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

On Apr 24, 6:13=A0pm, Adam Beneschan <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 2:26 pm, Michael Angelo Ravera <marav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
> > So, if, in this case, we allow that my LHO had some legitimate
> > interest in the nature of his perill should he take an action (and
> > wasn't baiting us to trip up on our explanations, so that he could
> > claim MI and get an adjustment) and wasn't trying to learn how to play
> > our system, what action might he be considering?
>
> Maybe nothing. =A0Good players try to form a picture of the opponents'
> hands during the auction, instead of waiting until the auction is over
> and then trying to work everything out all at once. =A0If a player
> doesn't know your basic methods, not only will this hamper his ability
> to get a picture of your hand right away, it will also hamper his
> ability to understand your and your partner's bids through the rest of
> the auction. =A0That's a legitimate reason for trying to get some basic
> information immediately.
>
> If you're assuming that the only reasons for asking these kinds of
> questions are that LHO is either considering taking some immediate
> action, or is unethically trying to convey information about clubs to
> his partner, I think your assumption is dead wrong. =A0Maybe that's the
> basis for the disagreement we're having. =A0I've been trying to figure
> out why you are so intractably convinced that it's "obvious" that the
> questioner is suggesting something in clubs (and similarly in your
> example involving a 2C opening, which I think you're wrong about
> also), when nobody agrees with you and about a dozen other people here
> believe it's clear that LHO is *not* suggesting anything about clubs.
> The only things I can think of are either your conclusion is based on
> an assumption that the rest of us believe is incorrect, or that you've
> been affected by some bad past experiences involving unethical
> opponents. =A0Or (as some of us have suggested) that there's information
> about what happened at the table that you can't tell us, like body
> language. =A0But other than those, I'm at a loss.

I _never_ suggested that the _questions_ were unethical! I only said
that I believed that they demonstrably suggested interest in clubs. In
the particular case., RHO (who has commented in this thread!) made the
only lead that made sense to him (and apparently to every other RHO in
the room). This was the (correct) ruling at the table.

My whole point of posting the question to the newsgroup was not about
this case. My question was more or less as I stated it. It appears
that those who thought to post here disagree with me.

Apparently, it is the consensus of those in the group who have
expressed an opinion that opponents can ask a number of questions
about an artificial bid without interest in the artificial suit or
interest in taking some action.