[BLML] Fourth suit farce

David Grabiner grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu
Sun May 17 16:39:22 CEST 2015


If you play a Strong Pass system, you would have pre-alerted the system or alerted the opening pass (according to the rules in your jurisdiction), and thus a 1NT "overcall" showing either 15-17 or 18-20 would be normal; you could be misinformed if 1NT showed 18-20 and were told that it showed 15-17.  The MI applies here because your opponents do not know the explanation is wrong; they would know from the basic knowledge of your system that 15-17 is possible.  If your convention card is marked "Acol" or "2/1" or "Standard American" or "Precision", then the explanation of 15-17 is impossible (and if you are actually playing a forcing pass, the convention card and failure to alert are the MI). 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Richard Hills 
  To: Bridge Laws Mailing List 
  Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2015 3:25 AM
  Subject: Re: [BLML] Fourth suit farce


  David Grabiner suggested:


  "AÂ 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."


  In my youth I played a Strong Pass system, in which I would pass as dealer with 15+ points. A subsequent 1NT overcall would indeed promise 15-18 points.


  Best wishes,


  Richard Hills
    ----- Original Message -----
    From:Â Richard Hills

  On Sunday, May 17, 2015, David Grabiner <grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:

    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.)
    Â 
    AÂ 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.
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Richard Hills 
      To: Bridge Laws Mailing List 
      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
      http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Blml mailing list
  Blml at rtflb.org
  http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150517/88020507/attachment.html 


More information about the Blml mailing list