MI case from another forum

[nige1]

No, we are told that it must either be seriously bad (and unrelated to the infraction), or be wild, or be gambling. Both 3C & 5C strike me as wild bids.

Whenever there's a possibility that your opponents are guilty of an infraction that might damage you, Bridge-law goes out of its way to hobble you further, exacerbating potential damage:

• You are meant to "protect yourself" when that often implies imposing UI constraints on partner's actions.
• You must try to guess what actions a director might judge to be SEWOGs, so that you can avoid them, even when, for your partnership, such actions would be normal.

A bidding quiz often provides examples of a call, advocated by a partnership, but regarded as too dangerous by other pollees. (For example, locals used to regard the weak two as insane, especially when vulnerable).

 

These legal fetters become especially irksome when you refrain from (what you regard as) automatic action that probably would succeed but it turns out that opponents are innocent of law-breaking.

 

IMO such rulles are unfair, add no value, and should be dropped.

[barmar]

It's not holding someone to expert standards to consider bidding at the 5 level with nothing except KJTxx in a suit that an opponent has bid naturally to be off the wall. 3♣ was merely questionable, but 5♣ is crazy. The way he tried to justify it based on the MI just doesn't hold muster.