On Apr 23, 1:21=A0pm, richlp <richl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 12:35=A0pm, Michael Angelo Ravera <marav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ACBL, Midchart, Dealer and Vulnerablity irrelevant. No hand records.
> > Partner and I are both BLMs. Opponents are both SLMs.
>
> > I opened 1C [ART, 15+, any shape] which partner alerted (approximately
> > in time. He is sometimes a slow alerter).
>
> > LHO asks for an explanation and gets "15 or more points and the club
> > bid is artificial".
>
> > LHO asks "could he have a weak no trump" (may have intended to ask
> > instead "do you play weak no trump"). Partner explains "No, 15 or more
> > points. I don't know anything about his shape right now".
>
> > LHO asks "so when would he open 1NT instead of 1C." Partner answers
> > "1NT would be completely different hand".
>
> > LHO may have asked another question or two, but ended up passing.
>
> > My partner ends up declaring (3NT, I believe). RHO leads a club and I
> > call the TD. When she arrived, I explained that the "lead may have
> > been 'inspired' [demonstrably suggested] by unauthorized information".
>
> > When I layed my dummy, LHO was somehow surprised to see a balanced 16
> > count. (Didn't listen, didn't comprehend, didn't understand. I don't
> > know. Language wasn't a problem. LHO and I are both third generation
> > of the same ethnic background and all 4 of us at the table have West
> > Coast accents).
>
> > When the (weak) TD arrived at the table, she basically ruled that the
> > lead was obvious (wrong thing to say in any case. I would have said
> > "play the hand and we'll have a look after you complete play").
> > Whether the ruling was right or wrong wasn't something that I was
> > going to try to determine at least until after the hand was played. I
> > don't even remember the result. I had called for a ruling and had
> > gotten one. I moved on.
>
> > It appears that my LHO talked to the head of our directors'
> > association and complained that I had "accused him of cheating". Well,
> > first, it isn't him in any case. It would be his partner's acting on
> > the UI that would be a viloation (not even cheating anymore than a
> > false start caused by the center sneezing in American Football is
> > cheating).
>
> > Second, he mumbled something about impropper disclosure, but I am
> > pretty sure that it was his own misunderstanding or failure to
> > comprehend implications.
>
> > The ACBL alert procedures specifically state that players are expected
> > to be prepared to defend against strong 1C openers and that no
> > prealert is required for them.
>
> > So, my question for the group, whether you agree with me about calling
> > the director or not in this particular case, is "How many questions
> > can your partner ask about a bid and then pass before it demonstrably
> > suggests a lead?"
>
> > QB: Yellow 41! Yellow Fourty-....
> > Center: HAAACHOO!
> > <Contact><No snap><Flags fly>
> > QB: ... one. Hut!
> > Ref: False Start #51 Offense. Simulated the start of play
>
> When asked ""so when would he open 1NT instead of 1C." =A0it seems
> reasonable to me to describe your opening NT bids. =A0The questions
> seemed geared to finding out if you played a strong, intermediate, or
> weak NT along with your big Club. =A0None of the questions appeared to
> focus on the club suit so it's hard for me to see what UI was
> transmitted.- Hide quoted text -
I agree with your interpretation of the third question. I would have
answered "Our opening 1NT range is 12-14".
BTW: To me it is _clear_ that the lead was demostrably suggested by
the questions (or I wouldn't have called the TD). The question is
whether my RHO would have lead a club anyway and thus didn't have any
logical alternative. The TD ruled that he would have led a club
anyway. I believe that I later determined that I agreed with her.
Opponents are not required to make a dumbass lead just because they
have UI, but since I am not permitted to look at their hands at the
time to determine whether they may have a logical alternative, I had
to register the question before I became dummy or I would have had to
have waited until after the hand was played and called the director to
look at RHO's hand. Waiting wasn't an option since this director is
notoriously bad about after the fact rulings.
|
