[jtfanclub]

Cascade, on Jul 28 2008, 07:49 PM, said:

I think you should win.

If it is a MI situation then in the absence of evidence to the contrary then MI should be assumed.

But that's for the 2♦ bid. If South had said 2♥ instead of 3♣, it wouldn't make any difference.

If they could show that they had an agreement for Michaels in this situation, then the 3♣ won't be evidence to the contrary. I don't think it qualifies as a fielded psyche.

Edit: Er, I don't think you can PROVE it's a fielded psyche.

[jtfanclub]

Jlall, on Jul 28 2008, 09:51 PM, said:

He's saying that NS have not sufficiently proven that they do in fact play michaels over this 1D bid, thus souths explanation that it was michaels was wrong (MI), and damaged east/west (east would have bid 2S and then hearts naturally over a natural 2D bid).

I don't buy it, if NS had michaels on their card then I think that is sufficient but it is at least a valid point and probably your best argument to win the ruling.

But let's say that South had one more heart and one fewer pointy cards. The 3♣ bid would be very strong evidence that regardless of what it says on their card, South knew that North wasn't playing it as Michaels. I would adjust no matter if the explanation and the CC matched: if South doesn't put it into a known 9 card fit, something fishy is going on. There's nothing else about South's hand or the auction that should tell him that North doesn't have 5-5 in the majors.

I don't think 3♣ with the actual South hand is sufficiently extreme to say for sure that South knew that North wasn't actually bidding Michaels. But it's close.