[blml] DWS - demonstrating the fallacy?

[David Burn]

[HdW]

Nowhere does it say that - but what is the penalty for MI? Correction if
damage. How can there be damage when the description fits the hand
perfectly?

[DALB]

Quite easily. As I understand the matter (though I have not followed the
example too closely) it concerns a situation in which:

South opens 1C, explained by North as Vienna when it is in fact no such
thing. West passes, and North bids 1NT. This by the actual North-South
agreement shows 6-9 balanced with no major, but a dWS South explains it as
game-forcing (and then passes it).

As it happens, North-South cannot make more than 1NT due to an unfavourable
lie of cards. But East would have bid 2S over a 6-9 1NT, and that would have
made (or North would have bid on over it and gone minus). Over a
game-forcing 1NT, East was understandably reluctant to enter the auction.

I seem to recall a case involving (I think) Garozzo, who was told that his
LHO had five hearts when the partnership agreement was that LHO's bidding
only showed four hearts. The explanation was not corrected by LHO because
she (I think it was Karen McCallum) actually had five hearts. Garozzo did
not lead a heart against the final contract because of the explanation - but
a heart lead would have worked better than his actual choice. The score was
adjusted, and rightly so. Maybe Adam knows more about this than I can
remember; it may have happened in an ACBL event.

David Burn
London, England