[BLML] Fourth suit farce

Tony Musgrove ardelm at optusnet.com.au
Sun May 17 09:10:16 CEST 2015

David Grabiner:
Experienced players are expected to protect themselves.  If they know
that the explanation is impossible, they cannot be damaged by MI.  I
don't know whether this particular explanation is impossible, though;
there may be some players who describe a system but play some bids which
are non-systemic, or even inconsistent.  (For example, in the US, many
players play four-suit transfers over 1NT but have the agreement that
1N-2C; 2H-2N shows 8-9 points and four spades, and thus they have no way
to invite game in NT without a four-card major.)
A more clear example would be a 1NT overcall by a passed hand, explained
as 15-17 points, this cannot be MI because the opponents know the
explanation is wrong.
Tony (Sydney):  exactly, if both the opponents know the explanation is
wrong, there can hardly be any damage. 
Of course, there may still be UI floating around, but not likely in this
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Richard Hills <mailto:hildalirsch at gmail.com>  
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List <mailto:blml at rtflb.org>  
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 7:23 PM
Subject: [BLML] Fourth suit farce
A while ago I was partnering an intelligent but inexperienced friend
against two expert opponents. Using the Aussie version of the Acol
system I opened 1C. Partner correctly announced my call as showing four
or more clubs. LHO overcalled 1D, pard responded 1H, RHO passed and I
rebid 1S. Now partner incorrectly alerted and explained this as fourth
suit forcing. 
Was this a misexplanation infraction? My expert opponents knew me well
and knew Aussie Acol well, so therefore also knew that pard's
explanation could not be true.
Best wishes,
Richard Hills


Blml mailing list
Blml at rtflb.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150517/31c61815/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Blml mailing list