the head, as usual, that vulnerability and position, and even to some extent opponents and other factors, are what would sway me to open or pass. In 3rd seat white I would definitely open all of them. In first seat red I could see myself passing all of them. I think I'd rarely open hand 3 except white in 3rd.