[campboy]

---

2♦ was alerted. South asked and was told it showed a two-suiter, then asked whether one of the suits could be clubs and was told that it could. (2♦ to show any two of the other three suits would not be permitted, but neither North nor South was aware of this.) 4♦ made 11 tricks in some more-or-less sensible way.

E/W's convention card said "Michaels" under direct cue bid. When asked, South said she didn't want to bid 3♣ if it could be one of East's suits, and couldn't double since that would show a penalty double of at least one of his suits. N/S agreements over Michaels here are that 3♣ would be forcing and 2M would be takeout of that major; South thought she would have bid 3♣. N/S are a strong pair.

How would you rule?

[barmar]

First of all, what is their actual agreement? If it's typical Michaels, where a cue bid of a minor shows the majors, then South has been given misinformation. If they're playing the prohibited convention, that's a different issue. So I'll assume this is a MI case.

Then the question is whether the MI resulted in the damage. I think not. Just because East COULD have clubs doesn't mean he DOES have clubs. Just about every time you make a bid you're bidding a suit that an opponent might have length in, but that doesn't stop you. And since 3♣ would be forcing, there's no reason to worry about having to play it in a horrible misfit; if East actually does have clubs, partner won't, so he'll bid something else.

[blackshoe]

Is this yet another case of a leading question resulting in an incorrect description of their agreement?

[bluejak]

The reason why it is illegal to play Michaels this way is that it creates great difficulties for the other side. While you may think they should be able to solve them it is the EBU's view that they should not have to, and thus I do not think they should.

Was it a leading question? Not really. Assuming the detail of the OP is accurate, South asked and was told it was a two-suiter. The leading question was a supplementary when he had already been misinformed so I think this is a case where we should have complete sympathy for South.

If they were playing it as any two suits, then N/S get Ave+, E/W get Ave-. If not, I adjust to a making game. If it was Pairs, I worry about the actual score, and give a weighting between 5♦ making and 3NT +1.

[mycroft]

As David says, whether or not one "should" be able to work out what to do opposite whatever the cuebid shows is irrelevant. The nonoffenders don't *have to* have a defence to "random two-suiter", they don't have a defence to "random two-suiter", and they do have a defence to "majors" and to "major + clubs" (I assume "known major and clubs", be it two lowest or top+bottom, but I'm also assuming that "either major + clubs" is a legal meaning for the cuebid). They didn't have a defence to "random two-suiter", and not knowing what to do, South made a guess that may have been the poorest, but had the advantage of being unambiguous (even if badly misdescribing).

Definitely, if they're playing "random two-suiter", Illegal convention causing damage. I'm much less discriminatory about what is damage if you're playing something illegal for the game.
If they just can't describe their hands properly, I agree with David (again) that any peep out of South will get them to game, and South will make that peep if he knows the score. If East-West know what they're doing, they're getting a warning about incomplete explanations and misexplanations; if they really know what they're doing, or seem not to care, that warning will be in matchpoints.

And here I was reading the OP and thinking that the question was going to be "North led a club, and E-W complained about use of UI from the question."

In response to Ed: No, I don't think so. The original explanation was ambiguous, and the leading question was an attempt to resolve the ambiguity. "Which suits?" would have been a better question (mostly for the reason in the previous paragraph), but "could it include clubs?" is not conceiving of an answer other than "yes", if it does, or "no, the majors" if not. With Ghestem's popularity in England, the chance of it being Top and Bottom is quite high.

[FrancesHinden]

If this is an MI ruling (which we're all assuming it is, mainly because the illegal convention ruling is easy), then I agree that EW should be conceding a game, but what about NS?
NS are "a strong pair" but South has a very nice-looking 14-count with primary diamond support and a singleton makes two non-forcing bids, and then complains he has been damaged? That looks to me like a serious error, whatever explanation he's been given.

[jallerton]

Why does it matter whether the 3♣ bid is a serious error? N/S are not required to know how to defend against this convention; South's not knowing what bids mean here is clearly not "unrelated to the infraction".

[FrancesHinden]

campboy, on 2011-January-26, 18:19, said:

E/W's convention card said "Michaels" under direct cue bid. When asked, South said she didn't want to bid 3♣ if it could be one of East's suits, and couldn't double since that would show a penalty double of at least one of his suits. N/S agreements over Michaels here are that 3♣ would be forcing and 2M would be takeout of that major; South thought she would have bid 3♣. N/S are a strong pair.

How would you rule?

South's explanation doesn't make sense: she didn't want to bid 3C if it could be one of East's suits, but couldn't double - why not? She has a penalty double of clubs, which is "at least one" of his suits.

[campboy]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-January-29, 07:21, said:

South's explanation doesn't make sense: she didn't want to bid 3C if it could be one of East's suits, but couldn't double - why not? She has a penalty double of clubs, which is "at least one" of his suits.

I meant that double shows that she will certainly have a penalty double of one of the suits whichever two-suiter he turns out to have (this was I think their meta-agreement about doubles of two-suited bids, so against Michaels she would need either hearts or spades but here she needs two suits covered).

[Gerben42]

What is "this way"? Is it illegal to play 2♦ as ♠ + ♣/♥ which has a known suit?

Certainly "a two-suiter" is insufficient information as this means it could be any two suits. South's question was however leading a spread UI over the table. Still I must give it to N/S and correct the score as E/W seem to have the intention to leave their opponents in the dark.

How hard can it be to simply state your agreement?

[campboy]

Gerben42, on 2011-January-29, 08:34, said:

What is "this way"? Is it illegal to play 2♦ as ♠ + ♣/♥ which has a known suit?

That would be legal but no-one thought that was what was being described. I was given three slightly different versions of what was said, but everyone seemed to think the explanation had been any two of three suits. The illegality of the method isn't really important, though, since they weren't actually playing it.

[barmar]

Gerben42, on 2011-January-29, 08:34, said:

How hard can it be to simply state your agreement?

If you don't actually KNOW your agreement, it's pretty hard. It sounds like West was legitimately mistaken, and thought it could be any two of the other suits.

[FrancesHinden]

campboy, on 2011-January-29, 13:40, said:

That would be legal but no-one thought that was what was being described. I was given three slightly different versions of what was said, but everyone seemed to think the explanation had been any two of three suits. The illegality of the method isn't really important, though, since they weren't actually playing it.

For jallerton and me, the illegality is relevant.

I think that South committed a serious error by not forcing to game in some manner, whatever the explanation.
Jallerton thinks that not knowing how to defend against an illegal agreement is related to the infraction and hence should not lead to a 'serious error' ruing.

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-January-30, 14:50, said:

For jallerton and me, the illegality is relevant.

I think that South committed a serious error by not forcing to game in some manner, whatever the explanation.
Jallerton thinks that not knowing how to defend against an illegal agreement is related to the infraction and hence should not lead to a 'serious error' ruing.

I am sure that the player would indeed be ruing not having discussed how to force to game, but joking aside, it seems unfair to punish South for not being able to decide how to force here. Let us say that a pair plays a 1S overcall as "I am present at the table", legal over a strong club, but illegal over, say, a Polish Club. If opponents who should not have to deal with this now fail to cope with it sensibly, I do not think they should be denied redress; and that should apply if the correct explanation of 1S is natural.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2011-January-30, 17:12, said:

I am sure that the player would indeed be ruing not having discussed how to force to game, but joking aside, it seems unfair to punish South for not being able to decide how to force here. Let us say that a pair plays a 1S overcall as "I am present at the table", legal over a strong club, but illegal over, say, a Polish Club. If opponents who should not have to deal with this now fail to cope with it sensibly, I do not think they should be denied redress; and that should apply if the correct explanation of 1S is natural.

Joking aside, "any defence" to artificial opening bids is allowed, so if that 1♠ overcall is permitted against a Strong Club it is also permitted against a Polish Club.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-January-31, 01:48, said:

Joking aside, "any defence" to artificial opening bids is allowed, so if that 1♠ overcall is permitted against a Strong Club it is also permitted against a Polish Club.

I agree; I had not noted that the Orange Book allowed any defence to all artifical bids. So, a better example would be a pair overcalling 1S over a 3-card club suit, and wrongly advising the opponents that this says "I am present at the table." The opponents have no idea how to cope with this, and get a bad result. I don't think their poor actions should deny them redress.

On a related tack, reading the OB, one can overcall anything, essentially randomly, against One Club that shows 2 cards. I don't think that some of the less-experienced players at my club would have the slightest idea what to do about that. For example overcalling 1D to say "I am West", 1H to say "I am North", 1S to say "I am East" and 1NT to say "I am South" would be a legitimate defence to 1C promising two cards, but not to 1C promising three cards.

[campboy]

Still, I don't see why the illegality is relevant. Wouldn't not having a defence to a (legal) method the opponents weren't actually playing be related to the infraction too?

Anyway, when I asked South why she passed she didn't say that she was unsure of the meaning of 3♣; I believe she knew it would be natural and forcing but chose not to bid it.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-January-31, 06:16, said:

Still, I don't see why the illegality is relevant.

Because the infraction is different. Playing an illegal convention and MI are punished, sorry rectified, differently.

[hotShot]

South knows his side has a ♦ fit, so when deciding what to bid over RHO's artificial and forcing 2♦, the choices are to make a bid that is not covered by agreements or to pass, a save move since South will be able to bid again over LHO's bid.
Once opps revealed a suit they wish to play in, South is in a better position to make a decision.
Maybe 3♣ could be non forcing now, but NS are still in unagreed territory. Introducing a new suit prior to showing fit, should promise a good hand.
So even if one would think of this was an error, I would not think of it as severe enough to deny them redress for the misinformation.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2011-January-31, 06:26, said:

Because the infraction is different. Playing an illegal convention and MI are punished, sorry rectified, differently.

They weren't playing an illegal convention.

Jeffrey suggested that if NOS were damaged because they didn't know their methods after an illegal convention which the opponents were not in fact playing, then it would not be appropriate to deny redress. I agree with that, but I would not deny redress in that situation even if the convention in question was legal; if the opponents are not playing it then opponents should not lose out by not having a defence.

However, I do not think that was the situation here. After asking South her reasons for passing and what other calls would mean I felt that she did know her methods but made a poor choice.