BBO Discussion Forums: UI - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

UI

#21 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,696
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2012-January-13, 09:01

The OP has used some statements "East asked a number of questions" and "led to East showing considerable interest" which certainly would need to be investigated. Do E-W accept these characterisations? In particular, let's get a clear time line.
1. North bids 4
2. East asks what this means
3. North responds "splinter" but (presumably) does not give full disclosure
4. East asks for the point range. What additional mannerisms represent the "considerable interest"?
5. North ?
6. East ?

What were the remaining questions. If this is all then the questions do not (to me) demonstrably suggest a club holding so much as, for example, quite possibly holding spade support without the values to raise. Or perhaps East was just peeved at having to ask more than once for disclosure. Perhaps East knows North has a history of limited disclosure and has been bitten before. Who knows unless the Director finds out why they were asking. If the Director does find out that East passed information about clubs then the ruling is obvious of course.

Finally, the last set of regulations I read regarding stop procedures (I think German) said specifically that questions were to be asked during the 10 second pause time. They did not say that the pause time should be extended thereafter. So it is clear there is not unanimity in how this regulation is to be adjudicated.
(-: Zel :-)
0

#22 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,589
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2012-January-13, 09:41

 Zelandakh, on 2012-January-13, 09:01, said:

The OP has used some statements "East asked a number of questions" and "led to East showing considerable interest" which certainly would need to be investigated. Do E-W accept these characterisations? In particular, let's get a clear time line.
1. North bids 4
2. East asks what this means
3. North responds "splinter" but (presumably) does not give full disclosure

I hope it was South who responded.

Quote

What were the remaining questions. If this is all then the questions do not (to me) demonstrably suggest a club holding so much as, for example, quite possibly holding spade support without the values to raise. Or perhaps East was just peeved at having to ask more than once for disclosure. Perhaps East knows North has a history of limited disclosure and has been bitten before. Who knows unless the Director finds out why they were asking. If the Director does find out that East passed information about clubs then the ruling is obvious of course.

Asking questions about hand strength doesn't seem to express special interest in the club suit. But maybe asking these questions suggests that East has some values. This gives West some safety in bidding his 2-suiter.

Quote

Finally, the last set of regulations I read regarding stop procedures (I think German) said specifically that questions were to be asked during the 10 second pause time. They did not say that the pause time should be extended thereafter. So it is clear there is not unanimity in how this regulation is to be adjudicated.

The purpose of the Stop card rule is to hide whether or not you were taking time to decide on an action. I'm with blackshoe in thinking that you usually wouldn't even start your consideration until after the answer to your question. What if it takes 10+ seconds for the opponent to answer the question, does that really mean there's no UI from a fast call after the answer?

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

3 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users