obligation to correct partners misinformation

[Jon LaBadie]

At a recent sectional I picked up a partner at the "Partnership Desk".
In the few moments my 1st time partner and I had to cover our convention
cards we noted we both played Michael's cue bid. No further discussion
about Michael's ensued.

During the session, I picked up a hand with 6S,1H,1D,5C, about 5 HCP.
Dealer, (my RHO) opened 1H and I showed my distribution with 2H.

LHO asked my partner the meaning of my 2H bid and he erroneously replied
"he has the lowest 2 unbid suits". The contract eventually became 6S as
the LHO was worried about my supposed length in diamonds. This went down
by a bunch.

At the end of the hand I called for a director and explained the
situation. He said he would make a correction. Every other table but
one played and made either 6D or 6NT so he corrected to 6D making.

I'm still uncertain if, when, and how I should have corrected partner's
misinformation. If I correct immediately, even by calling director, I'm
giving partner unauthorized information.

Any idea what the laws say?

Jon

[ais523]

Post by Jon LaBadie
At a recent sectional I picked up a partner at the "Partnership Desk".
In the few moments my 1st time partner and I had to cover our convention
cards we noted we both played Michael's cue bid. No further discussion
about Michael's ensued.
During the session, I picked up a hand with 6S,1H,1D,5C, about 5 HCP.
Dealer, (my RHO) opened 1H and I showed my distribution with 2H.
LHO asked my partner the meaning of my 2H bid and he erroneously replied
"he has the lowest 2 unbid suits". The contract eventually became 6S as
the LHO was worried about my supposed length in diamonds. This went down
by a bunch.

This isn't immediately relevant to your question, but just for
information, the correct response is "we agreed to play this as
Michaels, but haven't discussed what that means". (If your opponent has
never heard of Michaels, you can elaborate then, but this is unlikely.)
The opponents are entitled to know about your partnership agreement, and
also as to how firm or confused it is; you need to be clear on what is
part of the agreement and what is speculation.

Post by Jon LaBadie
At the end of the hand I called for a director and explained the
situation. He said he would make a correction. Every other table but
one played and made either 6D or 6NT so he corrected to 6D making.
I'm still uncertain if, when, and how I should have corrected partner's
misinformation. If I correct immediately, even by calling director, I'm
giving partner unauthorized information.
Any idea what the laws say?

==========================================================================

Law 20F:

[...]

4. (a) If a player realizes during the auction that his own explanation
was erroneous or incomplete, he must summon the Director before
the end of the Clarification Period and correct the
misexplanation. He may elect to call the Director sooner, but he
is under no obligation to do so. (For a correction during the
play period, see Law 75B2.)

[...]

5. (a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not
correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any
manner that a mistake has been made.

'Mistaken explanation' here includes failure to alert or announce
as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that
regulations do not require.

(b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that,
in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law
75B) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is:

(i) for a defender, at the end of the play.
(ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.

==========================================================================

TL;DR: if you make an incorrect explanation and realise it, call the
Director before the opening lead is made (or sooner if you prefer); if
your partner makes an incorrect explanation and you realise it, call
the Director at the end of the auction if you're declarer/dummy, or
after the play if you're a defender.

Directors will typically handle this situation by determining whether
the opponents were damaged, and if they were, correcting the board to
have a normal result (unless something abnormal happened earlier in
the bidding, or something very abnormal and unrelated happened later
in the hand). That's what the director did here.

[Barry Margolin]

Post by Jon LaBadie
At a recent sectional I picked up a partner at the "Partnership Desk".
In the few moments my 1st time partner and I had to cover our convention
cards we noted we both played Michael's cue bid. No further discussion
about Michael's ensued.

FYI, it's Michaels, no apostrophe. It's the last name of the player (his
first name also happened to be Mike, but that's irrelevant). We don't
say Jacoby's, Stayman's, or Blackwood's, why would we say Michael's?

Post by Jon LaBadie
During the session, I picked up a hand with 6S,1H,1D,5C, about 5 HCP.
Dealer, (my RHO) opened 1H and I showed my distribution with 2H.
LHO asked my partner the meaning of my 2H bid and he erroneously replied
"he has the lowest 2 unbid suits". The contract eventually became 6S as
the LHO was worried about my supposed length in diamonds. This went down
by a bunch.

Your partner apparently had Michaels confused with Unusual 2NT.
Practically no one plays Michaels as showing the 2 lowest unbid.

This isn't something you should expect to need to discuss with a new
partner. If you had time you could discuss followup bids, but the basic
meaning of the convention should be clear.

Someone else already answered your legal question, this is all just an
aside.

[Peter Smulders]

Post by Jon LaBadie
At a recent sectional I picked up a partner at the "Partnership Desk".
In the few moments my 1st time partner and I had to cover our convention
cards we noted we both played Michael's cue bid. No further discussion
about Michael's ensued.
During the session, I picked up a hand with 6S,1H,1D,5C, about 5 HCP.
Dealer, (my RHO) opened 1H and I showed my distribution with 2H.
LHO asked my partner the meaning of my 2H bid and he erroneously replied
"he has the lowest 2 unbid suits". The contract eventually became 6S as
the LHO was worried about my supposed length in diamonds. This went down
by a bunch.
At the end of the hand I called for a director and explained the
situation. He said he would make a correction. Every other table but
one played and made either 6D or 6NT so he corrected to 6D making.
I'm still uncertain if, when, and how I should have corrected partner's
misinformation. If I correct immediately, even by calling director, I'm
giving partner unauthorized information.
Any idea what the laws say?
Jon

law 75B3 says it clearly:
The player’s partner must do nothing to correct the mistaken explanation
while the auction continues and if he subsequently becomes a defender,
he must call the Director and correct the explanation only after play
ends. If the player’s partner is to be declarer or dummy, he must,
after the final pass, call the Director and then provide a correction.

You did well.