[blml] Two-way guess [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Ron Johnson]

richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes:
> 
> Ron Johnson:
> 
> >Double.
> >
> >How does this pair deal with 4-3-3-3 garbage?

(As you might guess, I've been down this road before)
> 
> Should the directors have split the score on the basis
> that South's force to game was wild or gambling, 

Doesn't meet my definition of wild or gambling. 
Certainly reasonable at teams. At worst it's
agressive, but there's nothing wrong with that
at teams.

But.

> and
> by bidding 3NT then later trying for a penalty South
> was attempting to perpetrate a double shot?

What are the "you're expected to protect yourself"
regs? You play the method in question and are aware 
of the 4-3-3-3 issue.

In practical terms, most players holding 4-3-3-3
garbage for the first time pass on the first round
regardless of whether that will make their next
bid a 2-suiter or a one suiter.

I call it the pray for rain adjunct. What they're
actually hoping is that somebody at the table
will take a call so they don't have to. (Or maybe
the game will be called on account of rain before 
it's their next turn)

As I said, I'd have asked.

Now I'm uncomfortable with the notion that 
you are in effect expected to assume MI.

IOW I wouldn't advocate treating this as an
attempted double-shot (and frankly I see no
problem with double-shots in any case)

Or perhaps to re-state: If their inadequate
disclosure in effect gives you a free ride,
I'm totally fine with it.