On Apr 23, 12:35 pm, 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".
Partner would have done better to give a one word answer: "No." The
additional information (repeated from the first explanation) does not
help to elucidate his response.
> LHO asks "so when would he open 1NT instead of 1C." Partner answers
> "1NT would be completely different hand".
A better explanation would have defined your criteria for a 1NT
opener. "A completely different hand" might mean "we open 1NT with a
preempt in either minor" or some equally oddball criteria. LHO does
not know.
> 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".
Normally, when inexperienced players ask questions about a call
because they have length in the bid suit, they ask questions like "is
that call natural? How many cards does it show? etc.) Nothing about
the actual questions suggests any particular interest in the club
suit. LHO did seem interested in the amount of values you had. And
that suggests he has values of his own and was considering taking a
bid (which he rejected presumably because he felt it was too
dangerous) all of that is UI to RHO.
I would only call the director when I can make a clear and compelling
case that UI communicating a particular message is present. In this
case, although UI was present, the second test fails--there is nothing
to connect the UI to clubs.
> 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.
He asked a direct question: "so when would he open 1NT instead of 1C."
and your partner did not answer it.
> 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?"
You were within your rights to call the director, but never in a
million years would I have done it in this situation. You know, or
should know, that bridge players are sensitive about having their
motives questioned. Unless you can make a clear case linking the UI to
a subsequent action don't call--you are just upsetting people for no
reason. If at the end of the hand you decide that the club lead was
just to weird, then re****t it to the re****ter. Unless you can make a
connection between the UI and the subsequent action you should not ask
for an adjustment.
Andrew
|
