bridgetalk.com forums :: Laws & Rulings

WVLaker

Ethics and Damage ( 22:03:10 MonDec 16 2002 )

Holding

Txx

AJxxxx

KQJT

void

I was playing on e-bridge with a first time partner.

LHO opens the bidding with 1

. Partner bids 2

, self-alerted and explained as Michaels. RHO passes, I bid 3

, RHO passes, partner bids 3

, RHO bids 4

.

At this point, I am starting to worry that partner doesn't really have 5 hearts for her cue-bid. So I double, which seems sure to give us a positive score. Am I ethically obligated to bid 4

, which I would bid, if I was sure we had an 11-card fit?

Partner held

Axxxx

AKxxxx, so ops are about to go down 5 doubled.

Ops call the director, and he rules that Michaels is a mis-explanation and skips the board. Partner says that she plays Michaels as spades plus another. I agree that Michaels is a mis-explanation, but how are the ops damaged by this? I could see damage if partner shows up with 5 diamonds, but I was the one who held the long diamonds.

bluejak

427 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Ethics and Damage ( 23:38:08 MonDec 16 2002 )

I cannot be sure without the full hands, but you do seem to have a case! :sad:

It is possible to construct a hand where 4

is unlikely to be bid if it is known that your partner's call shows spades and another. After all, if you partner's call shows the majors, your 3

is strong evidence of a fit: when it shows spades and a rounded suit the inference of a fit is far less clear.

Personally I would not worry too much: you may have been hard done by, but your partner surely deserved this bad board for the ridiculous idea that playing 2

as spades and a rounded suit [an excellent way to play it: I do myself :sad:

] can be described as Michaels.

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

JimO

175 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Ethics and Damage ( 15:13:56 TueDec 17 2002 )

There was clearly misinformation here. I would like to know all the hands - the auction might have developed quite differently had the opps been properly informed.

And how could you only bid 3H with that hand?

I have no reason to doubt the opponents were damaged.

---
-Jim O'Neil
Oak Park, IL

WVLaker

Re: Ethics and Damage ( 17:55:15 WedDec 18 2002 )

Full hand was:


           T92
           AJ8762
           KQJT
           void


 K4                      QJ8
 53                      KQT9
 6542                    A973
 QJT42                   75


           A7653
           4
           8
           AK9863


Bidding was:
East       South         West         North
1        2            Pass         3
Pass       3            4          X
Pass       Pass           Pass

It seems like once someone makes a mistake in their bidding, they can never recover.
If we had gotten to some hopeless 6

contract, we would have just had to take it.
But here, where we managed to luckily land on our feet, the ops can claim misinformation,
and we don't get the benefit of our good result.

bluejak

427 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Ethics and Damage ( 22:18:59 WedDec 18 2002 )

In effect you are right: the Laws of Bridge are such that if you misinform your opponent then they will get an adjustment if they are damaged, but you keep your result if it is terrible. But players need to accept responsibility for their mistakes, and this was all caused by your partner calling her bid Michaels when she is not playing that. I hope she has learnt her lesson.

On the actual hand, however, your opponent's 4

bid was dreadful, and they did not deserve redress because of it. In a F2F tourney, they would have got the table result. The Director might have adjusted against you anyway [thus giving different scores to the two sides] since while the 4

was terrible, it probably would not have been made if the opponent had realised his opponent might have clubs. Since he might have deduced it annyway from the 3

bid which seems strange otherwise, perhaps there should be no adjustment whatever.

Incidentally, why did you bid 3

rather than 4

? Did you know it was spades and another?

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

WVLaker

Re: Ethics and Damage ( 23:34:19 WedDec 18 2002 )

I assumed we were playing regular Michaels. We just paired up 5 minutes before the tournament, I posted a convention card that said direct cue bid is Michaels. We never discussed this.

I've only heard of playing this kind of cue-bid as Michaels or as game-forcing strong hand. I've never seen anybody play it as spades and another.

I guess 3

looks pretty cowardly, but I thought my partner would raise to 4

, unless she had a very weak hand and bid totally on distribution.

When she bid 3

, I didn't know what to think. Was she showing

A looking for a

slam? Did she not even read that far down on the convention card? The idea that she meant 2

as spades and another never even crossed my mind.

Then when the ops bid 4

, I thought it was better to X, than to try to figure out what partner was up to.

As an example, say partner opens 1

and we are playing limit raises. I don't understand what a limit raise is, so I bid 3

thinking it is forcing to game. Partner has a minimum hand, and passes.

Under normal circumstances, we will get a poor score, as most of the field will be in game, but we will be in 3

+1.

But we could get lucky, 4

goes down on bad breaks, and get a top score with 3

. Even after I made a mistake, we still have a chance.

But in the 'mutant Michaels' example, we never had a chance to recover, once my partner doesn't know what Michaels means.

172 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Ethics and Damage ( 07:14:29 ThuDec 19 2002 )

Some Sponsoring Organizations have a regulation that says, in effect, that naming a convention is never an adequate explanation of partnership methods. This is a good reg. "Michaels" is then technically misinformation even you both know you're playing a 2

cuebid as "both majors, 5-5 or better, weak or strong" (one definition of "Michaels"). Had your partner properly explained the bid as (in her understanding) "spades and another", there would, as I understand self-alerts in online bridge, have been (IMO) no MI (because she gave a proper explanation according to her understanding) and no UI (because you didn't hear her alert or her explanation). You would have misunderstood, but what happens after that happens. Opponents are not owed an adjustment because you have a misunderstanding. Especially when, as David points out, they do something irrational.

Joost Boswijk

7 posts
bridgetalk member

Re: Ethics and Damage ( 09:56:24 ThuDec 19 2002 )

Your opps. 4D bid is a form of what I call suicidal bridge, which fully and truly deserves a double. So their score stands.
But... you've agreed on playing Michael's, so the 2D bid means both majors (5 and 4 at least). With 3H you give a preference for hearts and a minimum (which certainly doesn't describe your hand properly). Notwithstanding your partner bids 3S, IMHO showing extra values and more and probably stronger spades than hearts. So you know that you have a superfit in hearts, a nine card fit in spades and a diamond hand which is worth three tricks. East must probably hold club values, which aren't worth a dime, and west's 4D bid is based on a five card in diamonds and not much else beside it, considering the pass on your partner's 2D bid. So it's at least a game for you, either in hearts or spades, and probably a slam. Doubling the opps 4D won't give a better result than playing yourself. There won't be many tricks beside your three diamond tricks, since the opp's can't have many majors and do have a fit in both minors. (You don't give information about the vulnerability, but even if it's nv for you and v for your opps, the result can't be good).
If I were the director in this case I would award a score of 6Mx-4 or 5 for you, being the worst probable result, OW would keep their score.

If you want to avoid such disasters, take more time to decide on which conventions to play, make sure that you both play it the same way or else, keep it simple.

Regards,

Joost Boswijk

bluejak

427 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Ethics and Damage ( 17:01:45 ThuDec 19 2002 )

Quote: Joost Boswijk

If you want to avoid such disasters, take more time to decide on which conventions to play, make sure that you both play it the same way or else, keep it simple.

I think this is a little unfair. :sad:

Especially for those with a North American background, playing Michaels is keeping it simple.

Quote: WVLaker

As an example, say partner opens 1 and we are playing limit raises. I don't understand what a limit raise is, so I bid 3 thinking it is forcing to game. Partner has a minimum hand, and passes.

Under normal circumstances, we will get a poor score, as most of the field will be in game, but we will be in 3+1.

But we could get lucky, 4 goes down on bad breaks, and get a top score with 3. Even after I made a mistake, we still have a chance.

But in the 'mutant Michaels' example, we never had a chance to recover, once my partner doesn't know what Michaels means.

The real difference between this and what actually happened is that you are allowed to gain or lose through ignorance of partner's methods in your bidding because it is not breaking any Law not to know your own system.

But it is breaking a Law not to tell opponents your system. I know it seems strange if you do not know it, but that's life. :smile:

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

Joost Boswijk

7 posts
bridgetalk member

Re: Ethics and Damage ( 09:44:09 FriDec 20 2002 )

Quote: bluejak at 17:01:45 Thu Dec 19 2002

Quote: Joost Boswijk

If you want to avoid such disasters, take more time to decide on which conventions to play, make sure that you both play it the same way or else, keep it simple.

I think this is a little unfair. Especially for those with a North American background, playing Michaels is keeping it simple.

I don't see why my comment is unfair. Even the most common conventions have variations, of which the players sometimes are not aware ("In our club we always play it that way"). E.g. in Holland the multi-coloured 2D is common, but there are those who don't include a form of a strong NT in it and there are many opinions about the way the opener should bid after a 2NT response of the partner. Also 'Blackwood' could mean a lot of different things, like the simple Blackwood, which is taught in the standard courses, or RKC Blackwood, which is very common. If you don't discuss this with a new partner, but just agree on playing 'multi' and 'blackwood', you're doomed to get into trouble. And if you haven't got the time to talk it all over, make sure that you only use those conventions you have agreed upon.

Regards,

Joost Boswijk

bluejak

427 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Ethics and Damage ( 17:30:29 FriDec 20 2002 )

You really cannot discuss everything with a new partner, so you do have to trust that well-known simple conventions are played consistently. The Multi is not a well-known simple convention [it is well-known in some places, sure, but it is not simple] and certainly people play it in different ways.

But if you agree on Michaels there is only one way to play it, and you can take the time to discuss more important things. The way this lady played it is just not Michaels.

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

Guest

Re: Ethics and Damage ( 21:06:20 MonDec 30 2002 )

Quote: Guest [Unregistered

at 22:03:10 Mon Dec 16 2002]Holding Txx AJxxxx KQJT void

I was playing on e-bridge with a first time partner.

LHO opens the bidding with 1. Partner bids 2, self-alerted and explained as Michaels. RHO passes, I bid 3, RHO passes, partner bids 3,

as a point of bidding theory, quite apart from the question of damage, the sequence michaels qbid followed by a rebid in a major commonly shows an exaggerated freak type holding. in this specific case, i'd consider it entirely likely that partner is 7-4 in spades and hearts. given that interpretation, the worst hand partner is likely to have is aqxxxxx; kxxx; x; x, and i personally would not consider that hand to be a candidate for the sequence.

consquently, your hand should be very strongly interested in a grand slam in a major, and i would judge the double of 4d to reflect an unfortunate choice of actions.

9 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 8 guest(s).
(The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003)
bluejak

Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm.

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from any country in the world, this is the place!Hosted by David StevensonSenior Consultant DirectorEnglish Bridge Union

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union