On Apr 23, 2:00=A0pm, Michael Angelo Ravera <marav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> On Apr 23, 1:03=A0pm, 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.
>
> LHO could have asked "what is your 1NT range?" if that is what he
> wanted to know (and since this isn't implicit in either the question
> or the answer about the 1C opener, it would have been reasonable). My
> LHO never got the question out of his mouth that would have suggested
> that this is what he wanted to know and my partner never got it into
> his head that this is what he wanted to know.
>
> Full Disclosure doesn't require us to guess about what opponents want
> to know. Any request for information is supposed to be a prompt for
> full disclosure. I doubt that anyone who plays our system would offer
> anything beyond the "15+, ART, F1" that is our agreement. Everything
> else comes from Bridge Logic.
>
> BTW: My LHO may have been confused because I play 1C differently with
> different partners. Not that he is supposed to remember, but NONE of
> the systems that I have ever played have an alertable 1C opener with a
> minimum balanced hand.
>
> 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?"
I take your ultimate question to be rhetorical. A club lead could be
demonstrably suggested by one question that pointedly emphasizes that
the 1C bid is artificial, not showing clubs. This suggestion could be
conveyed, not even by the words used, but by "special emphasis, tone,
gesture," or movement. On the other hand, 20 questions about various
aspects of your system, including the meanings of alternative opening
bids, your treatments of strong C defenses, and the meaning of
responder's possible bids, could be asked in a way that does not
suggest a club lead.
Your description of the questions asked does not mention nonverbal
cues or undue tonal emphasis on the artificial nature of the C. If
asked to rule on the quoted questions, I would not consider a club
lead to be based on UI.
While players are expected to be prepared to encounter big club
systems and no pre-alert is required, I nevertheless provided a
written prealert when playing a big club system. It explained that 1C
was artificial with 15 or more HCP, but it would not be a balanced 15
to 17, a balanced 21 to 23, or a 12 to 17 4-4-4-1 hand. In some cases
I'm sure this was more than the opponents wanted to know.
Your obligation to provide relevant full disclosure does not depend on
OP asking the right question(s), but an inartful question may obscure
what information OP is really seeking. The question, "could he have a
weak NT?" might indicate that OP missed the 15 HCP part of the
explanation, or it might ask whether you have been known to psych a
big club opening, or it might have inartfully attempted to establish
what you would open with a balanced 15 to 17. When confronted with a
novel system, OP cannot be expected to fully grasp its ramifications
when informed that 1C artificially shows any 15 or more HCP, or when
given the unhelpful answer that a 1N opening would be "completely
different" from a 1C opening. Reading between the lines, I suspect it
could be completely different by 1 HCP.
I'm in favor of experimenting with different systems, but the price to
be paid sometimes involves patiently explaining things that seem quite
obvious to you. Indeed, I lost a ruling by failing to alert my
partner's p***** in response to a one-level opening that was not a big
club. Bridge logic may dictate that partner may pass with a 10 count
when the most your opener shows is 14, but it is unusual enough to
call for an explanation.
|
