[jdonn]

I have no problem understanding it?

[bluecalm]

Quote

I am quite sure that neither Helgemo-Helness nor Brogeland-Lindqvist (the ones on this list that I know) would agree that they play Ghestem. They both play a cuebid of opponents suit as specified suits (both majors/other major+club) and 2NT as the 2 lowest, but they don't have a bid to show the last two-suiter (have to bid each suit naturally).

By "Ghestem and variations" I meant known 2suiter. I didn't want to imply that all those pairs play 3m jumps as two suiters. Just that their 2suiter bids show specific suits and not one specific, one unknown like michaels.

Quote

Bates/Sontag; Cohen/Berk;Git/Moss;Stansby/Martel;Meckwell --all showed Michaels.

Meckwell is interesting because their cc from 2009 shows that:

1c - 3c = strong majors
1d - 3d = strong majors
1s - 2s = H/D or strong H/C
1H - 2H = S - min (classical michaels)

I would say they are in "classical michaels" camp though as it seems they don't think having 2 known suits is important.

Quote

I'd be shocked if current expert standard is theoretically inferior to anything currently played. michaels seems fine. I'd be eager to learn, though.

Why, this is how progress happens: expert standard is inferior to something else.
It's hard to say what "expert standard" is by the way, it seems to me that most elite pairs these days don't use michaels anymore but probably it depends on how we define "elite" pair.