Another Ghestem style problem

[mr1303]

[hv=pc=n&s=st976haqjt8dqt43c&w=skj2h7432dkjcqt63&n=s543h9d976ca98754&e=saq8hk65da852ckj2&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=pp1d2dd3c3nppp]399|300[/hv]

 

2D was alerted and explained as both black suits as per the convention card. EW are relatively inexperienced and call you to the table asking for a ruling on this hand.

 

What do you say? Any other information required?

[blackshoe]

I would ask South why he bid 2♦. I suspect this is going to turn out to be a misbid, in which case, unless I'm missing something, the result stands. Laws 20, 21, 75, 16, and 12.

[wank]

i would ask north why he only bid 3♣. noone who plays bridge would content himself with preference with 6 card support to an ace at green.

 

i would suspect north has prior experience of south's forgetting the methods.

[Trinidad]

i would ask north why he only bid 3♣. noone who plays bridge would content himself with preference with 6 card support to an ace at green.

 

i would suspect north has prior experience of south's forgetting the methods.

Agree.

 

There is still some detective work to do. It is not so much the fact that the South hand doesn't match the explanation. It is the fact that the North hand didn't match his own explanation. That is a strong indication that North didn't believe his own explanation.

 

So, the question would be: What would have happened if North would have said: "It shows the black suits, but it has happened quite often that he has the majors [or whatever he would have had]." I am afraid that EW would still end in 3NT.

 

Do you think that the play would have gone differently with a better explanation?

 

Rik

[RMB1]

What do you say? Any other information required?

 

What was the result in 3NT? What result do EW hope for if they had been differently informed?

[Cyberyeti]

What was the result in 3NT? What result do EW hope for if they had been differently informed?

Presumably 3N made but they were rather hoping N would not field and bid 5♣ or 4♠ at this vulnerability first time. I wonder if there was body language when the explanation was given.

[mr1303]

In fairness, they said they weren't particularly damaged in the play, just thought that only bidding 3C with the North cards was "odd"

[wank]

In fairness, they said they weren't particularly damaged in the play, just thought that only bidding 3C with the North cards was "odd"

 

i suspect the ultimate answer depends to some extent on where you are. in england we've got a regulation to cover fielding partner's misbids: the table result would get thrown out and 60/40% awarded (unless the table score was already better for EW).

[blackshoe]

One view is that the English regulation simply gives specific guidance so that the director can avoid mentioning the dreaded CPU and just refer to the regulation, including "I don't have a choice, the regulation says it's gotta be 60/40". Other jurisdictions don't have the crutch, but a "fielded misbid" is still illegal under the law, and the director can still adjust where there is damage. If there was no damage, however, there should be no adjustment.

 

It sounds like EW just want NS "educated" about the laws. Fair enough.

[Jeremy69A]

unless I'm missing something, the result stands

 

For North to bid only 3♣is more than a bit surprising and I would be sharpening my PP axe as well as adjusting the score.

 

What would have happened if North would have said: "It shows the black suits, but it has happened quite often that he has the majors

 

For North to bid only 3♣is more than a bit surprising and I would be sharpening my PP axe as well as adjusting the score.

 

In fairness, they said they weren't particularly damaged in the play, just thought that only bidding 3C with the North cards was "odd"

 

masters of understatement.

 

There is a high frequency of Ghestem misbids the most typical being a jump to 3♣ with a load of clubs. I find players more often seek to cater for a misbid of this convention than almost any other.

 

In this particular case I would be investigating the number that arose from 5♣x -7 as well as the PP. In a perfect world(which probably wouldn't include Ghestem at all) I would log on to the EBU database to find out how often this had happened before in this partnership and tailor my penalty to the number of occurrences. It might also include writing out 100 times "To bid only 3♣ opposite a hand that has shown a two suiter with clubs makes me guilty of unfair play"

 

If the bad bidding police are in town they could then have a go at South not for forgetting his own convention but imagining that this hand is suitable to show both majors

[campboy]

I don't see how we can adjust the score to 5♣x-7, at least in the EBU, since as wank says the regulations prescribe 60/40 for a fielded misbid (WB 90.4.2). Of course, there is nothing stopping us giving a swingeing PP.

[RMB1]

There are lots of players who bid their better minor at the three level in response to an unusual 2NT unless they have substantial values. If you ask them why they didn't bid 5♣ they just look at you blankly. Perhaps this shows they don't really trust partner to have what he has shown, or perhaps they are uncomfortable bidding "on their own" when partner has only shown the suits artificially, not bid them.

 

For such players, 3♣ is not a red fielded misbid.

 

I guess I mean: 3♣ is not red fielding of the 2NT misbid.

Edited January 30, 2012 by RMB1

[Jeremy69A]

I don't see how we can adjust the score to 5♣x-7

 

No. It was only a pious hope together with helping to form a view as to the size of the PP. I agree with Robin's comment that poor players often don't think of bidding 5♣ unless they expect to make it but at least a part of the reason for this is to cater for partner forgetting earlier in the auction. It is similar to holding a decent hand with 4♥ and hearing partner wade in with 2♣ hearts and another over 1NT. If you bid lots of hearts you will find partner has a single suiter in clubs after all, not that they advertise the possibility.

[c_corgi]

There are lots of players who bid their better minor at the three level in response to an unusual 2NT unless they have substantial values. If you ask them why they didn't bid 5♣ they just look at you blankly. Perhaps this shows they don't really trust partner to have what he has shown, or perhaps they are uncomfortable bidding "on their own" when partner has only shown the suits artificially, not bid them.

 

For such players, 3♣ is not a red fielded misbid.

 

I guess I mean: 3♣ is not red fielding of the 2NT misbid.

 

Surely failing to save over 3NT cannot be construed as other than fielding?

[gnasher]

I know that this approach to misbids is how EBU directors are taught to rule, but I think it's ridiculous.

When you rule that a misbid has been fielded, you are ruling that there is an undisclosed partnership agreement.

 

If you gave the North hand to any bridge player, and told him that EW play a natural system without Canape, 2♦ showed the black suits, West's double showed what it normally shows, and West's alternatives included ways to show hearts and ways to show diamond support, what would he say?

 

He would say "Partner has misbid." You can infer this without ever having played a board with your partner, indeed without knowing anything about him - it's just obvious. Therefore North's actions do not provide any evidence of an undisclosed partnership agreement, and, in the absence of any other evidence, it's absurd to rule that they have such an agreement.

[lamford]

If you gave the North hand to any bridge player, and told him that EW play a natural system without Canape, 2♦ showed the black suits, West's double showed what it normally shows, and West's alternatives included ways to show hearts and ways to show diamond support, what would he say?

 

He would say "Partner has misbid." You can infer this without ever having played a board with your partner, indeed without knowing anything about him - it's just obvious. Therefore North's actions do not provide any evidence of an undisclosed partnership agreement, and, in the absence of any other evidence, it's absurd to rule that they have such an agreement.

I completely agree. The opponents' bidding is part of the authorised auction. There is a school of thought, which is more prevalent in the fielding of psyches, that one has to assume the opponents are randomly bidding two- or three-card suits, or bidding 3NT with a singleton club in each hand. This is not what the Laws say. Mind you there are plenty of players at my local club, and every club across the country, who would not even be aware that partner has misbid. They are bidding only 3C because they have "only four points, partner". Jeremy, "forgive them, for they know not what they do".

[bluejak]

I know that this approach to misbids is how EBU directors are taught to rule, but I think it's ridiculous.

When you rule that a misbid has been fielded, you are ruling that there is an undisclosed partnership agreement.

 

If you gave the North hand to any bridge player, and told him that EW play a natural system without Canape, 2♦ showed the black suits, West's double showed what it normally shows, and West's alternatives included ways to show hearts and ways to show diamond support, what would he say?

 

He would say "Partner has misbid." You can infer this without ever having played a board with your partner, indeed without knowing anything about him - it's just obvious. Therefore North's actions do not provide any evidence of an undisclosed partnership agreement, and, in the absence of any other evidence, it's absurd to rule that they have such an agreement.

Are you suggesting that EBU TDs are taught to misjudge hands deliberately? That's ridiculous.

 

According to you, this hand was not a fielded misbid: fine, if it is not a fielded misbid, then you do not rule it a fielded misbid.

[dburn]

If North (an expert playing with this partner for the first or second time) said "I had so many clubs and so few hearts that I decided partner had forgotten the methods", would you believe him?

 

If North (a beginner) said "Partner had shown the black suits so I bid my longer black suit; I didn't bid more than three because I had a bad hand and they'd doubled 2♦", would you believe him?

 

If North (an expert playing with this partner for the thousandth time) said "I bid 3♣ so that when I later bid 5♣ over 4♥, they would be more likely to double me than to bid 5♥ or 6♥; when they bid 3NT I knew that either he'd forgotten or they'd gone crazy and 3NT would go down several on a club lead", would you believe him?

 

That is: I agree strongly with the notion that I would like to know why North acted as he did. But I would reserve judgement until I had an answer to the question.

[Trinidad]

I know that this approach to misbids is how EBU directors are taught to rule, but I think it's ridiculous.

When you rule that a misbid has been fielded, you are ruling that there is an undisclosed partnership agreement.

 

If you gave the North hand to any bridge player, and told him that EW play a natural system without Canape, 2♦ showed the black suits, West's double showed what it normally shows, and West's alternatives included ways to show hearts and ways to show diamond support, what would he say?

 

He would say "Partner has misbid." You can infer this without ever having played a board with your partner, indeed without knowing anything about him - it's just obvious. Therefore North's actions do not provide any evidence of an undisclosed partnership agreement, and, in the absence of any other evidence, it's absurd to rule that they have such an agreement.

Why would he say that partner has misbid? There are three other players at the table, two of which are his relatively inexperienced opponents. If I would not have any previous experience with partner messing up a Ghestem auction, I would be sure that one of the opponents misbid. Only if partner has a history of forgetting the system in this situation, I would conclude that partner has misbid. But then I have a CPU.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

In a perfect world(which probably wouldn't include Ghestem at all) I would log on to the EBU database to find out how often this had happened before in this partnership and tailor my penalty to the number of occurrences.

 

It would be nice if such information were available.

 

I wonder what percentage of the time a convention has to be forgotten before you can say that the partnership are not actually playing it, and rule misinformation. Again though, you will never know how many times they have forgotten.

[mgoetze]

Why would he say that partner has misbid? There are three other players at the table, two of which are his relatively inexperienced opponents. If I would not have any previous experience with partner messing up a Ghestem auction,

 

Because in general people have more experience of Ghestem auctions being messed up then the other things that came up here, so without evidence to the contrary (such as having played with this partner often and knowing he is very unlikely to forget), that is just the most likely culprit.

[gnasher]

Are you suggesting that EBU TDs are taught to misjudge hands deliberately? That's ridiculous.

 

According to you, this hand was not a fielded misbid: fine, if it is not a fielded misbid, then you do not rule it a fielded misbid.

When a well-trained EBU TD is deciding how to classify North's actions, which of the following will he take into account:

(1) How often NS have played together.

(2) How often South forgets their methods.

(3) How often South forgets this particular convention.

(4) Arguments such as "I knew from my own hand that someone had misbid. My own hand and my general bridge knowledge suggested that on this occasion it was likely to be my partner who had misbid."

[bluejak]

Any evidence he can glean.

[gnasher]

Section 6B of the Orange Book (reproduced below) describes the procedure to be followed by a TD in the event of a psych or misbid. It says that the classification of North's action will be based upon his action on the current board, and possibly on other boards from the same event. In about 400 words discussing the TD's approach, there is no suggestion that he will gather or consider any other evidence. The sentence "If a player psyches and his partner takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as fielding" seems to imply that other evidence will not be considered relevant.

 

My interpretation of this rule is that the director classifies North's actions solely on the basis of his actions on this board, his actions on other boards in the same event, and his bridge-playing ability. By way of corroboration of my interpretation, earlier in this thread the chairman of the L&EC and a National TD seemed to think that they could rule using only the fact that North's actions appeared to cater for a misbid, without considering any of the four factors in my previous email.

 

Are you saying that EBU TDs are taught a different interpretation of this part of the regulations?

 

Are they told to ask questions such as "How often have you played together?", "How often does South forget your system?", "Has South forgotten this convention before?"

 

6 B Fielding

6 B 1 The actions of the psycher's partner following a psyche – and, possibly, further actionsby the psycher himself – may provide evidence of an unauthorised, and therefore

illegal, understanding. If so, then the partnership is said to have 'fielded' the psyche.

The TD will judge actions objectively by the standards of a player's peers; that is to say intent will not be taken into account.

6 B 2 As the judgement by the TD will be objective, some players may be understandably upset that their actions are ruled to be fielding. If a player psyches and his partner

takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as fielding.

6 B 3 A partnership's actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to find that it has an unauthorised understanding and the score will be adjusted in principle (see 6 D). This

is classified as a Red psyche.

6 B 4 A TD may find that whilst there is some evidence of an unauthorised understanding it is not sufficient, of itself, to justify an adjusted score. This is classified as an Amber

psyche. In particular, if both partners psyche on the same hand, then a classification of at least Amber is likely to be justified.

6 B 5 In the majority of cases the TD will find nothing untoward and classify it as a Green psyche.

6 B 6 A TD may use evidence from a partnership's actions on two or more boards to assess a partnership's actions. Whilst a single instance may not provide sufficient evidence of an unauthorised understanding to warrant a score adjustment, a repetition reinforces

the conclusion that an unauthorised understanding exists. In other words, if two psyches are classified as Amber, the classification of both automatically becomes Red, and the score on all such boards is adjusted accordingly.

6 B 7 A partnership's actions following a deviation may provide evidence of an unauthorised understanding, but they are less likely to do so than after6 B 8 A partnership's actions following a misbid may provide evidence of an unauthorised

understanding, but they are less likely to do so because of the lack of intent to mislead.

As with psyches, misbids may be classified as Red, Amber or Green.

6 B 9 Because of the difference between the player's understanding of his call and any alerts and answers to questions by his partner it is quite common for unauthorised information problems to be present.

[AlexJonson]

Post #2 seems to cover the correct ruling. Why North should be automatically compelled to bid on in this auction is lost on me.

 

It looks as if the Orange Book procedure is ill judged or badly written, if we wish to claim it is a way of describing the handling of a CPU.