[Poky]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-07, 09:37, said:

I disagree with this. I think that if a bid is forced on you by your system, it is an intrinsic part of your system and is "your agreement". It is not fair to the opponents if you can leave gaping holes in your system, and then when you make the bid that turns out to be forced you claim that it wasn't your agreement.

Nothing is forced by the system. Who said that? This is your assumption. Maybe even director's. But can you be sure that truth isn't somewhere else?

Who said, say, that you cannot (pretty logically) rebid:
- 4M with a weak-2 in that suit,
- 4NT with (4441) and 17-18,
- 5m (lowest minor) with (4441) and 19-20,
- 5M with 41(44) and 21-23,
- 5NT with 44(41) and 21-23?

In my view, the only thing that really isn't fair is if the expert opponent (who was told 2♦ can be (4441) 17-23) cries and moans after returning the ♠K, before asking (at least) himself what will an opponent with an borderline (4441) rebid.

What if opener had a weak-2 with 13 points and the A♠? You think you have a legitimate MI case? Please. People sometime make strange bids and that has nothing to do neither with their system nor with their agreements.

Learn players to think and protect themselves better and everyone at the table, including the director, will have an easier life. Giving them back an nebulous adjustment isn't the right way to achieve that, whatever you think about it. Bridge director isn't supposed to be anyone's nanny. But he is supposed to restore equity as better as he can.

[mycroft]

Poky, if they forgot the system, or had a disagreement about what call to make with the strong Marmic hand, then we would expect the original poster to mention that. If this is not the case, we can assume that this is either the correct bid for that hand, or that there is no agreement about what to do with it (most likely). Of course, at the table we ask these questions. Of course, if we're called or emailed as a TD about it, we ask those questions.

That's what makes this question so interesting. Misbid is boring and easy. Straight-up MI is fairly boring and slightly less easy. "No agreement about what to do with this hand" is actually quite interesting. The question of damage if given the "correct" explanation is interesting as well, as how often are you going to change your play in case declarer has the strong hand? Is it going to, in fact, be detrimental to your cause in the long run to not assume it's the weak hand?

But as far as "teach players to think and protect themselves better" is concerned, the Laws are against you on this one. The regulations are with you (in that "experienced enough players should protect themselves" - yes, they could ask "what do you do with the strong Marmic hand", but would anyone, hearing "6 to 10"?), but the regulations are designed to avoid Professional double-shots, not weird cases like this one.

[Cyberyeti]

It is not uncommon to play 4♦ as a preemptive raise in either major that is not so big that it means you want to be in a slam opposite the strong option. This is probably what's going on here, hence the correct bid is 4 of a held major on the 4441. Pick a major is a correct but incomplete description of this.

I used to play 3N as 5-9 4-4 majors over the multi, so that if partner does have strong balanced or strong 4441 he knows what to do.