[Trinidad]

paulg, on 2015-April-04, 09:34, said:

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]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-05, 03:39, said:

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]

paulg, on 2015-April-05, 05:50, said:

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

[paulg]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-05, 22:10, said:

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]

paulg, on 2015-April-06, 01:10, said:

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]

Trinidad, on 2015-April-06, 01:34, said:

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]

lamford, on 2015-April-06, 04:19, said:

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]

Zelandakh, on 2015-April-06, 08:43, said:

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]

Lanor Fow, on 2015-April-05, 05:30, said:

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.

Zelandakh, on 2015-April-06, 08:43, said:

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]

Vampyr, on 2015-April-06, 10:15, said:

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.