On Apr 24, 2:26 pm, Michael Angelo Ravera <marav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> On Apr 24, 7:37 am, Andrew <agump...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> I don't know Andrew. I just consider any unusual interest in an
> artificial bid (and my partner's first and canned explanation always
> includes the word "artificial") as showing interest in the artificial
> suit bid. Why else would he ask? Is he concerned about the nature of
> his peril from my high card strength (that was clearly stated)?
There are many possible reasons to ask questions besides interest in
clubs. A common one would be because one's defensive bidding
conventions vary based on the answer. Also, regardless of whether the
original explanation was clearly *stated*, it seems clear it was not
clearly *comprehended* which provides another possibility for the
extended questioning.
<snip>
> So, if, in this case, we allow that my LHO had some legitimate
> interest in the nature of his peril should he take an action
<snip>
> what action might he be considering? Oh, I WONDER IF HE HAS CLUBS!
And I wonder whether he has hearts, spades, diamonds, or NTs. To my
ear, his questions are consistent with:
1. a person who did not understand 1C was intended as strong and was
considering a natural 1NT overcall.
2. a person who plays sound overcalls against a standard or short
club, but light overcalls against a strong club. From his POV, if the
opening bid could include a weak NT, then his overcall would show a
sound hand whereas if the club opening is strong then he must pass and
balance to show a sound overcall.
3. a person who plays different conventional defenses against a strong
club and against a short club
4. A person with both majors trying to understand whether a 2C cue
will be interpreted as showing clubs or majors
5. A person trying to decide if and how high to preempt.
And all of this assumes that LHO actually understood your partner's
response. I am willing to bet the actual cause was LHO's mishearing or
miscomprehending the original explanation. It is hard to explain why
he was surprised when dummy tabled a balanced 16 count otherwise. But
if he did not understand that 1C showed a minimum of 15 HCP then his
questions, his surprise at the dummy and his subsequent complaint
about lack of disclosure all make sense (whether or not his complaint
has merit is a separate issue).
> To me this is case closed that the UI suggests particular
> interest in clubs (of course, he MIGHT have been interested to hear
> that the 1C bid promised at least two clubs or something so that he
> could hang a cue bid or takeout double on it, but that doesn't seem to
> fit the picture).
Why doesn't it fit the picture? Are you such a mind reader that you
can be certain these explanations are impossible? They don't even
sound all that unreasonable. Frankly, I think you have simply fixated
on a single possible explanation for LHO's behavior. And you are right
that some fairly large percentage of the time an opponent exhibiting
this behavior will hold clubs. And you are entitled to exploit that
information during the play if you choose.
But as I and others have shown there are many other possible
reasonable explanations for his questions. As long as there are
multiple possible explanations, then the act of questioning you is not
sending a single unambiguous message and you really have no claim for
adjustment on the board, even if the club lead worked out well. All of
this being said it is possible that UI really was the explanation for
the club lead. However, IMO the opponents' behaviors have not left a
clear clue and for that reason as a director I could not adjust in
your favor even if I thought the lead unusual and the defensive result
suspiciously good. If I thought the result suspicious, then I would
have to tell you to re****t it to a recorder.
> Now, the ruling depends upon what RHO might have led anyway, and, if
> the fact that he might have done something different might have worked
> to his disadvantage, and all that. I'm pretty sure that the TD got it
> right here.
>
> As a player, I can only determine the "Demonstrably suggested" part of
> "one play demonstrably suggested over another".
Unless you can show a direct link, not an inferred link (he must have
clubs because why else would he be asking?) between the UI and the
subsequent action then you have no case.
Andrew
|
