[olegru]

Theoretical question.
All green. 2 ♦ opening by N alerted and explained as “destructive, at least 4-4 in majors.” Convention is legal by convention policy in place.

Actual North’s hand is something like:
♠ AJxx
♥ AJ9xx
♦ 108xx
♣ –

EW got in ridiculous contract and claimed that they would never bid it if they were aware “destructive” opening hand could be so good.

NS confirm that this hand is inside their range for 2 ♦ opening. By word “destructive” they mean that their bidding after 2 ♦ opening is not constructive and have very limited options to investigate game. Basically they treat as a “destructive” any opening with 10 or less points.

Would you call it misinformation or EW were supposed to ask additional questions to make sure their and opponents understanding of “destructive bid” are the same.

[ahydra]

I'm no TD but to me that's not MI but "insufficient explanation" or whatever it's called - a point range would be better. Of course EW should have asked in more detail or checked the CC (though the blame IMO would be with NS still if it didn't show the point range).

ahydra

[Pict]

Can't see much a leg to stand on.

[hrothgar]

Is this a theoretical question or a real one? (You start by stating that this is a theoretical question, but then veer immediately into a discussion of an actual incident).

In any case, I don't believe that the expression "destructive" is described anywhere in the annals of bridgedom...

EW should keep their score... They made an unwarranted assumption. Tough *****.

NS probably deserve a proceedural penalty. When asked about the definition of a bid, they have an obligation to provide complete information. They provide no information about the strength shown by their 2♦ opening.

[olegru]

Theoretical... in tearms of there were no any director calls or discussions about MI during the real play. It was a side topic of discussion unrelated to bridge laws.

[bluejak]

I think it is MI. It is no good saying they should have given a point range or something: of course they should, but we do not discuss in this forum what happens when everything is done perfectly. We discuss what to do when something did happen.

In my view, if they describe the bid as "destructive" it does not cover the hand shown, so it is MI.

[mgoetze]

If the explanation had been "0-10 points", I still wouldn't have expected this hand... but you can't punish people for bad bridge, I guess.

Anyway, the word "destructive" should never be used when describing bridge agreements.

[jdonn]

Rule how you will based on it, but I firmly believe 'destructive' is in this case both an inadequate and incorrect explanation.

[nige1]

olegru, on Sep 27 2010, 01:29 PM, said:

Theoretical question.
All green.  2 ♦ opening by N alerted and explained as “destructive, at least 4-4 in majors.” Convention is legal by convention policy in place. Actual North’s hand is something like: ♠ AJxx ♥ AJ9xx ♦ 108xx ♣  –
EW got in ridiculous contract and claimed that they would never bid it if they were aware “destructive” opening hand could be so good.
NS confirm that this hand is inside their range for 2 ♦ opening. By word “destructive” they mean that their bidding after 2 ♦ opening is not constructive and have very limited options to investigate game. Basically they treat as a “destructive” any opening with 10  or less points.
Would you call it misinformation or EW were supposed to ask additional questions to make sure their and opponents understanding of “destructive bid” are the same.

"Destructive, at least 4-4 in majors" is incomplete but seems just as descriptive of this hand as "Weak at least 5 hearts" would be if you opened it with 2♥. In the latter case, the director may again deplore your partnership methods but if such a hand fitted within them, should the director impose a penalty for misinformation? However you rule, I think both cases should get the same ruling.

[mgoetze]

nige1, on Sep 28 2010, 11:18 AM, said:

"Destructive, at least 4-4 in majors" is incomplete but seems just as descriptive of this hand

To me, "destructive" implies a hand no sane person would open normally at the 1-level. The given hand is, to me, an automatic 1♥ opening playing almost any system (well, 1♦ if that happens to be the opening bid which shows hearts...).

[jallerton]

The term "destructive" means different things to different people, but surely this is a term to describe how the bid is used rather than carrying any implication of what it actually shows.

Whilst the lack of description on what the bid shows might be misinformation, it is unlikely that the opponents would be able to successfully claim damage, as they could have asked a follow-up question if they had wanted to know what, if anything, the bid actually showed.

[peachy]

*destructive* was perhaps meant as the opposite of *constructive* but nevertheless, the term means different things to different people, as can be evidenced by the hand actually held. Same goes to *preemptive*, it does not mean the same to everybody. Still, explanations should be given in a language the opponents understand, such as HCP, suit lengths, etc.

Even though I do think this is MI, the opponents should have asked if they wanted to know what it means, to the bidder and his partner.

[blackshoe]

Preemptive: (Bridge) denoting a bid, typically an opening bid, intended to be so high that it prevents or interferes with effective bidding by the opponents.

Constructive: (of a bid) indicating definite values.

Destructive: causing great and irreparable harm or damage.

Interestingly, the ACBL General Convention Chart, MidChart, and SuperChart all provide: "Disallowed: Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods", so if this were in the ACBL, one would expect an agreement described as "destructive" to be ruled illegal.

[aguahombre]

Recommend never using "preemptive" to describe an agreement or a bid. Preemptive is anything that jumps the auction, depriving the other three players of bidding room. Even good hands shown by jumps are preemptive. It means nothing.

[Poky]

olegru, on Sep 27 2010, 07:29 PM, said:

EW got in ridiculous contract and claimed that they would never bid it if they were aware “destructive” opening hand could be so good.

Just ask EW what bid would have been different if they did know 2♦ is "majors, 0-10" and why. And why didn't they ask for clarification of the "majors, destructive" sentence if they had a tough borderline call.

If you have any authority and EW have any experience, this question should solve your "case" automatically, believe me.