[rduran1216]

In the internation fund game, we had this auction

1D 2D(diamonds) 2S p 2NT p 3C p 3NT p 4D p 4NT p p p

After LHO called 2D, when it got back to me I asked RHO what it was, and he said diamonds.

It was a michaels call, but this influenced my view of the hands and with x KQx AJ9xx A9xx I elected to sell out figuring him for the diamonds behind.

if I know its michaels, I have a wonderful hand for my partner's as it turns out diamond slam try.

[barmar]

Assuming this was ACBL (which I infer from International Fund Game), there was another infraction: if RHO thought 2♦ was natural, it should have been alerted.

What's their actual agreement? Did they have Michaels checked on their convention card?

[iviehoff]

What was the minimum length of the diamond suit for the 1D call? Did the opponents have a clear agreement over what kind of 1D call they play Michaels over?

[rduran1216]

They had Mathe over strong club, and our 1D opener could be as short as 2

[bluejak]

We need to know whether there is MI. If the agreement is that 2♦ shows diamonds there is no MI even if the player meant it as Michaels so no adjustment. If the agreement is Michaels then there is MI so we need the full hands to determine damage and adjustments.

However, in clubs, there are a lot of players who, when a "may be short" minor is opened, if they have both majors they bid two of the minor ["We play Michaels, don't we?"] and if they have length in that suit they bid two of the minor ["They said it was short, didn't they?"]. If you ask them their agreement they will get confused. But the Law book suggests assuming MI in the absence of adequate evidence otherwise so we treat this as MI.

[rduran1216]

My hand was

x KQ9 AJ9xx A98x

LHO held

Jxxxx AJxxx xx x

Partner held

AKQxx - KQ10x KQxx


After the hand LHO said, our agreement is Michaels, its written on our card, all you had to do was look.

Now this was a regional director sitting to my left, not some club game amateur. Is there any misinformation adjusting to be had? Even the lousy pairs were getting to 6D, and we certainly would get there if I dont have the MI.

[bluejak]

I think it likely that I would adjust. Your LHO's comment is pretty meaningless: no doubt he is playing Michaels over a natural 1♦ but that does not prove his defence to a short diamond unless there is somewhere on the card which actually shows Michaels over a short diamond. I am not impressed by a regional director sitting to your left: he might get things wrong - everyone does.

But I agree that the evidence you have given suggests both MI and damage.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2011-May-12, 14:56, said:

I think it likely that I would adjust. Your LHO's comment is pretty meaningless: no doubt he is playing Michaels over a natural 1♦ but that does not prove his defence to a short diamond unless there is somewhere on the card which actually shows Michaels over a short diamond.

I think the opposite. I think most players treat "could be short" as natural (even though it could be short, it usually isn't), and don't alter their defense. So I would assume the same defense unless the card actually shows something different over short club/diamond.

[FrancesHinden]

Just out of interest, any reason you didn't raise partner's 3C bid, assuming it was natural?

[barmar]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-May-13, 13:22, said:

Just out of interest, any reason you didn't raise partner's 3C bid, assuming it was natural?

Presumably because it was matchpoints. You almost never want to be in a minor when 3NT has a chance.

[bluejak]

Of course partner does not know it is matchpoints.