Randomised Michaels

[paulg]

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

Weak players like bidding their suits.

[Trinidad]

Weak players like bidding their suits.

Sure, they do...

 

But not so much that playing in partner's suit could not be a logical alternative.

 

Rik

[gwnn]

Sure, they do...

 

But not so much that playing in partner's suit could not be a logical alternative.

 

Rik

You got to the point where 3♥ is suddenly "partner's suit" because they don't know what pass/correct is, and now you're treating this as fact. That W didn't alert 3♥ is not strong evidence, players alert and fail to alert all kinds of stuff. I could equally say that if W really thinks that 5S+5D (among the other 5 combinations) is shown by 2♦, W must think that 3♥ is p/c, and treat that as fact, and be equally wrong as your post above.

 

In fact, the most likely scenario is that West probably has no idea what 3♥ is but just doesn't want to play in 3♥, with or without UI or whatever. It is just the safe bet to bid your suits when you're not sure what's going on, and everyone (even extremely weak players) would do the same, even if playing with screens or blindfolded or anything. Heck, for some class of players bidding 3♠ over a 3♥ opening bid with 5-1 or 5-0 in the majors is the only logical alternative even when they are certain that 3♥ showed a bunch of hearts (they would never pass with shortness in the last bid suit). How much less of a logical alternative is pass in this case in which you have no idea what 3♥ shows?

[lamford]

I agree with sanst and blackshoe that pass of 3H is an LA. If West thinks she has shown "a minor and a major", the next question is whether this would be a legal convention in the US. I am not sure whether it would be over here as there is no anchor suit. The probable agreement was that 2D was Michaels. However, West probably thinks she has shown diamonds and a major and 3H should be natural as a double of 2NT will get partner to bid her major. The only way to decide, however, is to give peers of West (if you can find any) the auction to 3H and see what they do. You need to explain the UI rules to them as well, so that they carefully avoid taking any advantage from the explanation "both majors".

[Zelandakh]

You need to explain the UI rules to them as well, so that they carefully avoid taking any advantage from the explanation "both majors".

Why mention "both majors" at all? Is it not simpler just to tell them that 2♦ shows any 2-suiter except both minors with no further agreements as to follow-ups and let them take it from there?

[lamford]

Why mention "both majors" at all? Is it not simpler just to tell them that 2♦ shows any 2-suiter except both minors with no further agreements as to follow-ups and let them take it from there?

There are two requirements. One is to establish the LAs and then select from them one not suggested by the UI, and the other is not to breach Law 73C. I agree that we start with your question, but then we also have to establish what the UI suggests to peers of the player. When I am asked what I would bid by TDs (seemingly every other event), I am also asked a supplementary question of what I think the UI suggests.

[Vampyr]

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

 

Do not forget that this player's understanding of this convention is such that she believes that opener's suit is fair game. She is playing a convention that she has heard about somewhere, and will not likely have considered continuations.

 

Why mention "both majors" at all? Is it not simpler just to tell them that 2♦ shows any 2-suiter except both minors with no further agreements as to follow-ups and let them take it from there?

 

Because East thought they were playing Michaels cuebids.

[Zelandakh]

Because East thought they were playing Michaels cuebids.

That is irrelevant when it comes to establishing LAs though. It is, as Paul mentions, relevant to the supplementary question about what is suggested but that is additional to the point I was replying to.