On Apr 24, 3:09 am, Michael Angelo Ravera <marav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> On Apr 23, 6:08 pm, 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.
>
> ... 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. 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.
>
> 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.
Why?
> In my mind, one of the three facts necessary for an adjustment was
> there. "Play demonstrably suggested by the UI".
How did the UI suggest a *club lead*?
You have made the same point in several of your response through this
thread, (that you believed the questioning suggested a club lead) but
you have never stated a reason for that belief. I have often looked at
my own hand and been able to infer why LHO was hesitating or asking
questions. But that does nto mean that LHO was able to communicate his
interest via UI to his partner.
Even if your radar is correct that LHO has clubs you must convince a
director to believe you that UI for a club lead was present. And for
that you have to make a case linking LHO's behavior to clubs.
We can all see that UI was present. We disagree with you only because
we don't see how the UI suggested a club lead.
Andrew
|
