Singleton run

[AndreSteff]

[hv=pc=n&s=s7hkqj76dt52cq983&w=sqt9542hdq3cakt74&n=s6hat8543da9864c6&e=sakj83h92dkj7cj52&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1s3c4s5cd5hppp]399|300[/hv]

3♣was not alerted, North meant it to be Ghestem, but the Systems card mentions only weak jump overcalls.

North did not correct the lack of an alert before the play began.

 

5♥went two down. EW think they are damaged because they can make 12 tricks in spades and ten in clubs.

 

North justifies his 5♥bid with the the "common knowledge" that you may run from a Ghestem misunderstaning with a singleton. NS play for the seventh consecutive time with each other, and played together irregularly before that.

 

West justifies his final pass with the fact that after 5♥everybody knew what was wrong and that he was afraid to damage his rights to obtain a score for 5♣doubled if he bid again.

 

How do you rule (it is teams scoring by the way B)) ?

[mr1303]

I adjust to 5C X making not very many. I'm not very good at playing 4-1 fits out, but I might give declarer 2 tricks. Passing 5C as North is clearcut without the UI.

[manudude03]

Agree, the curse of Ghestem raises it's ugly head again :(. I just hope that the 14+ imps they lose as a result will convince N to drop ghestem with any partners.

[wank]

if there was a blind poll to express what thoughts would go through the minds of north players absent the UI, with options

(1) partner's forgot ghestem, i'd better rescue him or

(2) partner's got more clubs than god, i'd better pass

i expect option 1 would be a huge majority. whether it would be big enough to satisfy the laws, who knows, but I'm sure it's not so cut-and-dried as the first 2 replies think.

 

of course the lack of alert removes almost all doubt, but if the poll reveals there was virtually no doubt in the first place, north can still bid.

[gordontd]

North does have a great hand for playing in clubs opposite partner's suit - which could potentially be very long and strong indeed, since he's not a passed hand.

[AndreSteff]

if there was a blind poll to express what thoughts would go through the minds of north players absent the UI, with options

(1) partner's forgot ghestem, i'd better rescue him or

(2) partner's got more clubs than god, i'd better pass

i expect option 1 would be a huge majority. whether it would be big enough to satisfy the laws, who knows, but I'm sure it's not so cut-and-dried as the first 2 replies think.

 

of course the lack of alert removes almost all doubt, but if the poll reveals there was virtually no doubt in the first place, north can still bid.

 

Acutally I scored 5/6 people who passed in my poll, while the 'pollees' dit not know the hand at that. Still, they gave their opinion with a certain degree of glee, or commiseration, very well aware what the poll was about without my explicitly mentioning it.

[AndreSteff]

Is nobody taking offence at West's pass?

[iviehoff]

5♥went two down. EW think they are damaged because they can make 12 tricks in spades and ten in clubs.

I agree NS should be made to feel a lot of pain for abuse of UI (assuming the poll goes as I think it will). But anyone want to let EW keep the self-inflicted damage (L12C1b) for EW failing at least to double 5H when NS were plainly sacrificing and on the run? It looks to me that E might have intended his final pass to be forcing. Or is the failure to double 5H too close to the infraction that L12C1b cannot be applied?

 

Edit: I cross-posted Andre. Yes, failure to double 5H looks self-inflicted.

[RMB1]

Is nobody taking offence at West's pass?

I don't take offence at many calls/plays at the bridge table. I don't think West's pass is a serious error or is wild or gambling.

 

Indeed taking offence (or shuddering) at call/play is a good test for SEWoG, see the shudder test

[iviehoff]

I don't think West's pass is a serious error or is wild or gambling.

It isn't clear to me whether the culprit is East or West. East can clearly see that 4S was full value and the other side are wriggling into their least painful sacrifice. If East's pass was a clearcut forcing pass, inviting slam, (after all, partner has already doubled them once and they look to be running, so maybe it ought to be a very clear forcing pass), then West's pass of his partner's forcing pass is surely SEWoG. But if they don't have that agreement and East was passing to pass, ie saying "we don't want to double them here, partner", then it looks at the same level of awfulness as the 3H bid you judged to be SEWoG in your shudder test. Maybe they can escape criticism if they can argue somehow that two rather bad judgments, neither bad enough individually to be SE, conspired to add up to a blunder where an obvious sacrifice was left undoubled.

[bluejak]

Going back to the original question, suppose North has - ahem, let us say, dubious ethics [just to make a point]. He hears his parter alert 3♣, describe it as hearts and diamonds, and then bid 5♣. What does he do? Yes, I believe he would pass. That solves the N/S problem in my view: pass is an LA.

 

On the West hand, I am not sure what I would do when 5♥ comes round to me. Double? It could easily be cold for an overtrick! Bid 5♠? Now I would be really pleased at going one off when partner has just enough to beat 5♥.

 

I do not believe it matters what I would do: if I have doubt then I do not believe pass is SEWoG.

[Trinidad]

To North I would say that there is no such thing as "common knowledge" that you are allowed to run with a singleton, certainly not when you have already shown at least 10 cards in two other suits. (How many clubs will South expect in the North hand if he knows that North has 10 red cards?) Having a singleton is one more than South would expect.

 

About letting NS play 5♥ undoubled and whether pass is a SEWoG. My SEWoG test is that I will never "search" for SEWoGs. If an action is a SEWoG, it will "bite me". The underlying reasoning being that a serious error would immediately make me react with "Huh?!?!". Therefore, If I don't "Huh?!?!", it is not a serious error. Similarly, a wild or gambling action would make me react with something like "Yeah, right, what are you thinking?". Therefore, if a certain action doesn't strike me immediately as odd, then it may be an error, it may be sloppy, or all kind of things, but it will not be a SEWoG.

 

If something bites me, I will start checking what is going on: Did I understand the circumstances correctly? I will try to see the problems that the NOS was facing and see whether their actions were reasonable.

 

In this case, it certainly bites me that EW didn't double or bid 5♠. I would investigate by asking EW what went wrong. I suspect that East will say that he thought his pass was forcing, whereas West thought it wasn't. If that is the case, then I will look at the level of the EW players. There are a lot of players who will not have clear agreements about what 4♠ shows and whether the pass is forcing. If I deem that EW are of that level, then we are talking about an error that is very common and it can't be a SEWoG.

 

As another option, I may give the East hand to some of East's peers and ask them to bid it (after 5♥). I will do the same to some other players with the West hand just before the final pass.

 

If all of EW's peers solve the issue (by getting to 5 or 6♠ or by doubling) without problems, then I will rule it a SEWoG. If one or more can't solve it, it's not a SEWoG, it's just an E.

 

Rik

[AlexJonson]

Should we interpret Andre's description of his poll, as meaning no-one really passed? That is they all had a good laugh about Ghestem, and indicated that they all understood the position, as did the players at the table.

 

I am quite interested in West's action in passing out 5H. Do TDs ignore a player comment that they passed gambling on an adjustment, rather than obscure the crime by bidding on. Specifically is this kind of action different from gambling in the sense intended in the Laws.

 

I'd be happy enough to see players who use and forget Ghestem suffer for it, but is it legal that they suffer as in this post.

[bluejak]

Is it legal? Well, did North choose amongst LAs one suggested over another by the UI? The UI certainly suggests bidding 5♥ so the only question is whether pass of 5♣ doubled is an LA. Well, I would certainly pass, and it does not take many more to do so to make it an LA.

 

North is being "punished" for breaking the UI Laws, which he did. Why should he not be punished for breaking the Laws? A knowledgeable and ethical player would have taken his medicine in 5♣ doubled, so why should this North do any better?

 

Whatever you may think of the E/W bidding, it does not affect the ruling for N/S.

[mycroft]

So, give the poll this way:

 

You hold 6 AT8543 A9864 6. You're playing Ghestem, so the auction goes 1S-2S (top 2 unbid)-4S-5C; X to you. Your call?

 

(I'm sure it's not standard - which of course means that there's more possibility of screwing it up - but I think there is a legal advantage to playing top 2 unbid cuebid, 3C T/B rather than T/B cuebid. At least when you or partner forgets, *you have clubs* unless the auction is 1C-3C.)

 

Now how many people pass 5C? Yes, you're lying a bit, but on the other hand, your pollees won't have the smirk on their faces and a "time they got their payback for playing their illegal convention" response.

 

(said illegal convention is 3C psycho Suction - clubs or other two unbid suits; not Ghestem played properly, taking the zeros when they screw up).

[gnasher]

So, give the poll this way:

 

You hold 6 AT8543 A9864 6. You're playing Ghestem, so the auction goes 1S-2S (top 2 unbid)-4S-5C; X to you. Your call?

 

I don't think that's fair to the potential offenders. Their argument is that the only logical alternative is to assume that partner thinks we have clubs. The probability that partner will think 2♠ shows clubs is zero, whereas the probaility that he'll think 3♣ shows clubs is non-zero.

[mycroft]

If their argument is that the only LA is to assume partner thinks we have clubs, we'll get that out of the poll, won't we?

 

"So, what's 5C?" "How can this auction exist?"

 

If we hear these questions, then that's how we go. But I bet we won't.

 

If you have a problem with that, how about a poll that goes "you have [hand]. Auction goes 1S-3C!-"What is it?" "Hearts and diamonds" "Okay, 4S"-5C; X. Your call?" David's hypothetical does in fact make sense, and is the way players have to go with it - if still the only logical alternative is that partner forgot, after explicitly hearing the correct information, then fine. Otherwise, it's clearly use of UI to come to the conclusion that partner forgot.

 

If that's too far, how about "1S-3C, showing hearts and diamonds, which partner Alerts. LHO looks at your card and bids 4S, 5C by partner, X to you." Now how many people pull? If it's not everybody, then it's not the only logical explanation that partner has forgotten, but that partner a) knows what he's doing, and B) might actually have a mittful of clubs. Of course with this one, the people could be thinking that it's a "which two suits does 3C show" confusion issue - "he obviously thinks I have hearts and clubs", but then you'll get some 5D callers, no?

 

After all, this hand doesn't contain KJxxxx KQJxx, it's aces-and-spaces. Partner, with 9 clubs, even headed by the KT, could easily *make* 5Cx.

 

Maybe partner has a club void, and a big red fit, and is willing to risk 5C-11 (for -550, a nice score, w/r) to get the club lead against 6S. Sure, if he gets doubled, he'll run - if you don't take it out of his hands.

 

I don't like "partner obviously forgot" as an explanation in general - especially playing conventions that would be illegal if the "forget" auction was part of the agreed system - unless the call is a "he can't do that" bid. On the other hand, I decided to try 1NT-2C; 3C a couple of weeks ago, hoping partner would catch it, knowing it was a "he can't do that" bid. But, of course, I clearly couldn't have forgotten we were playing Stayman, right? Funny how "partner's obviously forgotten" only happens when it's convenient for the forgetting team, and even then, only in the presence of UI.

[AndreSteff]

So, give the poll this way:

 

You hold 6 AT8543 A9864 6. You're playing Ghestem, so the auction goes 1S-2S (top 2 unbid)-4S-5C; X to you. Your call?

I like it!

[ahydra]

Sorry, what's going on here? 3C was NOT alerted and the systems card says WJO, so North misbid. We're not given any information to suggest East or West asked South what the bid meant - so where's the misexplanation? And I don't understand how there can be UI here either (excluding hesitations) - if no explanation is given, South thinks the bid is natural and bids accordingly.

 

There may be something wrt what South thinks 5H meant - if there's evidence to suggest this pair have previously played it/do play it as some sort of (grand) slam try, then passing is almost certainly using some sort of UI (eg a scared look on North's face!) or CPU or fielded a psyche. But if there's no evidence of this, can't North have 6C and 5 (rubbish) H for his bid, and South opt for 5H over 6C because it's 1 trick less and he has KQJxx?

 

I must have missed something because I thought that a mistaken bid isn't punished.

 

ahydra

[mrdct]

Did the TD ascertain what the systemic meaning of 5♣ is after the artificial 3♣ bid? I would probably assume 5♣ shows first round control and slam interest.

[AndreSteff]

Did the TD ascertain what the systemic meaning of 5♣ is after the artificial 3♣ bid? I would probably assume 5♣ shows first round control and slam interest.

 

North stated that you may run with a singleton in partner's suit. So he thought 5♣ to be a natural raise of his presumed clubs.

[AndreSteff]

Establishing misinformation is tricky indeed, but that is not what we are discussing here.

South's actions are not under debate, he has no UI so is free to bid as he pleases.

North however, has by the lack of an alert on 3♣ the UI that his partner has not understood that 3♣ showed hearts+diamonds. This UI suggests bidding 5♥ and is therefore only allowed if passing is not a logical alternative (read Law 16B).

[Trinidad]

Sorry, what's going on here? 3C was NOT alerted and the systems card says WJO, so North misbid. We're not given any information to suggest East or West asked South what the bid meant - so where's the misexplanation? And I don't understand how there can be UI here either (excluding hesitations) - if no explanation is given, South thinks the bid is natural and bids accordingly.

The problem isn't with South. It's with North. North has the UI that South didn't alert 3♣. This UI tells North that South thought that 3♣ was natural, rather than 55+ ♥♦. Therefore it tells North that South doesn't have a truck full of clubs, which is what you would expect of South would have alerted 3♣.

 

There may be something wrt what South thinks 5H meant - if there's evidence to suggest this pair have previously played it/do play it as some sort of (grand) slam try, then passing is almost certainly using some sort of UI (eg a scared look on North's face!) or CPU or fielded a psyche. But if there's no evidence of this, can't North have 6C and 5 (rubbish) H for his bid, and South opt for 5H over 6C because it's 1 trick less and he has KQJxx?

 

I must have missed something because I thought that a mistaken bid isn't punished.

 

ahydra

It is not the mistaken bid that is "punished" (as you write it), nor is it the lack of an alert (after all, the agreement was that 3♣ was natural).

 

What is rectified is the fact that North used UI when he decided not to play South for a hand with a lot of clubs. This is not punishment. This is only rectification to restore equity.

 

Now, if nothing was punished, and irregularities were merely rectified to restore equity, what then was the cause of the horrible score that NS got on this board? The horrible score was caused by the bidding misunderstanding that they had on this board. One of the two (apparently North) bid wrong and it lead to a poor score. That is quite normal when you bid wrong.

 

You might interpret it so that the "bridge gods" punished NS for not being on the same wavelength, but the TDs do not punish NS for their irregularity.

 

Rik

[bluejak]

Sorry, what's going on here? 3C was NOT alerted and the systems card says WJO, so North misbid. We're not given any information to suggest East or West asked South what the bid meant - so where's the misexplanation? And I don't understand how there can be UI here either (excluding hesitations) - if no explanation is given, South thinks the bid is natural and bids accordingly.

 

There may be something wrt what South thinks 5H meant - if there's evidence to suggest this pair have previously played it/do play it as some sort of (grand) slam try, then passing is almost certainly using some sort of UI (eg a scared look on North's face!) or CPU or fielded a psyche. But if there's no evidence of this, can't North have 6C and 5 (rubbish) H for his bid, and South opt for 5H over 6C because it's 1 trick less and he has KQJxx?

 

I must have missed something because I thought that a mistaken bid isn't punished.

What you have missed is the UI. North bid 3♣ as Ghestem so he expected partner to alert it. Partner's failure to alert is UI and thus the UI Laws apply.

[lamford]

Did the TD ascertain what the systemic meaning of 5♣ is after the artificial 3♣ bid? I would probably assume 5♣ shows first round control and slam interest.

"You cannot be serious." The chances of someone who thinks they are playing Ghestem, when they aren't, having discussed this sequence are about the same as that of a kettle freezing when placed on a hot stove. North must carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI from the alert. So why cannot his partner have eight or nine clubs and be bidding this to play?

 

To add insult to injury, North has wrong-sided 5Cx which is ten off on the obvious trump lead. Played by South it would only be nine off, but East has enough entries, including the opening lead, to draw trumps. So -2600 it is. The sadist TD would give some percentage of -5200, as North has a great hand for clubs, with both red aces, a trump, and only one spade, and might well redouble, carefully avoiding taking advantage ... But I am a generous soul and would just give 100% of -2600.