[inquiry]

When Asked 2♣ was explained as 5-5 or better in the majors. Without any further description of the hand let's say after the hand you are called to the table, Both EW cards are marked Michael's cue-bid, but East states adamantly that Michaels means any two ifive card suits and West (correctly) that Michaels is the two highest unbid suits. East has 5Spades and 5Clubs and that NS was clearly damaged by the bidding/explaination.

---

So as director you have to decide was the explanation of 2♣ by West a Misexplaination or was 2♣ a misbid. Clearly from West point of view, he accurately described what he thought he was playing as indicated by their CC. But while he "thought" they had agreed to play Michaels, they had no factual agreement what a cue-bid meant (we ask people to alert the meaning of their bid, not simply name the convention, so does this mean just having the same marking on the convention card confirms they have an "Agreement",)

For what it is worth, the person reporting this hand to me, got an "official" answer to this situation from Greg Vance, who is a Tournament Director and Rulings Box Associate at the ACBL headquarters. I could share his interpretation, but my friend totally disagrees with his opinion, so I thought I would poll people to see what others think.

[Vampyr]

This illustrates a problem with using convention names. The pair in question have agreed to play "Michaels" but not agreed what that means. So the correct explanation is obviously "no agreement" and an adjustment is in order.

[wank]

they have agreed to play it as showing the majors, because they agreed to play micheals and objectively that includes 2C here being majors. that east didn't know what he was agreeing to doesn't matter. it's akin to my signing a contract for a loan without reading the small print. what happens when i don't pay and it goes to court? the contract is enforced as it is objectively written, not as i thought it was in my ignorance.

[blackshoe]

To me, this illustrates that the exhortation not to explain an agreement by naming a convention doesn't go far enough. I think pairs have an obligation, when discussing potential agreements, to ensure that both are on the same page as to what the agreement is. So just as explaining via a name is not enough, agreeing via a name is not enough.

As for this incident, they clearly do not have a partnership understanding. How that lack of understanding came about is not, it seems to me, relevant. If they don't have an understanding, then "5-5 or better in the majors" is a misexplanation. In fact, it would be a misexplanation even if East held that hand.

[wank]

best tell the acbl to rip up the SAYC booklet then. no more going along to an event and agreeing to play that without going through it line by line to agree every part.

bridge is a game. it's not illegal to be bad at it and it's not illegal to be ignorant about finer bidding issues.

[blackshoe]

wank, on 2016-November-19, 13:26, said:

bridge is a game. it's not illegal to be bad at it and it's not illegal to be ignorant about finer bidding issues.

Who here says it is? Not me.

[barmar]

We had a long thread a couple of years ago about players who were not on the same page about what their actual agreement was, because each member of the partnership had a different understanding of how a convention they'd agree to was actually played. I don't think we ever came to any concensus then.

To those who say that you need to discuss the details of everything you agree to, do you really do that every time you sit down with a new partner? How far into all the followup bids do you go when you have 15-20 minutes to fill out a CC?

I can't recall ever asking my partner precisely how they play Michaels. We just check the box off on the CC, and assume partner plays it the way everyone else we've ever run into plays it. I might ask about style: "Do you always have 5-5, or do you sometimes do it with 5-4, and what strength ranges?" But I've never felt the need to ask which suits they're showing, and in 3 decades I don't think I've ever run into a problem like the OP.

[sfi]

barmar, on 2016-November-19, 21:26, said:

I can't recall ever asking my partner precisely how they play Michaels. We just check the box off on the CC, and assume partner plays it the way everyone else we've ever run into plays it. I might ask about style: "Do you always have 5-5, or do you sometimes do it with 5-4, and what strength ranges?" But I've never felt the need to ask which suits they're showing, and in 3 decades I don't think I've ever run into a problem like the OP.

It's definitely a question you have to ask around here. Many people play (1m)-2m as showing 5/5 with spades and another suit, and it's called 'Michaels' or 'spades Michaels'. Luckily my partner had hearts as well on the hand where I learned that particular object lesson.

[barmar]

sfi, on 2016-November-19, 21:38, said:

It's definitely a question you have to ask around here. Many people play (1m)-2m as showing 5/5 with spades and another suit, and it's called 'Michaels' or 'spades Michaels'. Luckily my partner had hearts as well on the hand where I learned that particular object lesson.

Maybe it's a regional thing. I don't think I've ever run into something like that in the US, and I've played with many pick-up partners over the years.

[sfi]

barmar, on 2016-November-19, 21:59, said:

Maybe it's a regional thing. I don't think I've ever run into something like that in the US, and I've played with many pick-up partners over the years.

Certainly it's a regional thing. It isn't even terribly common in other parts of Australia, but it's not unheard of and is worth checking with an Australian partner.

If I were in the US, I agree that it wouldn't occur to me to ask the question.

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2016-November-19, 21:59, said:

Maybe it's a regional thing. I don't think I've ever run into something like that in the US, and I've played with many pick-up partners over the years.

Yes, I think it is. I have the impression that in the non-English speaking parts of Europe it's uses as a generic term to encompass any two-suited overcall.

[helene_t]

gordontd, on 2016-November-21, 01:20, said:

Yes, I think it is. I have the impression that in the non-English speaking parts of Europe it's uses as a generic term to encompass any two-suited overcall.

My impression from the Netherlands is that it is called "modified ghestem". Then at least it is clear that it is unclear

[mycroft]

In the US, in GCC, anyway, the agreement "5=5 in any two suits" is not legal unless it promises 10 high (which I bet East doesn't think this does). GCC, COMPETITIVE, 6. It's interesting, though - is "your idea of your agreement is illegal in this game" evidence to the contrary for the purposes of misbid vs misexplanation?

"Spades Michaels" is legal - and because of our fuzzy Alerting regulations around doubles and cuebids, not Alertable (so is "top and bottom", and I would feel really uncomfortable playing that because I would be *sure* I was misinforming the opponents by doing the right thing and not Alerting). Better ask.

But yes, the opponents were misinformed by definition ("Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient") and also because their agreement is "it shows two suits. We don't know which ones".

I don't know what I would rule in this case. Likely "the correct agreement is 'two suits, unknown'", and look for damage. So, I guess, misexplanation of their lack of knowledge of their agreement.

[mycroft]

helene_t, on 2016-November-21, 05:04, said:

My impression from the Netherlands is that it is called "modified ghestem". Then at least it is clear that it is unclear

I thought "modified Ghestem" is (1♦)-3♣ "I actually have the majors this time, partner, and not a long club suit"?

But I think "modified Ghestem" is as content-free as "modified Precision" (which is what I see on everybody's Precision card. Come on, *nobody* plays Wei-Reese-Goren Precision any more; everybody's added something to whatever system they learned from; WHAT?)

[blackshoe]

I'm not sure the question "misbid or misexplanation" is relevant if the pair is using an illegal method. Law 40B5 says When a side is damaged by an opponent’s use of a special partnership understanding that does not comply with the regulations governing the tournament, the score shall be adjusted. A side in breach of those regulations may be subject to a procedural penalty. The question may be relevant to the determination whether a pair is using an illegal method. I don't think you can assume that a bidder who insists the agreement is "any two suits" can be deemed to have misbid solely because that agreement would be illegal. He may be (probably is not, IME) aware of that.

[Manastorm]

Would it be simplest, if the combined explanation is the actual partnership agreement. If the explanations are essentially the same, no problem. If they differ enough, then it is a disclosure problem or an illegal agreement and dealt appropriately.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2016-November-21, 10:53, said:

But yes, the opponents were misinformed by definition ("Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient") and also because their agreement is "it shows two suits. We don't know which ones".

The OP said "When Asked 2♣ was explained as 5-5 or better in the majors." Where does it say they stated the name of the convention? That only happened when the players were forming their agreements: they agreed to play Michaels, not realizing that they didn't agree on what that means.

Since the meaning "any two suits" is illegal (assuming this was in a GCC event), the one who thought that was what they'd agree to was obviously wrong, since no ethical partner would have agreed to that meaning.

[mycroft]

Ah, read the hand note, remembered that rather than the discussion. Therefore ignore the first part.

I disagree with "no ethical partner" bit. "No ethical partner" would agree to play a system they know is illegal; many players play systems that are illegal because they didn't know (or didn't check, or didn't care), especially in the ACBL. I can certainly believe that East plays "any two suits", because his regular partner taught him it was "any two suits", and they've played it for years without anyone saying anything about its legality.

I know I point out people playing illegal systems at least once a year.

[inquiry]

Here is the reply from the ACBL regarding this ruling. Note, the paragraph on the proper way deals with quotes from the table
Question: "was that michaels",
Reply: "yes"
Question: "are you sure" (very pointedly I suspect)
Reply: "Yes, 5-5 or better in the majors"

Quote

"This situation seems to have come about by a lack of clear communication and acknowledgement by the director, but the ruling is correct. I'll go over the ruling first, then the communication.

One other note regarding communication. The only proper way to ask for an explanation is to say "please explain". When you ask a leading question, the wrong answer may be prompted. In this case, you asked if it were Michael's. Simply ask what agreement the opponents have regarding the cue-bid.
There are two types of misinformation, one subject to rectification, the other not. For the full text of this law (Law 75) see the link at the end for a pdf of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge.

Mistaken Explanation:

This is when the players have agreed to play something and the agreement is explained incorrectly either by lack of alert, or superfluous alert, or when asked about an alert explained as something other than their agreement. This is subject to rectification.

Mistaken Call:

This is when the players have agreed to play something (in your case Michaels), they explain the agreement correctly, but the person who made the call has something else in their hand. This is not subject to rectification.

You were damaged by this player not knowing what Michaels was, but their agreement was Michaels, and it appears you received the correct explanation. Not all damage is subject to rectification.

You as the opponent are entitled to know what your opponent's methods are, but not what's in their hand. This sometimes, like in this instance, randomly gives a horrible result. I know I've been on the brunt end of that ruling before.

Part of being a director is effectively communicating the ruling and the reasons behind the ruling so that players can understand why the ruling is as it is. Your director made the correct ruling, but didn't effectively explain how he came to it, which leaves you feeling it might be wrong. Time might not permit for an explanation at the time as you might have had to play another hand or move for the next round, but it's good policy to offer to explain the reasoning behind the ruling when the players have a spare moment, perhaps after the game.

hope this helps,

Kind Regards,
Greg Vance
Tournament Director and Rulings Box Associate"

I disagree with Mr.Vance, and the original directors ruling. I do agree any 5-5 is illegal in ACBL land to begin with. Apparently this was at a club game, but I am not certain of that.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2016-November-22, 11:11, said:

I disagree with "no ethical partner" bit. "No ethical partner" would agree to play a system they know is illegal; many players play systems that are illegal because they didn't know (or didn't check, or didn't care), especially in the ACBL.

I am not sure that I would call a player who agrees to play an illegal method when he doesn't care whether it's legal "ethical". Or even "not unethical".