[blml] Obviously this is the prime duty

[David Burn]

[KC]

Let's say that you play against me and my Polish partner. Me and my partner
know each other quite well but we are not a regular partnership and didn't
have much time before the tournament to discuss our system.
 
[Gampas]

In your example where one side is playing a Raptor 1NT overcall and the
other a natural 1NT overcall the 2S will be fully explained as well as
either a transfer to clubs, weak with spades, or just competitive, by the
partner of the 2S bidder, based on his understanding of the meaning of the
bid in their system, with the same qualifications.
 
[DALB]

I think that in Konrad's example, the 2S bid was from the partner of the 1H
opener, not the responder to the 1NT overcall. That is, in this auction:

West     North     East     South
1H       1NT (1)   ?

(1) "He may have spades and a minor, or he may have a strong balanced hand -
I don't know."

East knows that West won't know what 2S means (or indeed what anything else
means, such as 2D if that would be forcing over a Raptor 1NT but competitive
over a natural 1NT). East-West should of course take up transfers over an
opponent's 1NT overcall whatever it means, so that they will not have this
problem, but this approach may not have reached some parts of Poland yet.

As Gampas says, there is a legal remedy against opponents who do not play
the same system (at least, there is in England - there may not be in
Poland). But the legal remedy is likely to prevent people from doing what
they have come to the club and paid good money to do: play bridge. That is
why I have some sympathy with the notion that the dWS is on balance more
likely to permit a particular hand to be completed without recourse to the
forces of law, when the dWS explanation fortuitously matches partner's
cards.

Should the situation arise in practice, I would have no objection if the TD
were to say to North-South: "In the circumstances, I will allow you to
select which of the possibilities you are going to believe, and bid
accordingly." That way, there would be as much chance of completing the hand
as under the dWS approach, and perhaps everyone will get their table money's
worth. Of course, such a procedure is in breach of several laws, but it does
not seem to me inequitable or impractical.

I hope that what I have written goes some way to answering Jerry Fusselman's
point; my apologies for having overlooked it earlier.

David Burn
London, England