[TylerE]

The hand in question


North opens a precision 1♣, East bids 2♣, self-alerted as "Micheals"

4♥x scores up 100 for NS. NS call the director citing misinformation. Your ruling?

[Mbodell]

What is the agreement? Is there a convention card? What does West say is the agreement. The bidding of West supports the idea that the club bid is artificial showing hearts. The trouble is the West hand's actions are consistent with H+S and with D+H being the meaning of the 2♣ bid.

So I'd investigate and figure out more information (like what is X of 1♣ and what is 1nt over 1♣ - if X is majors and 1nt is minors then 2♣ as reds might make sense), but just because East's hand doesn't match the explanation does not mean there is MI. If there is MI and East's bid means D+H then there is damage as 4♠ looks like it is making. But my guess would be no adjustment due to no MI.

In the ACBL (and likely other places) "Michaels" isn't really a complete explanation, but when you are online and self-alerting it might well be sufficient explanation in advance of more questioning.

[blackshoe]

The ACBL Alert Regulation states "When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient." So it's more than "not really a complete explanation" and is never sufficient where that regulation is in force.

That said, I agree we need more information.

[bluejak]

While names are rarely complete information it does not alter the fact that they often do tell opponents what they need to know. "Michaels" may not tell you everything about their agreements, for example whether 5/4 is permitted or whether it has to be 5/5, what strength is expected and so on. But the one thing "Michaels" does tell the opponents for sure is that East has shown both majors.

I know it is always more difficult online, but the question that has to be asked is "Why did you bid 2♣?". The answer might tell us everything, for example that they play 2♣ as diamonds and a major and think that is what Michaels is. Of course, if East claims to have psyched it then we have a problem: one of the major problems with self-alerting and self-explaining is when a player psyches.

If East claims it was a psyche we need to see some evidence, like a CC, or earlier similar bids.

As to N/S it is always difficult to show a spade suit when the opponents have shown both majors so if there is MI then it seems highly probable that N/S were damaged. Of course, allowing ten tricks is pretty poor defence.

[RMB1]

bluejak, on Aug 11 2009, 12:24 PM, said:

But the one thing "Michaels" does tell the opponents for sure is that East has shown both majors.

This is true in England, it is not true in Eastern Europe. I'm not sure which two suits "Michaels" shows in (say) Poland but I know it isn't the majors. Internationally and online, an explanation of "Michaels" should be treated the same as "Ghestem": it shows two suits but you can't assume which two suits.

So East is probably guilty of giving an incomplete explanation and North/South are "guilty" of not asking for clarification. They may all be innocent if they think "Michaels" has a well-defined meaning: just a different meaning for East/West and North/South.

I assume that 1♣ was artificial strong (or two-way including artificial strong). I think it was negligent of North/South to accept an explanation of "Michaels" of an overcall of an artificial 1♣ without further clarification.

If we rule misinformation then I would adjust to 4♠ making for both sides (Law 12C1e). I assume "Online/ACBL" does not allow 12C1c; with 12C1c I would adjust to some high percentage of 4♠ making and the remainder 4♠-1.

Robin

This post has been edited by RMB1: 2009-August-11, 10:36

[Mbodell]

blackshoe, on Aug 11 2009, 02:25 AM, said:

The ACBL Alert Regulation states "When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient." So it's more than "not really a complete explanation" and is never sufficient where that regulation is in force.

I agree if asked that Michaels is not enough. But online, you can self alert an explanation without being asked. I.e., you type Michaels in the explanation box click alert and click 2♣. If opponents ask you can give the full explanation of suit lengths and strengths and what kind of hands overcall one suit then the other. But when you are self-alerting before the other side asks anything I think a minimal explanation in interest of pace of game online is fine.

[peachy]

Self-alerting "Michaels" is MI if their agreement is that 2C shows H+D or that 2C shows any two-suiter with one major suit or some other which is not "both majors". But this is an old dilemma - some folks use the name of an established convention for something other than what the convention is. It is also possible that the bidder knew he was supposed to have majors but bid 2C anyway. It is possible the bidder forgot what Michaels is. It is possible they had no agreement over a strong artificial 1C opening. Anyway, as others have said, more information is needed to determine what happened and whether any adjusted score is in order.

[FrancesHinden]

I agree with what everyone else has said, that

- 'Michaels' by itself is not sufficient explanation, particularly online (where there is no common culture such as in England where it would always mean 'both majors').
- We don't know if East gave MI or misbid or psyched; only one of these would give the chance of an adjustment.

- While North/South should have asked further given that it was a strong club auction, I don't think their actions have been sufficiently bad to avoid redress for damage.

- However, I would expect any decent NS pair to go off in 4S close to 100% of the time, so doubt that they have been damaged. Only if there is evidence that EW were extremely poor players (or indeed that NS were extremely poor players) would I think there is any likelihood of 4S making.

- NS may have a case for damage in the defence if they managed to screw up the diamond suit not knowing that East had length. We don't know how the play in 4Hx went.

[TylerE]

A few points....

2♣ was not originally alerted. It was alerted as 'michaels' after being asked. In ACBL practice this is universally "Majors", and due to time constraints E did not inquire furthur.

It is unclear what if anything EW have agreed to play over strong club. They seem fairly clueless in this respect.

How is 4♠ down, with the J of ♣ dropping doubleton?

(As an aside, the actual results on the board were: 4♠ + 1 (11), 4♠= (26), 5♥x - 3 (3), 3♠+1 (1), 5♥-3 (1), 5♠-1 (14), 4♠-1 (2), 5♠-2 (4)

[skjaeran]

TylerE, on Aug 11 2009, 09:46 PM, said:

How is 4♠ down, with the J of ♣ dropping doubleton?

Dropping??

With the possibility of finessing both ways, any competent declarer will finesse west for the ♣J, knowing the suit is splitting 4-2.

[Phil]

skaeran, on Aug 11 2009, 03:02 PM, said:

TylerE, on Aug 11 2009, 09:46 PM, said:

How is 4♠ down, with the J of ♣ dropping doubleton?

Dropping??

With the possibility of finessing both ways, any competent declarer will finesse west for the ♣J, knowing the suit is splitting 4-2.

Right lol; I would expect it to go down, although East might lead a diamond, which not only gives up a trick it might also clue declarer into club holding that didn't want to be led.

[peachy]

TylerE, on Aug 11 2009, 02:46 PM, said:

(As an aside, the actual results on the board were: 4♠ + 1 (11), 4♠= (26), 5♥x - 3 (3), 3♠+1 (1), 5♥-3 (1), 5♠-1 (14), 4♠-1 (2), 5♠-2 (4)

It is truly an aside, completely irrelevant. What other tables do, has nothing to do with ruling on the case at hand.

[FrancesHinden]

Phil, on Aug 11 2009, 09:08 PM, said:

skaeran, on Aug 11 2009, 03:02 PM, said:

TylerE, on Aug 11 2009, 09:46 PM, said:

How is 4♠ down, with the J of ♣ dropping doubleton?

Dropping??

With the possibility of finessing both ways, any competent declarer will finesse west for the ♣J, knowing the suit is splitting 4-2.

Right lol; I would expect it to go down, although East might lead a diamond, which not only gives up a trick it might also clue declarer into club holding that didn't want to be led.

I'd missed that North might be declarer, I was thinking of an auction starting 1C 2C 2S.... I think we'd need to know the NS methods to work out who was likely to be playing a putative 4S contract.

Outside the ACBL you'd have the potential of awarding a weighted adjustment between 4S making and 4S-1.

[FrancesHinden]

TylerE, on Aug 11 2009, 08:46 PM, said:

(As an aside, the actual results on the board were: 4♠ + 1 (11), 4♠= (26), 5♥x - 3 (3), 3♠+1 (1), 5♥-3 (1), 5♠-1 (14), 4♠-1 (2), 5♠-2 (4)

Apart from any other problem, in the majority of cases declarer is likely to have been North after a 1S opening, making a costly lead (a diamond or the jack of clubs) much more likely than South declarer after a strong club.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Aug 11 2009, 10:25 PM, said:

The ACBL Alert Regulation states "When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient." So it's more than "not really a complete explanation" and is never sufficient where that regulation is in force.

That said, I agree we need more information.

The practice online however is to provide information even without being asked.

It is not normal to alert without any explanation.

If you don't ask are you entitled to all the information in the same way as if you had asked? It is not clear to me.

[barmar]

Cascade, on Aug 18 2009, 05:23 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 11 2009, 10:25 PM, said:

The ACBL Alert Regulation states "When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient." So it's more than "not really a complete explanation" and is never sufficient where that regulation is in force.

That said, I agree we need more information.

The practice online however is to provide information even without being asked.

It is not normal to alert without any explanation.

If you don't ask are you entitled to all the information in the same way as if you had asked? It is not clear to me.

While it's normal to provide information without being asked, that information is usually very brief, often just the convention name, because typing full explanations when making the bid slows the game down too much. If you need more details, you should ask for it.