On Apr 23, 2:45=A0pm, Adam Beneschan <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2:00 pm, Michael Angelo Ravera <marav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 23, 1:03 pm, dancl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > > It appears from your description of the hand that the opponents were
> > > trying to figure out what an opening bid of 1NT means in your system
> > > in whichever seat and vulnerability you happened to be in in this
> > > hand. =A0It appears that your partner was not willing to tell them.
>
> > > I can't find any UI here.
>
> > Yes, my partner could have answered: "Apart from some 5+-level
> > preempts, 1C is the ONLY bid we have explicitly to show a hand with 15
> > or more HCP. Therefore, all other bids that he could have made are
> > limited to 14 HCP or would have been a guess as to what the final
> > contract should be or would have asked for some specific cards for a
> > grand slam." It seems to me that all of this is implied in the "Any
> > 15+, artificial, forcing" or the "STR ART F1" on our convention card
> > explanation.
>
<GOOD STUFF SNIPPED>
> Well, I might have; in the system I used to play, I may well have
> volunteered the information that 22-23 balanced hands with no 5-card
> major would have done something different. =A0I'm pretty sure I did, at
> least some of the time, although it might have depended on how
> impatient I felt the questioner was to get on with the proceedings.
>
> > Everything
> > else comes from Bridge Logic.
>
> No, it doesn't. =A0Please see above.
>
> By the way, I'm noticing something interesting about your post.
> You've given lots of reasons why LHO should have figured out, or asked
> differently, if he wanted to know your notrump range---or at least
> that 15+ hands were excluded from your notrump range. =A0You've argued
> that your verbal explanation of 1C should have been enough, and that
> the abbreviated explanation of 1C on your convention card should have
> been enough, and that LHO could have explicitly asked for your notrump
> range if he had wanted to know, and that "everything else comes from
> Bridge Logic".
Our Opening NT section is excepted as follows:
1NT: "12-14 (no 4cm)"
2NT: "See Conv NT"
3NT: "See Conv NT"
Conv NT:
2NT: PRE 5-4+ minors USU 5-10
3NT: SOLm no O/S A or K.
<SNIPPAGE>
> > However, my actual question has nothng to do with my opponents' or my
> > partner's ethics, but of my own. I'll repeat it: HOW MANY QUESTIONS
> > DOES PARTNER HAVE TO ASK ABOUT AN OPENING BID BEFORE A LEAD IS
> > DEMONSTARBLY SUGGESTED?"
>
> And I'll repeat my answer: this depends on what questions he asks.
My appologies to you alone. You are almost the only one who actually
tried to answer my question! I also wasn't following up to your post.
Your answer apparently is "The exact number doesn't matter. It depends
upon the extent to which the request for information stresses the
artificial nautre of the bid."
I'm not certain that I completely agree with you (although I do in
large part). My thinking is that somewhere between "Please explain"
and 35 questions later comes a point when a lead is demostrably
suggested.
However, if LHO had asked all of his questions (maybe even more than
he actually did) and then said "so, to summarize, it's artificial,
forcing, and shows 15+ HCP, and you have no other way to bid any other
hands with 15+ HCP, and he may have anywhere from zero to about eleven
clubs" and then doubled. I wouldn't have had much to say.
|
