[blml] Obviously this is the prime duty [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Matthias Berghaus]

David Burn schrieb:
> Why is this so? Because, of course, such an indication is unauthorised
> information to partner - it would not matter in the least if only the
> opponents became aware that a mistake had been made. But just as an
> explanation is not a "communication" under Law 73B1, it is not an
> "indication" under Law 75D2 either, because partner is supposed to be
> unaware of it. Again, following the de Wael interpretation to its logical
> conclusion, we reach this absurdity:
>
> North     South
> 1C        1H
> 1S        2D (1)
> 2NT       Pass
>
> (1) Alerted by North and explained as fourth suit forcing to game.
>
> South, who knows that the partnership methods are that fourth suit is not
> forcing to game and that North's 2NT shows a minimum, passes. According to
> the dWS he is not allowed to do this, because it is an indication that a
> mistake has been made. Do you consider that South is in fact acting
> illegally?
>
>   
Rats. I came up with this line of argument this afternoon, but had to 
leave to play some Bridge before I found an example that worked, and now 
David has beaten me to the punch. :-)