Re: inn err Ni manor

brian wrote:
> On 09/02/2017 03:23 PM, Robert Frick wrote:
>>
>> So, if my partner describes my 4NT as being for the minors, and I describe his 5D response as showing one control, that has done nothing to correct his misexplanation? Is that what you want to say?
>>
>> Isn't everyone at the table going to think differently?
>
>
> OK, let me pose a question assuming your opinion is the correct one,
> Robert.
>
> My partner plays different systems with different partners, and
> occasionally gets them confused. I make what I think is a natural bid,
> he alerts and, on request, tells' opponents that it's a gadget of
> which I've never heard. He then makes his bid, and it sounds like a
> forcing response.
>
> If you want an example, say that I've opened a natural weak 2D, pard
> alerts and explains it as Flannery, which I don't know, and pard then
> bids 2NT. I'm used to that being Ogust over my weak 2D.
>
> Now, what do I do over his rebid so as not to correct his
> misexplanation? It's easy with Richard's interpretation, of course...
>

There is one extremely MAJOR difference here, Brian.
Explaining the convention rightly/wronglycreates UI for partner.
Making a bid does not.
The bid that you are making is the only one that will compy with the UI 
regulations concerning the UI you received from partner. If ever there 
was an excuse to break L20F5, this one is certainly it. You are all so 
eager to allow the simple breaking, and now you complain about a much 
more complicated issue?

Let me give you a counter-counter example.

South misexplains, North does nothing to correct this, and makes a bid 
which conforms to his UI obligations (like your 3NT example above). This 
wakes up South, who now corrects his previous explanation and makes a 
call which returns the auction to a sensible strain. Nothing wrong? OK?
But now suppose that in addition to making the call, North also gives 
some indication (either illegally by saying something or "legally" by 
explaining South's call "correctly"). Now South has UI. He still makes 
the same call, but now it can be said to be based on the UI received. 
Isn't the second situation much more akin to "real" bridge?
The second situation almost never occurs in practice, because:
a- the players in the NOrth seat "know" that they should not say 
anything, so the illegal UI never occurs;
b- the situation with the "legal" UI also almost never occurs, because 
follow-up questions are very rare.
But if you are going to start ruling that the "legal" UI becomes 
mandatory, won't people start asking follow-up questions just in case?
I don't like that situation, which is why I believe the DWS response 
ought to be admissible, and even encouraged.
Well, to be perfectly clear, I believe the DWS response IS admissible, 
as there is no law or regulation (yet) which prevents a player from 
giving it. But such a regulation would be a huge step backwards!

Herman.

>
> Brian.
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>
>
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml