[blml] Obviously this is the prime duty

[David Burn]

It has just occurred to me that the footnote to Law 75 is yet another
refutation of the dWS:

[Law 75]

In both cases [South's bid is correct, North's explanation wrong; South's
bid is wrong, North's explanation correct] South, having heard North's
explanation, knows that his own 1NT bid has been misinterpreted. This
knowledge is "unauthorised information" (see Law 16A), so South must be
careful not to base subsequent actions on this information.

[DALB]

Now, a "subsequent action" includes an explanation of North's 5D bid in the
dWS example (South bids 4NT for minors, North explains it as Blackwood and
responds 5D), which South must therefore not misexplain according to the
partnership methods.

Steve Willner observes correctly in another post that the dreaded L75D2 has
not been obliterated; instead, it has become L20F5a. I thank him for the
information with all the warmth I can muster.

David Burn
London, England