Did I get hosed by the director?

[sfi]

I meant UI for your side. You can't ask a question and then pass or double or bid based on the answer to the question. Well, you can, but at the risk of creating UI for partner.

 

That's true for any questions you contemplate asking at the table. The situations discussed here don't particularly give rise to any greater risk of UI for partner. Partner's UI considerations are likely to be limited to leading decisions given that the opposition are conducting a constructive auction in these examples, so it could be argued that it's less of an issue than normal.

 

Plus, we all get UI from our partner all the time. Most of us are pretty good at ignoring or handling it so there's no real reason to think this situation is any different.

[pran]

I meant UI for your side. You can't ask a question and then pass or double or bid based on the answer to the question. Well, you can, but at the risk of creating UI for partner.

Most bridge is not played with screens.

Sure you can.

And the only UI possibly created for your partner is the fact that you might have made a different call with a different answer from your opponent.

 

All information from your question, the answer you received and the call you made is authorized to your partner. What is unauthorized (and actually is a serious offence) is if you have an understanding with your partner that the fact or the way you ask signals some information to him.

[blackshoe]

It has been suggested that I close this thread, on the grounds that the disagreement regarding entitlement to the meaning of future calls will not be resolved. Now we're off on a different tangent. We've gone far beyond simple rulings. If folks are satisfied that the original question has been answered, let's take the other questions somewhere else please. Start a new thread, if you like. I don't like closing threads, but this one has gone on long enough. Anything not directly pertinent to the original post, and I will close it.