On Apr 23, 6:08=A0pm, Andrew <agump...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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
I wouldn't call a Silver Life Master (1000-2500 Masterpoints) exactly
"inexperienced"
> 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.
=2E.. and if after asking his questions, he had doubled or bid any
number of clubs or used an artificial bid that showed or included
clubs or possibly included clubs (H+m, S+m, S+O/S, odc), I wouldn't
have said a damned thing. Our methods for coping with overcalls below
2NT are almost as good (better at level, worse at strain) as without
an overcall (probably lots better than most Monster 2C/2D opener's
cope with overcalls below 3NT). Our methods of coping with UI are not
as good. Since this game doesn't have hand records, I'll never know
whether RHO had a logical alternative or not. What I did get was a
rulingthat indicated that I should play on and I did.
I didn't ask this question to say "see how evil my opponents were." My
motivation was to practice what I preach.
SNIPPAGE
>
> 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. =A0If 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.
This was more of a case of protection than anything else. At the time
that I called the TD, I had no way of knowing whether a club lead
would benefit or hurt the defense. I only knew that I thought that it
was suggested by UI. I had no idea, if RHO had a logical alternative
or not.
In my mind, one of the three facts necessary for an adjustment was
there. "Play demonstrably suggested by the UI".
If the TD deternined that I was right, in order to get an adjustment,
the TD would STILL also have to determine that there was damage and
that RHO had a logical alternative that wasn't suggested by the UI.
This is a case where I reckon that I have to call the TD even though
there is only a 20-30% chance that calling is going to matter.
(80% that the TD believes me, and two 50-50s that we are damaged and
that there is an LA)
|
