Convention Disruption

[Zelandakh]

I am a bit uncomfortable with Ghestem bids where, for example, clubs is one of the suits shown by the 3♣ bid. This seems to protect both sides against forgetting (and it is not best, so why have they chosen to play that way?).

Is my method over 1m, where 2♥ is weak with both majors; and 2♠ is weak with spades and the other minor, equally suspicious? If you are able to make the 2-suited bid always weak, for example by providing an alternative bid for the strong 2-suited varieties, then including the suit bid is absolutely optimal.

[WellSpyder]

If you are able to make the 2-suited bid always weak, for example by providing an alternative bid for the strong 2-suited varieties, then including the suit bid is absolutely optimal.

I think this is the critical point, with which I completely agree. I suspect Vampyr is envisaging the situation where 2-suited overcalls are played as either weak or strong, as seems to be the norm over here, in which case she is probably right that it is better NOT to bid the suit you have. (FWIW, in the only partnership in which I play Ghestem we have a well-defined point range, but still play it the "traditional" way in which 3C does not include a C suit - and I am convinced this is not optimal!)

[gnasher]

I think the critical point is that it's completely OK to play methods which are designed to mitigate the consequences of forgetfulness. There are two other things that you do have to do:

- Disclose that you think there is a risk of forgetting the methods.

- Not find yourself playing an illegal method as a result.

 

Here's a better example than the ones I gave earlier: in one partnership I have the general agreement that if we bid a suit opposite a natural 4NT bid, that's a response to either Keycard or to four-ace Blackwood with 0/3 1/4 responses (whichever makes most sense). The main purpose of this agreement is to limit the cost of a misunderstanding. If something does go wrong, at least we both know what the response means, and we are generally unaffected by UI. I think this agreement is perfectly legal.

[bluejak]

I am a bit uncomfortable with Ghestem bids where, for example, clubs is one of the suits shown by the 3♣ bid. This seems to protect both sides against forgetting (and it is not best, so why have they chosen to play that way?).

It is not clear that it is not best. I am very uncomfortable with the suggestion there is anything suspicious in a pair playing something just because someone else thinks it is not best.

 

I know a lot of people who play Aspro, Astro or Asptro (anchored to long suit). In my view those are clearly and demonstrably inferior to Asptro (anchored to short suit). Should I be suspicious of their motives?

 

Furthermore, if you play Ghestem as weak only, as I used to, I strongly believe that playing 3♣ as the extreme suits is technically superior, not inferior.

[c_corgi]

The problem I have is that the partnership is protected from misbids. If I bid 3♣ with a WJS in clubs, maybe partner will prefer clubs to the other suit and I will be OK. If I bid 3♣ with clubs and whatever, and partner thinks I have a WJS in clubs, we will again be in an OK spot. It seems like a psyche control.

 

Having a WJO in clubs interpreted by partner as a black 2-suiter doesn't sound like a very good outcome for the Ghestem pair. However the convention disruption that would result seems likely to be less than if 3C systemically showed a 2-suiter without clubs.