Re: How many questions about an opening bid before it's UI?

On Apr 23, 2:29 pm, Michael Angelo Ravera <marav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

> BTW: To me it is _clear_ that the lead was demostrably suggested by
> the questions (or I wouldn't have called the TD).

Unfortunately it appears you're all alone on this point---everybody
else here thinks it wasn't.  The response to the first question,
"Please explain", established that the 1C bid was artificial.  No UI
there---the question was a pretty much automatic response to the
alert.  The questions after that did not belabor the point about
clubs, nor did they refer to clubs in any way whatsoever, so unless
there's additional information you haven't told us, or a "table feel"
that we can't be aware of here, I can't understand why you would think
it says anything about clubs.

Try this: My right-hand opponent opens 2D, alerted.

   Me: "Please explain."
   LHO: "Mini-Roman".
   Me: "Could you be more specific?"  (I know that some play this as
11-15 and some as 10-13 and some have differing requirements about the
presence of spades or whatever.)
   LHO: "He has a three-suited hand, 11-15 HCP."
   Me: "Three suits... does that mean specifically 4-4-4-1, or could
he have a five-card suit and a void?"
   LHO: "Our agreement is that it's 4-4-4-1, but he could have a void
and a 5-card suit if it's a bad five-carder".
   Me: "And the short suit could be any of the four suits?"
   LHO: "Yes, right".

OK, so I've been grilling him pretty well.  But please explain to me:
exactly what about my questions suggests that I have diamond strength?


> Waiting wasn't an option since this director is
> notoriously bad about after the fact rulings.

Given that she told your partner that leader had an "obvious lead"
while the play was still in progress, I'd guess that she's not so hot
with before-the-fact rulings either.

                                 -- Adam