Pick your poison

[awm]

LHO deals and opens 1♦. Partner bids 2♦ michaels, showing 5-5 in the majors either weak or strong. RHO doubles, showing values and interest in penalizing at least one major. You hold:

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=s4hq98dkt6ckqj843]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

You are unfavorable at IMP (swiss team) scoring. What is your plan?

[Apollo81]

I don't know why I would try a 6-? club fit at the 3 level when I have a 5-3 heart fit that I can play in 2.

 

2♥/sit for me.

[hrothgar]

2♥ and sit

 

WTP ?

[P_Marlowe]

2H and pass, wtp?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[skjaeran]

As all other posters and voters, I completely fail to find a problem here.

 

Obviously there's a story coming.

[mikeh]

Absent the double, I would seriously consider making an invitational noise here: partner saw the vulnerability as well, I assume, and 4♥ looks pretty good opposite a lot of hands... AJ10xx AKxxx x xx is good enough that I want to be in a vulnerable game, and the contract might be even better.

 

However, the double does change the odds a little, tending to suggest that either one of the opps is psyching or partner doesn't have the same idea of what a red v white michaels looks like as I do. I mean, to play Michaels as 'weak' in an absolute sense, at this heat, at imps, is junior bridge.

 

So I make the obvious wtp 2♥... and await the story

 

BTW, 3♣ followed by 3♥ is probably somewhat descriptive, and I can see an argument for this being the correct approach now that they have doubled, because I think the standard treatment following that approach is that they are in a forcing auction... but do they 'know' that they are forced to bid over 3♣? I wouldn't bet on it.

[Walddk]

AJ10xx AKxxx x xx is good enough that I want to be in a vulnerable game

But he can't have that hand, Mike. We were told weak or strong; this is intermediate.

 

He is weak, so I there is no alternative to 2♥. Like all others, I fail to see the problem, although there must be a follow-up we would not expect unless this was presented as a problem.

 

Roland

[effervesce]

2♥ for me, but since this is posted I would not be surprised if RHO actually meant the X to be a diamond raise.

[cherdano]

I would redouble when 2♥X comes back to me, if I am sure opponents won't run.

Oh, and I don't think it is poisonous at all, smells like a tasty steak to me.

[Fluffy]

I would redouble when 2♥X comes back to me, if I am sure opponents won't run.

Oh, and I don't think it is poisonous at all, smells like a tasty steak to me.

Teh problem with this is that redouble normally asks partner to bid his best suit, and that rates to be spades.

[effervesce]

So-what's the story?

[HeavyDluxe]

Ok, this is by far the most one sided poll I've seen.

 

2H and sit FTW!!

[the hog]

2H also. Wait to see what happens here.

[jillybean]

Even I can get this one - 2♥

[awm]

The 1♦ opening bid was alerted as precision (could be short). The 2♦ bid was described by bidder's partner as michaels (offline bridge) and the guy holding this hand bid 3♣. When this was doubled, he elected to sit for it. The four hands were something like this:

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=s763ha6daq9832ct9&w=skj2hk53dj7ca7652&e=saqt985hjt742d54c&s=s4hq98dkt6ckqj843]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Of course, E/W decision to penalize 3♣ (which makes easily) can be questioned, but it's hard to have an intelligent auction to 4♠ when opponents have effectively "psyched" holding five cards in that suit. Partner and I were E/W here and called the director, feeling that we had perhaps been misinformed about the N/S agreement (i.e. north apparently thought 2♦ was natural over a precision diamond, and south's action seemed weird if he really is certain that 2♦ is michaels). The director ruled no adjustment -- south bid 3♣ because he thought this was right and it did not in any way indicate their agreement was anything but michaels. Their convention card was marked michaels over major and minor, but nothing about artificial bids. N/S claimed not to be a regular partnership, but they did have a filled out (on computer) convention card which included a defense to strong club, and we had pre-alerted our short 1♦ opening before the round (they chose not to discuss defenses to it).

[jtfanclub]

South alerted it, and bid 3♣. Obviously, he was not 'awakened' by something he himself said. North pretended not to hear the alert and bid accordingly...he passed.

 

Yeah, I know, there may be an adjustment here as mistaken explanation. Probably should be. But there's nothing wrong with the 3♣ bid.

[awm]

South alerted it, and bid 3♣. Obviously, he was not 'awakened' by something he himself said. North pretended not to hear the alert and bid accordingly...he passed.

 

Yeah, I know, there may be an adjustment here as mistaken explanation. Probably should be. But there's nothing wrong with the 3♣ bid.

The only thing "wrong" with the 3♣ bid is that is suggests south may not be certain that his partner's call is michaels and is hedging his bets. Note that virtually no one bids 3♣ opposite a michaels call (i.e. the result of this poll). If south were to bid 2♥ (as virtually everyone here does) then he would be doubled and his partner (with the UI from the misexplanation) would be forced to pass. So 3♣ is effectively a "safety" bid in case partner forgot the agreement.

 

All very well, but it doesn't seem fair that he can explain the agreement one way, then make a bid which purposely protects against partner having a different hand. Certainly the combination of north and south's bidding strongly suggests that they do not have a firm agreement that 2♦ is michaels.

[Guest Jlall]

Don't think you can ever win that one Adam, it's too thin even though you might well be right. South can just say he was sure it was Michaels but thought clubs would play better or w/e and you cannot prove him wrong since it's an MI case not a UI case.

[awm]

Agree with Justin, we cannot win this one. Some other ones we cannot win:

 

Against the same pair, partner opens 1♣ (alerted, strong club) and RHO overcalls 1♦. While I am contemplating my bid, RHO gestures frantically at his partner, and LHO notices this and alerts the 1♦ call as showing hearts. The director is called and does nothing, because we cannot assume that LHO forgot their agreements rather than just forgetting to alert properly.

 

Against a different pair, after two passes RHO opens 1NT announced as 10-14. He has a decent 16. Maybe he miscounted his points or is psyching on purpose? Not exactly -- they open all ten counts (and presumably some good 9s) so there is no chance he will miss game. We report the "protected psych" but there is of course no adjustment. The director specifically says that "as long as you are two points away from your stated range, there is never any problem, it is not even counted as a psych."

[Cascade]

Don't think you can ever win that one Adam, it's too thin even though you might well be right. South can just say he was sure it was Michaels but thought clubs would play better or w/e and you cannot prove him wrong since it's an MI case not a UI case.

I think you should win.

 

If it is a MI situation then in the absence of evidence to the contrary then MI should be assumed.

 

I would need more concrete evidence than what I have seen so far that they really had the agreement to play Michaels over an artificial 1♦.

 

Therefore I would be willing to adjust the score to 4♠ making whatever.

[jtfanclub]

I think you should win.

 

If it is a MI situation then in the absence of evidence to the contrary then MI should be assumed.

But that's for the 2♦ bid. If South had said 2♥ instead of 3♣, it wouldn't make any difference.

 

If they could show that they had an agreement for Michaels in this situation, then the 3♣ won't be evidence to the contrary. I don't think it qualifies as a fielded psyche.

 

Edit: Er, I don't think you can PROVE it's a fielded psyche. :P

[Guest Jlall]

I think you should win.

 

If it is a MI situation then in the absence of evidence to the contrary then MI should be assumed.

But that's for the 2♦ bid. If South had said 2♥ instead of 3♣, it wouldn't make any difference.

 

If they could show that they had an agreement for Michaels in this situation, then the 3♣ won't be evidence to the contrary. I don't think it qualifies as a fielded psyche.

 

Edit: Er, I don't think you can PROVE it's a fielded psyche. :P

Huh?

 

He's saying that NS have not sufficiently proven that they do in fact play michaels over this 1D bid, thus souths explanation that it was michaels was wrong (MI), and damaged east/west (east would have bid 2S and then hearts naturally over a natural 2D bid).

 

I don't buy it, if NS had michaels on their card then I think that is sufficient but it is at least a valid point and probably your best argument to win the ruling.

[jtfanclub]

He's saying that NS have not sufficiently proven that they do in fact play michaels over this 1D bid, thus souths explanation that it was michaels was wrong (MI), and damaged east/west (east would have bid 2S and then hearts naturally over a natural 2D bid).

 

I don't buy it, if NS had michaels on their card then I think that is sufficient but it is at least a valid point and probably your best argument to win the ruling.

But let's say that South had one more heart and one fewer pointy cards. The 3♣ bid would be very strong evidence that regardless of what it says on their card, South knew that North wasn't playing it as Michaels. I would adjust no matter if the explanation and the CC matched: if South doesn't put it into a known 9 card fit, something fishy is going on. There's nothing else about South's hand or the auction that should tell him that North doesn't have 5-5 in the majors.

 

I don't think 3♣ with the actual South hand is sufficiently extreme to say for sure that South knew that North wasn't actually bidding Michaels. But it's close.