Simple TD decision

[vlastimil]

I was kibitzing the board bellow. 2N was alerted as "Michaels" and
when North bid over 3C asked "really Mich ?" and got the answer from
sleeeeeeeeeeepy East "yes".
Before final Double South asked for suits showed by 2N bid and got the
correct answer.

What is the correct ruling in WBF land ?

Thanks in advance, Vlastimil

.----------------------------------------------------.
|Dealer: S ===North======== Brd# 166711 |
|Declarer: W > Scoring: IMP |
|Vulnerable: Both S: AQ54 |
|Contract: 5C Dbl H: J75 |
|Result: Made 5 D: AK742 |
|Score: -650 C: K |
|===West========= ===East========= |
|> .----------. > |
|S: T872 | | S: 9 |
|H: 2 | | H: AQ864 |
|D: J965 | | D: |
|C: QJ62 .----------. C: AT98543 |
| |
| ===South======== |
| > |
| S: KJ63 |
| H: KT93 |
| D: QT83 |
| C: 7 |
.----------------------------------------------------.

BIDDING:

West North East South
Pass
Pass 1D 2NT! Dbl
3C Pass 5C Dbl
Pass Pass Pass

In mentioned board East mistaked and alerted "Mich" instead "UNT"

[Henk Uijterwaal]

vlastimil wrote:
> I was kibitzing the board bellow. 2N was alerted as "Michaels" and
> when North bid over 3C asked "really Mich ?" and got the answer from
> sleeeeeeeeeeepy East "yes".
> Before final Double South asked for suits showed by 2N bid and got the
> correct answer.
>
> What is the correct ruling in WBF land ?

Result stands.

I assume West said "Michaels" and "Yes" to the question "Really?", not
east.

At his second turn, south asked for the suits held by east and got the
right answer. Anything done after that, cannot have caused NS damage.

The first explanation was wrong. South didn't seem to care as he
didn't ask which suits were shown, north had his doubts but again,
didn't press on. In short, NS did very little to protect their own
interests.

So, any damage seems self-inflicted, the result can stand.

Henk

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku
P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.
H.L.Mencken

[Sid]

"vlastimil" <vlas...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:046dddde-0115-4d46...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

Some players treat the 2NT bid as an "extension" or part of of Michaels,
believe it or not.

Once the suits were disclosed before the final double, South's final double
was rash. No change in the score.

Sid

[Dave Flower]

There is certainly a case for no adjustment, but there is also a case
for adjustment.

The misinformation distorted the N/S bidding; South might well have
bid 3D over 2NT (silencing West), and then North would have bid 4S,
which could welll have been the final contract, making on a trump lead
(OK dubious, but what does East lead, everything looks horrible)

That being said, I have no idea how the WBF would rule

Dave Flower

[Rob Tamlyn]

Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
> vlastimil wrote:
>> I was kibitzing the board bellow. 2N was alerted as "Michaels" and
>> when North bid over 3C asked "really Mich ?" and got the answer from
>> sleeeeeeeeeeepy East "yes".
>> Before final Double South asked for suits showed by 2N bid and got the
>> correct answer.
>>
>> What is the correct ruling in WBF land ?
>
> Result stands.
>
> I assume West said "Michaels" and "Yes" to the question "Really?", not
> east.
>
> At his second turn, south asked for the suits held by east and got the
> right answer. Anything done after that, cannot have caused NS damage.
>
> The first explanation was wrong. South didn't seem to care as he
> didn't ask which suits were shown, north had his doubts but again,
> didn't press on. In short, NS did very little to protect their own
> interests.
>
> So, any damage seems self-inflicted, the result can stand.

I agree.

But I do detest explanations such as "Michaels". Why not answer minors?

Rob

[campboy]

I don't see how there was MI, or indeed I. West's response was
meaningless (Michaels being a *cue bid*), so why did South ascribe a
meaning to it? In fact, what did he think it meant? Surely H+C is the
obvious guess, whether East's response is "Michaels" or "Dishwasher".

[Hank Youngerman]

It seems to me that there's a lot going on here.

S's double was certainly foolish. But he should not have faced this
problem. If 2NT is correctly explained he might double 2NT (he can
double hearts, maybe partner can double clubs?) or he might bid 3D.
If he doubles, and it goes 3C - P - 5C, what action will he take? I
guess that now, he has the same information he did at the table, so he
would make the same (foolish) double. After all, his initial double
was a double of a suit he couldn't make a penalty double of, so now
he's in the same spot.

But things could veer off significantly. Note that NS can make 4D and
EW can make 6C. I'd want to know how the play went in 5Cx. How did E
fail to take 12 tricks? Is it possible that 5D by NS would push EW
into 6C making - or 6C off one???

The WBF can use Law 12C, which I think in this case means they can
assign what they think is an equitable score. I think I would just
award average-plus/average-minus, but give some consideration to what
happened at the other table. (If the board was not yet played at the
other table, I might not allow it to be.) If I had to assign a score
under 12B, it would probably be +200EW for both sides. (I assume the
auction will time out with S bidding 5D and W doubling to keep his
partner from pushing on.)

I certainly don't think this is a case of "no damage." I think NS
inflicted some damage on themselves, which is why I will "only" give
them average plus, since I think -200 would usually be better. But NS
WERE damaged prior to the double of 5C.

[Andre Asbury]

I believe NS should have asked for clarification on what Michaels
means to their opponents if they cared but it seems south had decided
to double 2NT to show values no matter what. But EW first should not
alert 2NT and then shen asked about the bid should say clubs and
hearts - there's no way that can be misinterpreted. East and west both
knew what east was showing with the 2NT bid - they just didn't use the
proper conventional name. This is why the laws say that you explain
what the bid shows in terms of distribution and high cards instead of
just naming a convention. I am inclined to adjust the result to NS
-550 (5CX making) because S had all the information he needed when he
doubled 5C and EW +100 (5D -1) more as a penalty for an improper
explanation as there are some people who would bid over 5C.

[henry...@yahoo.com]

If 2nt was properly alerted and explained as Michaels, then that's a
violation of protocol in the ACBL. Explanations are not supposed to
be based on the name of a convention.

Had I been South, and had I been told that 2nt was Michael's, I would
have requested clarification (which suits does he have?) SInce South
had the chance to protect himself and failed to do so, I would be
reticent to adjust the NS score

However, I understand why South would double if he thought East had
the majors (why take them out of a potential misfit at the 3-level
when your honors are all behind their length?), so the misinformation
contributed to a good EW score. I would therefore award an adjusted
score to EW (average minus, or if I felt that NS could bid to 4s or 5d
after 1d 2nt 3d 4c to the result in that contract.

Henrysun909

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Rob Tamlyn skrev:

> > So, any damage seems self-inflicted, the result can stand.

> I agree.

So do I. I do not think the decision is difficult.

> But I do detest explanations such as "Michaels".

I agree in this as well. Explanations should be short and precise
and the mention of a common name for a convention is not helpful
and might be the opposite. Who knows if I and my opponent use
precisely the same variant of the convention.

If people ask me "Is this Michaels?", I just respond "yes" (if
true).

On the other hand I once played with a partner who carefully
instructed opponents that there were 5 possible scenarios when I
had made a specific bid. I didn't like it. He counted hearts and
spades as two different scenarios - the result of which was that
the explanation became so lengthy that the opponents stopped
listening with concentration. He could have confined himself to
three scenarios with much better result.

--
Bertel, Denmark
http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/

[Adam Beneschan]

On Nov 5, 9:24 am, Bertel Lund Hansen

<splitteminebrams...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
> Rob Tamlyn skrev:
>
> > > So, any damage seems self-inflicted, the result can stand.
> > I agree.
>
> So do I. I do not think the decision is difficult.
>
> > But I do detest explanations such as "Michaels".
>
> I agree in this as well. Explanations should be short and precise
> and the mention of a common name for a convention is not helpful
> and might be the opposite. Who knows if I and my opponent use
> precisely the same variant of the convention.

In the ACBL, there is a rule that you're not supposed to use the name
of a convention when asked to explain the meaning of a bid. North and
South in this case should have asked for a clarification (since 2NT
Michaels does not really exist), so both N/S and East were at fault
here. However, because East broke the rules about explanations, if
this were an ACBL event (either online or with screens in use) I'd
give a lot more of the blame to East, and consequently I'd rule that
there was MI. One could reasonably argue that N/S would assume that
2NT showed majors because that's what Michaels would have shown.

I don't know what the applicable WBF conditions of contest are, but
I'd hope that the general principles are the same---the onus needs to
be on the players using the convention to explain properly, not on the
opponents to ask properly.

Of course, just because I rule MI doesn't automatically mean that I
adjust---or that I'd know what to adjust to if I did. I'm not sure
how the bidding would have gone differently if the opponents had been
given a correct explanation. N/S might have been more likely to find
their spade fit, but that isn't necessarily a good thing on this
layout.

> If people ask me "Is this Michaels?", I just respond "yes" (if
> true).

Again, this wouldn't fly in the ACBL; their policies also state that
you need to explain your bids correctly regardless of the form of the
question. The opponents aren't expected to have to formulate their
questions correctly in order to get the explanation they're due under
the Laws. So after (1D)2D, if 2D is Michaels, and the opponent asks
me if this is Michaels, the correct thing for me is *not* to say
"yes", but to say that it shows the majors.

-- Adam

[Co]

"Hank Youngerman" <donts...@redtopbg.com> schreef in bericht
news:d0e20b6b-cf15-4f9a...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

South did in fact double 2NT as I can see

Co Wiersma

[Adam Beneschan]

I'm not convinced it would make on a trump lead. From N/S's
viewpoint, if diamonds behave there are still only 9 tricks so
declarer has to do something to set up a heart trick, and because of
the 4-1 trump break he has to do this before drawing trumps. So it
looks to me that even after a trump lead, 4S will still be beaten with
a couple ruffs.

-- Adam

[Alan Malloy]

Note that the hand record given is wrong. It says 5CX made 5 for 550,
but the score doesn't match the result. 5CX= is 550, 5CX+1 is 650.
Probably declarer did make six.

--
Cheers,
Alan (San Jose, California, USA)

[Michael Angelo Ravera]

The Notes under DIRECT CUE BIDS in the WBF guide to completion state:
<QUOTE WBF>
DIRECT AND JUMP CUE-BIDS (Style; Responses; Reopening)

Your partner has not yet bid; you cue-bid or jump cue-bid the enemy
suit.
Unless your arrangement is something like straight MICHAELS, you are
likely
to need a note on your SUPP SHEET to explain your agreements properly.

If your direct cue-bid shows a two-suiter, you need to specify whether
new- suit bids by advancer are forcing or nonforcing, and natural vs
pass-or- correct (P/C), both without further competition and with
competition. And something about how advancer identifies the cue-
bidder's "unknown" suit in relevant cases (via a competitive double or
notrump bid, for example). Are all doubles by advancer pure penalty
doubles or is the two-suited hand expected to remove with extreme
shape (or perhaps otherwise)?

If you use ANY of the following treatments or conventions (or any
other two-suited or conventional cue-bids or jump cue-bids), YOU MAY
NOT SIMPLY ENTER THE NAME. A proper entry includes the SPECIFIC SUIT
(s) shown and could profitably leave out the name altogether.

You are expected to provide details (somewhere on the card or a SUPP
SHEET) about strength, style, and follow-ups, both with and without
competition.
Since there are enough variations in detail to make it meaningless to
use a NAME-ONLY entry, your customized version of the convention
defines it in every case. A few examples follow:

MICHAELS CUE-BIDS
A proper entry for this convention might be:

MICHAELS CUE (PRE or STR)
(1m)-2m: ♥+♠ (54+); 2♦ advance shows equal M lengths (1M)-2M: OM+m
(55+); 2NT or DBL asks m; m-bid=NAT/NF
All jumps in known suits PRE (but may be tactically strong)

So, the disclosure, by name, as "MICHAELS" always requires a possible
strength indication and advances require even more disclosure.
UPPER SUIT CUE-BIDS
A proper entry for this convention might be:

UPPER SUIT CUE (Any strength)
(1m)-2m: ♠+♥ (54+)
(1M)-2M: OM+♦ (55+)
New-suit bids NAT/NF
All jumps in known suits PRE (but may be tactically strong)

TOP AND BOTTOM CUE-BIDS
A proper entry for this convention might be:

TOP/BOTTOM CUE (Any strength)
(1m)-2m: ♠+om (54+)
(1M)-2♥: OM+♣ (55+)
New-suit bids NAT/NF
All jumps in known suits PRE (but may be tactically strong)

Some other popular candidates for this section include:

COLOURFUL CUE-BIDS
ASTRO CUE-BID
MODIFIED ASTRO CUE-BID
GHESTEM
</QUOTE>

So, simply "MICHAELS" is not enough EVER. In any case, it would be
incorrect.

If the alert had said "MICHAELS C+H 54+" even though I know of no one
who plays that way and calls it "MICHAELS", they'd have been in lots
better shape. Improperly informed, South doubled 2NT for the two suits
presumably shown. But doubling 5C with a singleton and no trump tricks
and doubtful outside values. N-S keeps their bad results and may
desrve a PP for "faiure to pay sufficient attention to the game" (It
was a joke, son).

If N-S had actually called me for rectification before making the
final double, I can take North's 5C bid off the table and let North
bid ahead of it, if he chooses. At this point the only problem would
be one of unauthorized information to West that East was about to bid
5C and even that might go away, if he actually does so anyway (and,
for instance, isn't blocked by North's 5D call). It gets a lot
cleaner, if you call the TD when you need him and don't go crying to
one afterwards.

[Derek Broughton]

Rob Tamlyn wrote:

>
> I agree.
>
> But I do detest explanations such as "Michaels". Why not answer minors?

Because it was, in fact, "two lowest unbid". I accept that N/S are really
the authors of their misfortune, but E/W need to be penalized for (1)
misinforming, (2) alerting when they shouldn't and (3) not describing their
agreements when asked.
--
derek

[Mark Brader]

Adam Beneschan:

> In the ACBL, there is a rule that you're not supposed to use the
> name of a convention when asked to explain the meaning of a bid.

Not that it matters here, what you mean is "to only use".
--
Mark Brader | "Which humans of that time did here whether this place
Toronto | was cult place already at that time, extracts itself
m...@vex.net | from our knowledge." --from a web site for tourists

[Henk Uijterwaal]

Adam Beneschan wrote:

> I don't know what the applicable WBF conditions of contest are, but
> I'd hope that the general principles are the same---the onus needs to
> be on the players using the convention to explain properly, not on the
> opponents to ask properly.

While this is true, the WBF does put some responsibility on the
opponents as well. If the explanation is clearly wrong or incomplete,
then the opponents have take some responsibility to protect themselves.
That didn't happen here: the response with a just a convention name is
incomplete, so south should have asked which suits were shown, even if
there was such a beast as a Michaels 2NT.

Henk

[Henk Uijterwaal]

The 2NT is alertable under WBF rules.

Henk

[Free]

On Nov 6, 8:58 am, Henk Uijterwaal <he...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Derek Broughton wrote:
> > Rob Tamlyn wrote:
>
> >> I agree.
>
> >> But I do detest explanations such as "Michaels". Why not answer minors?
>
> > Because it was, in fact, "two lowest unbid".  I accept that N/S are really
> > the authors of their misfortune, but E/W need to be penalized for (1)
> > misinforming, (2) alerting when they shouldn't and (3) not describing their
> > agreements when asked.
>
> The 2NT is alertable under WBF rules.
>
> Henk
>
> --

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---

> Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
> RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku
> P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
> 1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
> The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­---

>
> Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.
>                                                                   H.L.Mencken

I have never heard of Michael's 2NT. I've heard of Michael's cuebid,
and also about unusual 2NT. These are usually played together.

Now if North thinks that a Michael's 2NT shows both Majors, his
interpretation is wrong. If I come across a convention I never heard
of, I ask a full description. Does everybody know what "Rubber ducky
stayman" is? No, you ask for more information and you don't assume it
just asks for 4-card Majors because it sounds like "stayman".
Everyone knows what 2NT means, but he wants to take advantage of
someone just being confused giving his explanation.

- EW shouldn't be penalized for misinformation, because no wrong
information was given. Michael's 2NT doesn't exist, or they gave U2NT
this name in this situation. If North would ask which suits it shows
instead of assuming something he can't be sure about, he would've had
his full information as he requested. EW provided correct information
when asked.
- EW shouldn't be penalized for alerting when they should alert (WBF
rules). Every country however has his own set of rules, but imo
alerting when it's not necessary isn't a big infraction. Failure to
alert on the other hand can cause way more damage.
- EW described their agreements when asked. However, North should
learn HOW to ask. Did he ask which suits were shown by a Michael's
2NT? Now, he just assumed it shows Majors and asked "Really?"...

No adjustment.

Free

[David Stevenson]

Rob Tamlyn wrote

>But I do detest explanations such as "Michaels". Why not answer minors?

Errrrrrrrrr ...........................

Because hearts is not a minor?

=======================================================================
Adam Beneschan wrote

>In the ACBL, there is a rule that you're not supposed to use the name

>of a convention when asked to explain the meaning of a bid. North and
>South in this case should have asked for a clarification (since 2NT
>Michaels does not really exist), so both N/S and East were at fault
>here. However, because East broke the rules about explanations, if
>this were an ACBL event (either online or with screens in use) I'd
>give a lot more of the blame to East, and consequently I'd rule that
>there was MI. One could reasonably argue that N/S would assume that
>2NT showed majors because that's what Michaels would have shown.

I do not agree. Since 2NT usually shows C/H when played with Michaels
South would have ot be very inexperienced for me to consider him
misinformed seriously.

=======================================================================
Free wrote

>- EW shouldn't be penalized for misinformation, because no wrong
>information was given. Michael's 2NT doesn't exist, or they gave U2NT
>this name in this situation. If North would ask which suits it shows
>instead of assuming something he can't be sure about, he would've had
>his full information as he requested. EW provided correct information
>when asked.

No, they did not. The 2NT was not Michaels: that is MI.

>- EW described their agreements when asked. However, North should
>learn HOW to ask. Did he ask which suits were shown by a Michael's
>2NT? Now, he just assumed it shows Majors and asked "Really?"...

E/W should learn how to describe their agreements. They did not.

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

[David Stevenson]

vlastimil wrote

Since there is no such thing as a Michaels 2NT bid, and since it is
normal to play the UNT as C/H *with* Michaels, it is difficult to see
the problem. No MI, no damage, no adjustment, tell West in future to
say "a club-heart two suiter".

[David Stevenson]

Dave Flower wrote

The misinformation distorted the N/S bidding; South might well have
bid 3D over 2NT (silencing West), and then North would have bid 4S,
which could welll have been the final contract, making on a trump lead
(OK dubious, but what does East lead, everything looks horrible)

What MI? Describing 2NT as an unheard-of convention is a very poor
effort by West, but hardly misinforms the opposition: it does not tell
them anything.

======================================================================
Hank Youngerman wrote

>S's double was certainly foolish. But he should not have faced this
>problem. If 2NT is correctly explained he might double 2NT (he can
>double hearts, maybe partner can double clubs?) or he might bid 3D.
>If he doubles, and it goes 3C - P - 5C, what action will he take? I
>guess that now, he has the same information he did at the table, so he
>would make the same (foolish) double. After all, his initial double
>was a double of a suit he couldn't make a penalty double of, so now
>he's in the same spot.

But how was he misinformed: he was told something meaningless.

[s]

>The WBF can use Law 12C, which I think in this case means they can
>assign what they think is an equitable score. I think I would just
>award average-plus/average-minus, but give some consideration to what
>happened at the other table.

Eeeeeeeeeeek! We gave up Ave+/Ave- in the sixties! Just assign:

L12C1A: When after an irregularity the Director is empowered by these
laws to adjust a score and is able to award an assigned adjusted score,
he does so. Such a score replaces the score obtained in play.

Note the words "he does so".

> (If the board was not yet played at the
>other table, I might not allow it to be.) If I had to assign a score
>under 12B, it would probably be +200EW for both sides. (I assume the
>auction will time out with S bidding 5D and W doubling to keep his
>partner from pushing on.)

Probably? It is normal to weight the scores: a single score is only
given if you are sure what would have happened.

>I certainly don't think this is a case of "no damage." I think NS
>inflicted some damage on themselves, which is why I will "only" give
>them average plus, since I think -200 would usually be better. But NS
>WERE damaged prior to the double of 5C.

Unfortunately you are not following the Laws. If there is MI [of
course, I do not believe there was] and damage, you adjust under L12C,
including any denial of redress for the NOS under L12C1B.

[David Stevenson]

Andre Asbury wrote

If you think there was no damage from the poor explanation but you
wish to penalise that explanation [which sounds reasonable to me] then
you issue a PP, not an adjustment.

=================================================================
henry...@yahoo.com wrote

>However, I understand why South would double if he thought East had
>the majors (why take them out of a potential misfit at the 3-level
>when your honors are all behind their length?), so the misinformation
>contributed to a good EW score. I would therefore award an adjusted
>score to EW (average minus, or if I felt that NS could bid to 4s or 5d
>after 1d 2nt 3d 4c to the result in that contract.

If there is damage, you assign, not give an artificial adjusted score.

[Derek Broughton]

Free wrote:

> On Nov 6, 8:58 am, Henk Uijterwaal <he...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> Derek Broughton wrote:
>> > Rob Tamlyn wrote:
>>
>> >> I agree.
>>
>> >> But I do detest explanations such as "Michaels". Why not answer
>> >> minors?
>>
>> > Because it was, in fact, "two lowest unbid". I accept that N/S are
>> > really the authors of their misfortune, but E/W need to be penalized
>> > for (1) misinforming, (2) alerting when they shouldn't and (3) not
>> > describing their agreements when asked.

> - EW shouldn't be penalized for misinformation, because no wrong

> information was given. Michael's 2NT doesn't exist,

Says who? They could indeed be playing it that way. N/S, however, should
know better.

> EW provided correct information when asked.

Only at the THIRD asking

> - EW shouldn't be penalized for alerting when they should alert (WBF
> rules).

E/W shouldn't - but the description was that EAST gave the explanations.
_That_ would be improper (though more likely to lead West down the garden
path than N/S).

> - EW described their agreements when asked. However, North should
> learn HOW to ask. Did he ask which suits were shown by a Michael's
> 2NT? Now, he just assumed it shows Majors and asked "Really?"...

Not smart on North's part, but North does not need to "learn HOW to ask".
The onus is on the alerting side to fully explain.
>
> No adjustment.

I didn't suggest one. I suggest E/W deserve a penalty. Different thing
altogether.
--
derek

[Derek Broughton]

Henk Uijterwaal wrote:

> Derek Broughton wrote:
>> Rob Tamlyn wrote:
>>
>>> I agree.
>>>
>>> But I do detest explanations such as "Michaels". Why not answer minors?
>>
>> Because it was, in fact, "two lowest unbid". I accept that N/S are
>> really the authors of their misfortune, but E/W need to be penalized for
>> (1) misinforming, (2) alerting when they shouldn't and (3) not describing
>> their agreements when asked.
>
> The 2NT is alertable under WBF rules.

Yeah, I see that now. So they only deserve a penalty on two of the three
grounds :-)
--
derek

[Adam Beneschan]

On Nov 6, 5:02 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> >In mentioned board East mistaked and alerted "Mich" instead "UNT"
>
>    Since there is no such thing as a Michaels 2NT bid, and since it is
> normal to play the UNT as C/H *with* Michaels, it is difficult to see
> the problem.  No MI, no damage, no adjustment, tell West in future to
> say "a club-heart two suiter".

More than one person has mentioned that 2NT should be seen as unusual
because it's played in conjunction with Michaels, or something along
those lines. I just wanted to mention that I don't really see things
that way, probably because the two conventions were developed
independently and if I'm not mistaken UNT predated Michaels by a
number of years (although UNT originally was for minors only). It's
not like Ghestem, in which one structure of three calls was developed
to show the three possible two-suiters. I don't see UNT and Michaels
as being part of the same structure, even though they sort of
complement each other. This may seem like a pedantic nitpick, but I
think it's more important than that because, based on the comments in
this thread, a director *might* rule that N/S should have known that
the "Michaels" response meant clubs/hearts because that's what 2NT
means in the Michaels "structure" (or when played in conjunction with
Michaels), but I don't think this is a good basis for a ruling because
there really isn't a Michaels "structure" and not everyone would see
the two conventions as being joined in that fashion.

Of course, what you're left with is that the term "Michaels" is
meaningless and N/S should have asked for a clarification. Given that
the WBF conditions of contest seem to expect players to protect
themselves in that sort of situation, I guess that's correct and there
should be no adjustment, although I prefer conditions where players
who are asked for an explanation are expected to explain adequately,
and the opponents aren't expected to have to strain to get an adequate
explanation. That is, I'd prefer conditions of contest that would
allow the director to rule MI and adjust the score on this hand if the
MI led to damage.

-- Adam

[OldPalooka]

AIRC from legend, both invented by Roth in '50s [maybe '40s for UNT].
Roth later: "I hate the UNT and I invented it".

Protecting yourself [true in ACBL also] was put in practice to prevent
double shots when you have good reason to believe you received an
incorrect explanation [and an good South would have plenty of reason,
no?]. True South was fixed when 5C got to him, but it looks like
double could have been based in part on "I have great defense against
majors, and now that they explained C+H I will get a MI ruling". EW
deserve penalty points, but I think NS have severed themselves from an
adjustment.

-- Bill Shutts

[David Stevenson]

Adam Beneschan wrote

>On Nov 6, 5:02�am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >In mentioned board East mistaked and alerted "Mich" instead "UNT"
>>
>> � �Since there is no such thing as a Michaels 2NT bid, and since it is
>> normal to play the UNT as C/H *with* Michaels, it is difficult to see
>> the problem. �No MI, no damage, no adjustment, tell West in future to
>> say "a club-heart two suiter".
>
>More than one person has mentioned that 2NT should be seen as unusual
>because it's played in conjunction with Michaels, or something along
>those lines. I just wanted to mention that I don't really see things
>that way, probably because the two conventions were developed
>independently and if I'm not mistaken UNT predated Michaels by a
>number of years (although UNT originally was for minors only). It's
>not like Ghestem, in which one structure of three calls was developed
>to show the three possible two-suiters. I don't see UNT and Michaels
>as being part of the same structure, even though they sort of
>complement each other. This may seem like a pedantic nitpick, but I
>think it's more important than that because, based on the comments in
>this thread, a director *might* rule that N/S should have known that
>the "Michaels" response meant clubs/hearts because that's what 2NT
>means in the Michaels "structure" (or when played in conjunction with
>Michaels), but I don't think this is a good basis for a ruling because
>there really isn't a Michaels "structure" and not everyone would see
>the two conventions as being joined in that fashion.

That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that to assume 2NT
is the majors because it was called Michales is unreasonable: it is
slightly moire reasonable to assume C/H. But either way it is MI.

>Of course, what you're left with is that the term "Michaels" is
>meaningless and N/S should have asked for a clarification. Given that
>the WBF conditions of contest seem to expect players to protect
>themselves in that sort of situation, I guess that's correct and there
>should be no adjustment, although I prefer conditions where players
>who are asked for an explanation are expected to explain adequately,
>and the opponents aren't expected to have to strain to get an adequate
>explanation. That is, I'd prefer conditions of contest that would
>allow the director to rule MI and adjust the score on this hand if the
>MI led to damage.

The WBF CoC tends to be interpreted sensibly. Players who should be
protecting themselves are expected to but that applies more or less in
other jurisdictions. Here, we were told "WBF land" which does not
really give us much idea. Was this a World Championship? Or a game in
a club in country which follows WBF regulations and alerting? Certainly,
players are always expected to protect themselves more behind screens
because there are fewer dangers in asking.

In this case there was definitely MI. It is really a question of how
much the NOs added to the problems set by the casualness of their
opponents.

[David Stevenson]

Derek Broughton wrote
>Free wrote:

>> - EW shouldn't be penalized for misinformation, because no wrong
>> information was given. Michael's 2NT doesn't exist,
>
>Says who? They could indeed be playing it that way. N/S, however, should
>know better.

Says me, for one, and looking at other posts, says much of RGB. None
of us are aware of a Michaels 2NT overcall.

>> - EW described their agreements when asked. However, North should
>> learn HOW to ask. Did he ask which suits were shown by a Michael's
>> 2NT? Now, he just assumed it shows Majors and asked "Really?"...
>
>Not smart on North's part, but North does not need to "learn HOW to ask".
>The onus is on the alerting side to fully explain.

Well, now, are you sure? There is an ACBL rule that says that, but
this was not an ACBL event. When the EBU L&EC discussed the matter,
they decided to offer no advice.

To take a simple example, suppose the bidding goes

1C 1S
1NT

and someone asks me what my partner has shown by 1NT I answer "13-17,
fairly balanced, may have a singleton spade".

Suppose someone asks me "What range is the 1NT" and I reply "13-17" is
that MI? In the ACBL, yes, because of the regulation. But elsewhere?

[Derek Broughton]

David Stevenson wrote:

> Derek Broughton wrote
>>Free wrote:
>
>>> - EW shouldn't be penalized for misinformation, because no wrong
>>> information was given. Michael's 2NT doesn't exist,
>>
>>Says who? They could indeed be playing it that way. N/S, however, should
>>know better.
>
> Says me, for one, and looking at other posts, says much of RGB. None
> of us are aware of a Michaels 2NT overcall.

No, but if they _really_ believe that _that_ 2N is called Michaels, that's
what they're playing. That's why it's not considered enough to give the
name of the convention.

>>> - EW described their agreements when asked. However, North should
>>> learn HOW to ask. Did he ask which suits were shown by a Michael's
>>> 2NT? Now, he just assumed it shows Majors and asked "Really?"...
>>
>>Not smart on North's part, but North does not need to "learn HOW to ask".
>>The onus is on the alerting side to fully explain.
>
> Well, now, are you sure? There is an ACBL rule that says that, but
> this was not an ACBL event. When the EBU L&EC discussed the matter,
> they decided to offer no advice.
>
> To take a simple example, suppose the bidding goes
>
> 1C 1S
> 1NT
>
> and someone asks me what my partner has shown by 1NT I answer "13-17,
> fairly balanced, may have a singleton spade".
>
> Suppose someone asks me "What range is the 1NT" and I reply "13-17" is
> that MI? In the ACBL, yes, because of the regulation. But elsewhere?

Perhaps not by regulation - but it would be pretty slimy to do it in the
expectation that you've fulfilled the letter of the law.
--
derek

[David Stevenson]

Derek Broughton wrote

>David Stevenson wrote:
>
>> Derek Broughton wrote
>>>Free wrote:
>>
>>>> - EW shouldn't be penalized for misinformation, because no wrong
>>>> information was given. Michael's 2NT doesn't exist,
>>>
>>>Says who? They could indeed be playing it that way. N/S, however, should
>>>know better.
>>
>> Says me, for one, and looking at other posts, says much of RGB. None
>> of us are aware of a Michaels 2NT overcall.
>
>No, but if they _really_ believe that _that_ 2N is called Michaels, that's
>what they're playing. That's why it's not considered enough to give the
>name of the convention.

Sorry, no. If a player bids 2C in response to 1NT asking for four
card majors,a nd calls it "Blackwood" that doe snot mean he is playing
Blackwood, that means he is ignorant.

If a person lives in Los Angeles andsays he lives in Russia, that does
not mean he lives in Russia, it means he is ignorant.

The fact that a person salludes to something by a particular name does
not mean he is right if everyone else calls it something else.

>>>> - EW described their agreements when asked. However, North should
>>>> learn HOW to ask. Did he ask which suits were shown by a Michael's
>>>> 2NT? Now, he just assumed it shows Majors and asked "Really?"...
>>>
>>>Not smart on North's part, but North does not need to "learn HOW to ask".
>>>The onus is on the alerting side to fully explain.
>>
>> Well, now, are you sure? There is an ACBL rule that says that, but
>> this was not an ACBL event. When the EBU L&EC discussed the matter,
>> they decided to offer no advice.
>>
>> To take a simple example, suppose the bidding goes
>>
>> 1C 1S
>> 1NT
>>
>> and someone asks me what my partner has shown by 1NT I answer "13-17,
>> fairly balanced, may have a singleton spade".
>>
>> Suppose someone asks me "What range is the 1NT" and I reply "13-17" is
>> that MI? In the ACBL, yes, because of the regulation. But elsewhere?
>
>Perhaps not by regulation - but it would be pretty slimy to do it in the
>expectation that you've fulfilled the letter of the law.

That is your opinion, but it certainly is not everyone's. You get a
lot of players who get very narky when you do not answer specific
questions. It is a problem whether to answer a specific question with
the answer requested and there is more than one way of looking at it.

[Derek Broughton]

David Stevenson wrote:

> Derek Broughton wrote
>>David Stevenson wrote:
>>
>>> Derek Broughton wrote
>>>>Free wrote:
>>>
>>>>> - EW shouldn't be penalized for misinformation, because no wrong
>>>>> information was given. Michael's 2NT doesn't exist,
>>>>
>>>>Says who? They could indeed be playing it that way. N/S, however,
>>>>should know better.
>>>
>>> Says me, for one, and looking at other posts, says much of RGB. None
>>> of us are aware of a Michaels 2NT overcall.
>>
>>No, but if they _really_ believe that _that_ 2N is called Michaels, that's
>>what they're playing. That's why it's not considered enough to give the
>>name of the convention.
>
> Sorry, no. If a player bids 2C in response to 1NT asking for four
> card majors,a nd calls it "Blackwood" that doe snot mean he is playing
> Blackwood, that means he is ignorant.

...

> The fact that a person salludes to something by a particular name does
> not mean he is right if everyone else calls it something else.

Fine, if you want to treat it that way, but the fact is MOST players call at
least some of their conventions by a name that in no way describes the
convention, at least as far as the inventor's conception. Most people
consider any 4NT Ace-asking bid to be Blackwood: RKC, 3014 or 1430 are
afterthoughts.

>>Perhaps not by regulation - but it would be pretty slimy to do it in the
>>expectation that you've fulfilled the letter of the law.
>
> That is your opinion, but it certainly is not everyone's. You get a
> lot of players who get very narky when you do not answer specific
> questions. It is a problem whether to answer a specific question with
> the answer requested and there is more than one way of looking at it.

Which is not the same at all as explicitly refusing to give full disclosure
simply because the opponent provided you with a loophole.
--
derek

[David Stevenson]

Not in my experience. But anyway, you miss the point: if the vast
majority call something by a name, and a small minority uses another
name, a name of something else, that does not mean they are playing
something of that name. If the generality of people call something
something, that has nothing to do with the subject under discussion.

>>>Perhaps not by regulation - but it would be pretty slimy to do it in the
>>>expectation that you've fulfilled the letter of the law.
>>
>> That is your opinion, but it certainly is not everyone's. You get a
>> lot of players who get very narky when you do not answer specific
>> questions. It is a problem whether to answer a specific question with
>> the answer requested and there is more than one way of looking at it.
>
>Which is not the same at all as explicitly refusing to give full disclosure
>simply because the opponent provided you with a loophole.

No, it is not. But you said something was slimy: it is not. Whether
it is slimy in a specific situation where there is different intent is
not the same.

[Derek Broughton]

David Stevenson wrote:

>
>>>>Perhaps not by regulation - but it would be pretty slimy to do it in the
>>>>expectation that you've fulfilled the letter of the law.
>>>
>>> That is your opinion, but it certainly is not everyone's. You get a
>>> lot of players who get very narky when you do not answer specific
>>> questions. It is a problem whether to answer a specific question with
>>> the answer requested and there is more than one way of looking at it.
>>
>>Which is not the same at all as explicitly refusing to give full
>>disclosure simply because the opponent provided you with a loophole.
>
> No, it is not. But you said something was slimy: it is not. Whether
> it is slimy in a specific situation where there is different intent is
> not the same

My statement was specifically related to intent. It certainly _is_ slimy,
or any number of other negative adjectives, to avoid full disclosure because
you know the letter of the law supports you. If you feel otherwise, I'll be
happy to never have the chance to play you.
--
derek

[David Stevenson]

Derek Broughton wrote

So now you are saying something totally different form before, and in
a confrontational manner. I do not think I would like to play against
you if this is your normal attitude.

[Derek Broughton]

David Stevenson wrote:

> Derek Broughton wrote

>>My statement was specifically related to intent. It certainly _is_ slimy,

>>or any number of other negative adjectives, to avoid full disclosure
>>because
>>you know the letter of the law supports you. If you feel otherwise, I'll
>>be happy to never have the chance to play you.
>
> So now you are saying something totally different form before,

No. Sorry if I confused you.
--
derek