1eyedjack, on 2016-January-06, 23:50, said:
How do you come to that conclusion? We are not informed who gave the explanation for the 2H, but North's bidding is certainly consistent with the explanation provided.
We weren't told about any special conditions, so I think we can presume f2f with no screens, so explanations are given by the partner of the bidder, i.e. North. And his bidding is consistent with south being either weak or opening strength.
And from the subject line, I think we can take it as given that the director determined that it was indeed MI, not misbid/psych.
Quote
In *tournaments* in the Acol Club, psychs are banned. So in that environment you could conclude that it was either MI or an illegal call. But in the general Acol Club (and I think in team games), there is no bar on psychs.
Why couldn't it be a misbid? Maybe their agreement is opening strength, but South forgot. But I don't see how that environment is relevant, we're told that this is under ACBL jurisdiction.
Quote
If it was MI, then I would say it is more serious than "mere" MI. It can only be a culpable intent to mislead. No-one plays an artificial 2-suited 2H opener otherwise than in a regular partnership where something so basic as the strength of opener is agreed.
I assume you meant to say "is
not agreed".
But if someone plays it strong with some partners, weak with others, they can easily forget which style they're playing with the current partner, and give the wrong explanation.
If we somehow determine that he gave the wrong explanation intentionally, that's C-word territory.