Randomised Michaels

[chrism]

[hv=pc=n&s=sa5hat85dqt52cq92&w=sj8643hq9dkj764c4&n=sk72hj764d83ck853&e=sqt9hk32da9cajt76&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1d2d2n3hp3sp4sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

ACBL club game (real world, not a SB to be seen).

NS are an established good intermediate-level partnership.

EW are a last-minute pick-up; East is of comparable level to NS, West is much less experienced (but not a complete beginner).

The pre-game discussion included an agreement to play "Michaels" with no discussion of what that meant.

 

North asked about the 2♦ call and was told initially "Michaels"; he asked for clarification and was told "both majors", which should, of course, have been the initial response (assuming the near-universal understanding of the Michaels convention).

 

It turned out that West's rather fuzzy understanding, which took the director considerable effort to get clear, was that it "usually" showed a the majors but "sometimes" showed a major and a minor (which is sort-of true) and that there was no particular rule that determined when it meant which. She was sufficiently confident in this belief that she promised to contact her teacher after the game for confirmation (knowing her excellent teacher, West is doomed to disappointment in this quest).

East and West were both adamant that they had an agreement; unfortunately, they could not be persuaded to agree what agreement they had. :unsure:

 

To further muddy the waters, West did not explain before the opening lead that partner's explanation did not conform to her understanding.

 

The table result was 4♠ making four. NS contended that they would have defended differently had they received a correct explanation; South said that he discarded too many diamonds, which may well be irrelevant. The opening lead was a heart (hoping to set up a ruff for South); South won the Ace and returned a heart for North to ruff. :o

 

The double-dummy result in spades on the hand is 9 tricks for East-West; two other pairs in the same flight played the hand in spades (2♠ in both cases); one made 9 tricks, one made 10 tricks.

 

There is enough happening here that I think it is an interesting case, though the final ruling seems straightforward (I have been surprised in this respect before, however).

[barmar]

Cases like this are always thorny. The laws about disclosure mostly assume that the players actually have firm agreements that can be disclosed. In the case of new and pick-up partnerships that haven't had much discussion, it's hard to know how to apply them.

 

East's understanding is the practically universal meaning of Michaels over a minor opening. So I think that West misbid (because she was confused about the meaning of the convention), and East's explanation was correct.

 

However, West presumably thinks the explanation was incorrect. 20F2b says that a player must call the director and correct the explanation if "in his opinion" the explanation was incorrect. And since they're the declaring side, this should have been done after the final pass. West probably deserves a PP for not correcting the explanation.

 

There's a possibility that she considered her partner's greater experience level, so suspected he was probably right, and there was no need to correct. That fits with Law 75C -- if you misbid, but your partner explains the agreement correctly, you're not supposed to correct it. However, this doesn't jibe with "She was sufficiently confident in this belief that she promised to contact her teacher". Maybe she wasn't really as confident during the auction as she claimed to be afterward -- but you can't claim confidence and then deny that you deserve the PP for not acting on that confidence.

 

If Bobby Wolff were adjudicating this he might raise the spectre of "convention disruption" and automatically rule against EW.

[Cyberyeti]

It sounds like in this rare case "Michaels" was the correct statement of their agreement.

[aguahombre]

2Nt????? Unlucky the bidding put North on lead; certainly south would have found Ace of spades and a spade; then maybe North would have accidentally dropped a third spade onto the table.

[sanst]

I don't think that EW can claim that they have an agreement about the 2♦ bid. West thinks she has bid spades and a minor, but east 's bid shows no interrest in spades or the minor, but a a hand with hearts. Notwithstanding, west decides to rebid her spades with only five rather bad cards in that suit and two with the queen in east's suit. I simply wouldn't believe that that was not based on east's explanation. It's rather blatant use of UI. I don't think that N will bid anything else than pass, so the score will be 3♥ -3 for both. And W will be told something about the use of UI. She could ask her teacher about that.

[blackshoe]

They made an agreement to play "Michaels". However, Law 40 speaks to partnership understandings, meaning a mutual understanding on the part of both partners. WRT "Michaels" this pair does not have such an understanding.

 

This occurred in the ACBL, where by regulation explanation by naming a convention is explicitly insufficient to meet the requirements of Law 40. So East's initial explanation is an infraction of law. His later addition of "both majors" is also inadequate (5-5? 5-4? Strength range(s)? Other bids available that might affect things?) but never mind that.

 

I agree with sanst, 3♠ looks like use of UI. I'm not sure I'd call it "blatant," as that implies some degree of knowingly violating the law, and I doubt that's the case here. "Obvious" maybe. B-)

[sanst]

I agree with sanst, 3♠ looks like use of UI. I'm not sure I'd call it "blatant," as that implies some degree of knowingly violating the law, and I doubt that's the case here. "Obvious" maybe. B-)

According to the OED 'blatant' can mean 'very obvious', which is what I meant. Anyway, from the OP I gather that west is a beginner, although not a complete one, whatever that may be. I'm quite certain that she didn't realise that she was using UI, probably even don't know what that is. So a PP is out of the question, but I would spent some time, maybe after the play, to explain what is and isn't allowed, and why the score was adjusted.

[blackshoe]

According to the OED 'blatant' can mean 'very obvious', which is what I meant. Anyway, from the OP I gather that west is a beginner, although not a complete one, whatever that may be. I'm quite certain that she didn't realise that she was using UI, probably even don't know what that is. So a PP is out of the question, but I would spent some time, maybe after the play, to explain what is and isn't allowed, and why the score was adjusted.

Okay. I consulted a lesser dictionary, The Oxford American English Dictionary, and either they left that part out, or I missed it. My bad. :-)

 

I agree with your educational approach.

[pran]

According to the OED 'blatant' can mean 'very obvious', which is what I meant. Anyway, from the OP I gather that west is a beginner, although not a complete one, whatever that may be. I'm quite certain that she didn't realise that she was using UI, probably even don't know what that is. So a PP is out of the question, but I would spent some time, maybe after the play, to explain what is and isn't allowed, and why the score was adjusted.

Okay. I consulted a lesser dictionary, The Oxford American English Dictionary, and either they left that part out, or I missed it. My bad. :-)

I agree with your educational approach.

Just out of curiosity I consulted my own dictionaries and found:

 

The Oxford Guide to the English Language:

- Blatant adjective very obvious; shameless.

 

Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language

- Blatant adjective [probably from Latin blatare to babble]

1: disagreeably loud or boisterous; noisy

2: too conspicious; obtrucive

3: very showy; gaudy; flashy

-- Synonymy see vociferous

 

Some difference if you ask me? (I was surprised!) :unsure:

[blackshoe]

I looked again. Here's the whole entry:

 

blatant |ˈblātnt|

adjective

(of bad behavior) done openly and unashamedly: blatant lies.

• completely lacking in subtlety; very obvious: forcing herself to resist his blatant charm.

DERIVATIVES

blatancy |ˈblātnsē| noun

ORIGIN late 16th cent.: perhaps an alteration of Scots blatand‘bleating’ It was first used by Spenser as an epithet for a thousand-tongued monster produced by Cerberus and Chimera, a symbol of calumny, which he called the blatant beast. It was subsequently used to mean ‘clamorous, offensive to the ear,’ first of people (mid 17th cent.), later of things (late 18th cent.); the sense ‘obtrusive to the eye, unashamedly conspicuous’ arose in the late 19th cent.

 

The origin is interesting.

 

The only difference in the "British English" dictionary is the addition of "blatantly" as an adverb under DERIVATIVES. :huh:

 

I'm not gonna pay OED's prices to look it up in the full OED. :D

 

Oh, from my American English Thesaurus:

 

blatant

adjective

it was a blatant lie: flagrant, glaring, obvious, undisguised, unconcealed, open; shameless, barefaced, naked, unabashed, unashamed, unblushing, brazen. ANTONYMS inconspicuous, shamefaced.

[paulg]

I'm very surprised at the discussion about a PP over the use of UI by West. My initial reaction was that anyone who thought Michaels could be a major and opener's minor would always bid 3♠ over the pass or correct 3♥, as surely everyone who plays this version of the convention would do.

 

Would any such West would understand their obligations at the end of the auction, and the need to alert 3♥ when partner has confused them?

 

Of course questions about MI remain. But I would not regard it as UI.

[Zelandakh]

There is more than one possible explanation for what happened here. First of all it is possible that West is lying - that seems unlikely and there is no evidence of it. If West really did have their understanding of Michaels then the only possible meaning for 3♥ must be "pass or correct", which should have been alerted. Because of this I do not think we can say that the 3♠ bid was based on UI. It seems like the completely normal call at this point. I suspect they did not understand that the alert must still be given even after the "wrong" explanation. The lack of an alert and the subsequent non-disclosure on OL are obviously MI, so the ruling of 9 tricks and a talking to for West seem clear. But "blatant UI"? No, that I am not seeing, sorry, especially from an experienced player as described here.

[Vampyr]

I'm very surprised at the discussion about a PP over the use of UI by West. My initial reaction was that anyone who thought Michaels could be a major and opener's minor would always bid 3♠ over the pass or correct 3♥, as surely everyone who plays this version of the convention would do.

 

Probably they do, but it is unclear what West thinks about it; remember he did not (as you mention in the part I snipped) alert 3♥.

 

Of course questions about MI remain. But I would not regard it as UI.

 

I am surprised, I must say, by people who think there was no MI. There was an explicit agreement, even if the partners did not agree on what the convention in question actually was. I sympathise with East, who had really no reason to suspect that West had a different understanding of the shown by Michaels (not to mention that it included the suit they opened LOL). Anyway the end result was that the opponents were misinformed.

[paulg]

Anyway the end result was that the opponents were misinformed.

I certainly agree that there was MI, but suppose North had been told that 'Michaels' can mean a major and a minor as well as both majors. Firstly West may still have both majors with longer spades than hearts, but perhaps highly unlikely with this West. But I expect North would lead a diamond which doesn't harm declarer. Will they still come to ten tricks?

[Zelandakh]

I have thought a little more about this and I think the lack of alert might have harmed N-S more than just a trick. Say West had indeed alerted 3♥ as P/C. What does East now do? Clearly pass would be blatant use of UI but is 4♥ not also a LA over 4♠? Not to mention a slam try. So I think that also needs investigating.

[paulg]

I have thought a little more about this and I think the lack of alert might have harmed N-S more than just a trick. Say West had indeed alerted 3♥ as P/C. What does East now do? Clearly pass would be blatant use of UI but is 4♥ not also a LA over 4♠? Not to mention a slam try. So I think that also needs investigating.

I don't think you can impose West's methods on East! Even if you did, the alert would have been UI to East and, essentially, you know what East's bid over 3♠ is without UI.

[Zelandakh]

I don't think you can impose West's methods on East! Even if you did, the alert would have been UI to East and, essentially, you know what East's bid over 3♠ is without UI.

But it does not matter what the bid without UI would have been. Having UI imposes certain additional restrictions and a pair should not be able to avoid these simply by giving additional MI further in the hand. Moreover I believe there is ample case history supporting this view. It is not about imposing West's methods on East, it is about imposing the UI restructions on East that would have resulted from an alert (and subsequent explanation) of the 3♥ bid.

[chrism]

... is 4♥ not also a LA over 4♠?

There is no legal auction in which 4♥ can be a LA over 4♠ :)

[Zelandakh]

There is no legal auction in which 4♥ can be a LA over 4♠ :)

Over in this sense means instead of, that is a choice coming out ahead...but I guess you knew that already. B-)

[paulg]

I don't think you can impose West's methods on East! Even if you did, the alert would have been UI to East and, essentially, you know what East's bid over 3♠ is without UI.

 

But it does not matter what the bid without UI would have been. Having UI imposes certain additional restrictions and a pair should not be able to avoid these simply by giving additional MI further in the hand. Moreover I believe there is ample case history supporting this view. It is not about imposing West's methods on East, it is about imposing the UI restrictions on East that would have resulted from an alert (and subsequent explanation) of the 3♥ bid.

I understand what you are saying but it seems really bizarre. The purpose of the UI laws is to remove any bias from the players' options because of the UI, and so the actions of his peers and logical alternatives are established. I'd argue that the best peer of this player is the player himself when he has no UI, precisely the case here. How can you find any better peer? In fact, I'd argue that any player who does not bid 4♠ is NOT a peer.

[Trinidad]

I'm very surprised at the discussion about a PP over the use of UI by West. My initial reaction was that anyone who thought Michaels could be a major and opener's minor would always bid 3♠ over the pass or correct 3♥, as surely everyone who plays this version of the convention would do.

Technically this is eminently correct. But to me it seems like an Unlucky Expert analysis. Of course, if we would play the cue bid as showing either both majors or a major and a minor (like a Wilkosz 2♦ opening), we could have the agreement that 3♥ would be pass or correct. (An agreement where 3♥ is natural and double asks for clarification would also be possible.)

 

But we were not playing this hand. West was playing it. She is not up to playing Wilkosz like conventions, she doesn't even know how Michaels works because she misunderstood something during the bridge lessons. That means that seh doesn't know the concept of a pass or correct bid.

 

So, for West, 3♥ was not pass or correct. It was simply a bid East made because (in West's view and with the help of the UI) East didn't understand Michaels. That led her to bid 3♠.

 

I think that if East would have explained 2♦ as "Both majors or a major and a minor" and bid 3♥ West would have passed it. East could have doubled (a stolen bid double: I wanted to bid 2NT) to ask for West's suits.

 

Rik

[Lanor Fow]

I'm not sure misunderstanding Michaels implies she doesn't know anything about P/C.

[paulg]

I think that if East would have explained 2♦ as "Both majors or a major and a minor" and bid 3♥ West would have passed it. East could have doubled (a stolen bid double: I wanted to bid 2NT) to ask for West's suits.

I guess this is where we differ. All the Wests I know who bid like this, and I see quite a few, think it is beyond obvious that you show your major. It's just what you do. Obviously they are not strong players.

[chrism]

The ruling was to adjust to 4S down 1 for both sides. I did indeed spend some time with EW discussing the issues, with partial success (I think). A PP would have served no purpose for this West; it would have been viewed as an arbitrary punishment when nothing had been intentionally done wrong, and would have served as discouragement from playing rather than as education.

 

I did not have time to discuss the logic of the 3S call. I did consider it likely that West thought she was in a P/C situation here, where she clearly did not understand the obligation to alert 3H, especially after the confusion of processing partner's apparent misexplanation. We did make progress on the need to provide a correction before the opening lead, and on the fact that protecting the NOS from the consequences of MI is not a punishment to the other pair. That seemed to be as much as I could reasonably hope to achieve in one sitting!

[Trinidad]

I guess this is where we differ. All the Wests I know who bid like this, and I see quite a few, think it is beyond obvious that you show your major. It's just what you do.

Do you seriously mean to say that you see quite a few players who are so confused that they think that a Michaels (1♦)-2♦ shows any two-suiter, except for both minors, and at the same time are so sure that (1♦)-2♦-(2NT)-3♥ asks them to show their major, that it is "beyond obvious"?

 

Around here, all the players that get confused with Michaels would obviously use Stayman to ask for the major...

 

Rik