Michaels UI problem

[lamford]

I am glad to read that you have now come round to the view I was expressing on the very long thread.

Has he?

[richlp]

Well, perhaps one could say that the "class of players in question" is limited to the players who are not classy enough to have remembered their system.

Why the focus on not remembering their system?

 

1♦ is 11-15, 1+♦. Possible shapes are:

- Real suit

- 4414

- topless 6+♣

- 11-13 flat

1♦ was alerted, asked, and explained.

 

EW's system card contain the entries `Cue of natural one of a suit: Michaels' and `Defence to Short 1♣/♦: Natural', though these are the defaults for this EBU card.

 

To me the logical conclusion is that West treats 1D as "Natural" (Real suit possibility) and East treated it as "Short" (all the other possibilities)

[blackshoe]

I believe it was Berkowitz and Manley who said of the Precision 1♦ opening "within the context of the system, 1♦ is a natural bid." Of course, that ignores the definition of "natural" in regulations - and in their version, the bid holds a minimum of 2 diamonds.

[bluejak]

Maybe. One of the most annoying things about the game is people who use a term, but instead of using the general definition, make up their own, and see nothing wrong with that. A right pain in the behind, they are.

[dburn]

I am glad to read that you have now come round to the view I was expressing on the very long thread.

 

Has he?

I do not believe that I have expressed any view at all - I have merely asked some questions to which I do not know the answers. Those questions have to do with whether information acquired by a player solely as a result of his own infraction (in some cases) or lapse of memory (in other cases) is authorised to that player.

 

In the matter of the differences between the obligations placed on players by Law 16 and the obligations placed on players by Law 73, here I say nothing except what Hilaire Belloc said (on a different topic, to be sure):

 

The question's very much too wide,

And much too round, and much too hollow,

And learned men on either side

Use arguments I cannot follow.

 

But when those learned men are such as jallerton and lamford and bluejak, I am aware that I should try to follow their arguments and come to some conclusion. I promise to do so, although I do not at present see their relevance to this particular case.

[lamford]

It is curious how Paul's memory is so good that he can "recall" exactly what I said in one posting I made six weeks ago<big snip>

 

Case C: If 3♥ and 4♥ are both (i) not logical alternatives and (ii) not actions that the player in question might have taken anyway, then an application of Step 1 above would only leave Pass and perhaps 3♦ as logical alternatives. Then 16B allows the player to Pass (although may restrict the player from making other calls such as 3♦).

I must confess I did not recall it exactly, but used "control+C" and "control+V" to copy and paste. But I am flattered by your opinion of my memory.

 

Reading dburn's erudite post, it is now clear that even raising to 3H is ridiculous, as 2H is not constructive in the authorised auction, and it would just be preference in the unauthorised auction.(I did not consider the auction properly, and was more interested in being a smart arse, correcting gnasher's analysis.) But if 3H were an LA, I agree we should impose it on East. However, the basis for this decision (it will go one more off than 2H) is certainly using (in one meaning of the word) the UI (but clearly not to our advantage), contrary to 16A. Am I right in understanding your position that you can take into account the UI to decide on what is demonstrably suggested, but not take it into account in deciding on what is a logical alternative? That is what I think the Law should be.

 

On the actual ruling, I think that it should now be

something like:

80% of 2Hx -800

20% of 2Hx -500

 

And no, I would not impose 3NT on N/S - this is unlikely to make, even on the heart lead, as there would be no reason to get the clubs right, and a better penalty is surely available from 2Hx

[bluejak]

Reading dburn's erudite post, it is now clear that even raising to 3H is ridiculous, as 2H is not constructive in the authorised auction, and it would just be preference in the unauthorised auction.

I suppose that I have been affected by the English view that a new suit is constructive even over a takeout double. Since I consider this standard I assume we would be told in the OP if it was not true for this pair.

 

Of course one could argue that 2♦ might not be natural for this pair, but I presume that if 2♦ were natural as the player thought who bid it then he would play 2♥ over it the same as 2♥ in the sequence (1♦) 2♣ (dbl) 2♥.

 

If 2♥ is not constructive it obviously affects what I think should be the adjustment. However, if 2♥ is constructive I am not too impressed by the argument that this side can get out for a cheaper adjustment because they are allowed to assume a constructive action is not constructive because the opponents have shown points.

[aguahombre]

Reading dburn's erudite post, it is now clear that even raising to 3H is ridiculous, as 2H is not constructive in the authorised auction, and it would just be preference in the unauthorised auction.(I did not consider the auction properly, and was more interested in being a smart arse, correcting gnasher's analysis.) But if 3H were an LA, I agree we should impose it on East. However, the basis for this decision (it will go one more off than 2H) is certainly using (in one meaning of the word) the UI (but clearly not to our advantage), contrary to 16A. Am I right in understanding your position that you can take into account the UI to decide on what is demonstrably suggested, but not take it into account in deciding on what is a logical alternative? That is what I think the Law should be.

 

Also having read David's erudite post, it is now clear to me that 3H is far from ridiculous.

Using his "reverse UI", and given that the 2H bidder must be assumed to have long hearts --the fact that LHO has 11+ is unauthorized. The 2D bidder, when choosing between pass and 3H should assume a negative double of his natural bid, even though he knows -- because of the explanation he shouldn't be allowed to use -- that is not the case.

 

In Bluejack's world, and in mine, there would be plenty of room for pard to have a constructive 2H bid after a negative double of a natural overcall; the negative doubler could have 4-6 in the blacks with an 8-count.

[lamford]

In Bluejack's world, and in mine, there would be plenty of room for pard to have a constructive 2H bid after a negative double of a natural overcall; the negative doubler could have 4-6 in the blacks with an 8-count.

I agree that we should find out from this pair whether 2H would be constructive if one replaced 2D with 2C and gave South a negative double. But even so, I would not raise. I agree that the fact that South was doubling a Michaels cuebid is unauthorised, but we still have something like a weak NT on our right, and a double which presumably implies the majors on our left. Give partner something like xxx AQJxx xx Kxx and even 2H is a struggle.