Ghestem misbid at the club

[VixTD]

I've been asked about this incident from our local club on Friday night:

[hv=pc=n&s=s5hjtdt86ckq96532&w=sakqt876h83d54ct8&n=s432haq62dq73caj7&e=sj9hk9754dakj92c4&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p(%3F!)1h3c(S%2BD%5BA%5D)3sppp]399|300[/hv]

I've had no explanation for North's initial pass. 3♣ was alerted and explained as ♠ and ♦ (correct explanation, shown on the convention card). I don't think that 3♠ was alerted.

 

When 3♠ was passed out and made ten tricks (75% of the matchpoints to NS), EW called the director to say that South's hand did not match the explanation.

 

Both pairs are regular partnerships, but EW are not very experienced, and play a simple club game. It's too much to expect them to have any agreed defence against two-suited overcalls, so you have to be understanding if they didn't make the most of the opportunity given to them.

 

What do you think the ruling should be?

[helene_t]

if the explanation is correct there is obviously no infraction.

 

in the Netherlands I would have adjusted to 4s= because if e had known that 3c was likely to be a misbid he might have raised. dutch tds tend to treat ghestem forgets as mi. in ebu I might have given a weighed score on the same basis (weighted scores are legal in nl but very rare).

[Vampyr]

dutch tds tend to treat ghestem forgets as mi.

 

Quite right too.

[blackshoe]

Is the assumption that NS knew that 3♣ was likely to be a misbid based on anything more than that this is a "Ghestem forget" situation? Is there any evidence that this pair has had this problem before? I've never liked this "you forgot what you are playing. Automatic score adjustment" business.

[helene_t]

if 3C shows both minors spades and diamonds

FYP

[VixTD]

Indeed, but they were entitled to an alert, and if 3C shows both minors, West would be able to bid 3D, forcing with spades, releasing 3S to be non-forcing. They might not have that agreement, of course, but the failure to alert was by NS. It seems that East took 3S to be NF, and his hand is worse if South is 5-5 in the minors. So, I would adjusts to 100% of 4S+1 which declarer will make without the (potential) MI.

 

Also North, with a fit both both suits and a maximum pass (!), should be supporting both minors (presumably via an artificial 3NT but if not by bidding 4C). East might well bid 4S now.

I don't understand this. There was no failure to alert by NS. (There may have been one by EW.) South doesn't have, and hasn't shown, the minors. They have clubs, but have shown diamonds and spades.

[VixTD]

if the explanation is correct there is obviously no infraction.

I don't think this is correct.

[helene_t]

I don't think this is correct.

Why not? A fielded misbid?

[lamford]

I don't understand this. There was no failure to alert by NS. (There may have been one by EW.) South doesn't have, and hasn't shown, the minors. They have clubs, but have shown diamonds and spades.

Ah, I read that 3C wasn't alerted, sorry. That changes things, although North with a fit for both suits and a 13-count might well double 3S or bid 4S, although I suspect his partner has forgotten Ghestem before.

 

If South had shown ♦ and ♠, then West's 3S would surely not be natural, and East's pass very odd. Sorry to mistake clubs and spades which look the same on a hand-held!

[ggwhiz]

Given the initial pass by north and most suitable support for a partner who is off to the 3 level, even Aces in their short suits it sure looks like fielding to me.

 

With no firm legal basis(?) I would REALLY like to stick N/S with 3♠ doubled + 1 or 2.

[VixTD]

Why not? A fielded misbid?

Yes, something like that.

 

I'm not saying there should be a score adjustment, just that it isn't obvious that there shouldn't be one.

[VixTD]

Ah, I read that 3C wasn't alerted, sorry. That changes things, although North with a fit for both suits and a 13-count might well double 3S or bid 4S, although I suspect his partner has forgotten Ghestem before.

 

If South had shown ♦ and ♠, then West's 3S would surely not be natural, and East's pass very odd.

As I tried to hint in the original post, EW are way out of their depth, they have no idea what double or cue-bids of opponents' suits mean, what would be forcing or not forcing. I would be more surprised if West had passed or doubled over 3♣, or if East had found another bid on the actual auction.

[billw55]

Given the initial pass by north and most suitable support for a partner who is off to the 3 level, even Aces in their short suits it sure looks like fielding to me.

 

With no firm legal basis(?) I would REALLY like to stick N/S with 3♠ doubled + 1 or 2.

I tend to agree, north is looking at a double fit with controls in both side suits, and has already understated his hand. Definitely feels like fielding.

[nige1]

Agree with Helene_t, that if the rules permit, the director should rule MI or worse. In the UK, I fear that EW can expect no redress, unless the director judges from North's actions, that like many partnerships, NS treat Guessed 'em as a random "psyche", especially 3rd in hand, not-vulnerable.

 

In these situations SEWOG laws often make hard decisions virtually impossible. IMO the rules would be easier to enforce if they were changed to assume that partnerships learnt their agreements (see Wolff on convention disruption)

[VixTD]

Agree with Helene_t, that if the rules permit, the director should rule MI or worse. In the UK, I fear that EW can expect no redress, unless the director judges from North's actions, that like many partnerships, NS treat Guessed 'em as a random "psyche", especially 3rd in hand, not-vulnerable.

Did Helene really say that?

 

There might be a case for ruling that NS are using an illegal agreement (3♣ shows either clubs, or diamonds and spades), but that's not the same as a psyche.

 

In these situations SEWOG laws often make hard decisions virtually impossible. IMO the rules would be easier to enforce if they were changed to assume that partnerships learnt their agreements (see Wolff on convention disruption)

I don't see how SEWOG comes into it. For players of their standard and experience, EW have not made any serious error, or if they have, it is not unrelated to the infraction.

[StevenG]

I think we need to know what North was thinking. Why did he pass his opening bid? Maybe he'd "lost" an Ace or just miscounted, and was still thinking he had a 9-count when it came back to him. Who knows?

 

The only basis for an adjustment that I can see is that he might have fielded a misbid. And yet, I don't see any clear alternative to pass, whether North is fielding or not. 4♠ is out of the question after West's bid. 4♦, perhaps? It wouldn't appeal to me, whereas defending 3♠ with declarer in a presumed 5-0 fit looks much more tempting.

 

The only way to deal with repeated Ghestem (or similar) forgets is to log them. Once there is evidence that it can be bid as per convention card or as a single-suiter, then you can (in the EBU) rule illegal agreement. But one hand, by itself, proves nothing.

[VixTD]

I tend to agree, north is looking at a double fit with controls in both side suits, and has already understated his hand. Definitely feels like fielding.

My problem with this is that West has to some extent let North off the hook. South and West cannot conceivably both have the spade suit they are advertising. If South's bid is genuine, West's 3♠ is not going to end the auction. If West's bid is genuine, it might be better for North if it did. I know that North normally has to be convinced by legal means that it must be partner who has erred rather than EW, but in either case North doesn't need to act now.

 

If North's pass is deemed to be fielding, and there's no evidence of any UI from South to North, the board should be scored as 60% to EW and 40% to NS on the assumption that they are playing an illegal method. [WB1.4.5 and 2.8.3.3]

[Vampyr]

The only way to deal with repeated Ghestem (or similar) forgets is to log them. Once there is evidence that it can be bid as per convention card or as a single-suiter, then you can (in the EBU) rule illegal agreement. But one hand, by itself, proves nothing.

 

Logging such things would be great, but it seems impractical. Where would the records be kept? Who could enter information into them? Would club games count or only tournaments? Also the director is rarely called by opponents of Ghestem bidders when they are writing +1100 in their scorecards.

[mycroft]

My question is, "given the auction as stated, (including that West's bid is natural), why did you pass?" If the answer is what I expect, I will find out if they remember having a Ghestem mistake before. If not - "well, it's looking like a stopper ask, right? and I have no reason to (en|dis)courage (as per their agreements) a spade lead into 3NT", then, well, that's convenient, innit?

 

I'd take this one to poll. If everybody passes with the right agreement and explanation - especially if they tell me "oh, partner forgot again, eh?", well, then. Otherwise, I'd strongly be tempted to rule evidence of a CPU - that their real agreement is "diamonds and spades, or clubs if partner forgot again", either down the "fielded misbid" path or the "illegal agreement" path (if that is in fact an illegal agreement).

 

While I do not in any way support the "Systemic Germs" theory, he's not wrong - these agreements, when "randomly" forgotten, do make life more-than-legally difficult for opponents. If they've "just taken on" G-, then I'm happy to help their education along with a auto 60/40 or 50% of 3♠x+1, 50% of 5♣x-3 - provided it's legal. If they've been doing it for years, and only getting it wrong occasionally, then maybe this will remind them not to get it wrong again.

 

Does a club in the EBU have the right to bar specific pairs from using conventions they regularly misuse, or penalize particular pairs for repeated misbids of a persuasion?

 

I should note that the event that gave me my LM status turned on the ACBL equivalent to this auction - a Flannery Forget. No TD call, even for the gross misuse of UI, because we weren't getting better than 1100 without it...

[sanst]

if the explanation is correct there is obviously no infraction.

 

in the Netherlands I would have adjusted to 4s= because if e had known that 3c was likely to be a misbid he might have raised. dutch tds tend to treat ghestem forgets as mi.

Not any more. We now have to live with the directive that it's MI if the pair has been playing a convention for less than a year, otherwise it's a misbid. In my opinion it's a idiotic idea, since it doesn't take in account the strength of the pair, how experienced they are, how often a convention is used and what else have you. The concept of a fielded misbid is unknown over here.

[weejonnie]

I think we need to know what North was thinking. Why did he pass his opening bid? Maybe he'd "lost" an Ace or just miscounted, and was still thinking he had a 9-count when it came back to him. Who knows?

 

The only basis for an adjustment that I can see is that he might have fielded a misbid. And yet, I don't see any clear alternative to pass, whether North is fielding or not. 4♠ is out of the question after West's bid. 4♦, perhaps? It wouldn't appeal to me, whereas defending 3♠ with declarer in a presumed 5-0 fit looks much more tempting.

 

The only way to deal with repeated Ghestem (or similar) forgets is to log them. Once there is evidence that it can be bid as per convention card or as a single-suiter, then you can (in the EBU) rule illegal agreement. But one hand, by itself, proves nothing.

Maybe West was psyching with a massive heart fit.

 

The rules for fielded misbids changed in August. The following are from the White Book.

-----------------------

"There is no longer an automatic adjustment for a fielded misbid. Instead, the TD will determine what the likely partnership understanding is and rule on possible misinformation on that basis."

 

"Of course, it is possible that a player knows from the legal auction and from his own hand that his partner has misbid – for example, partner shows three aces in response to Gerber but the player has three aces. It is also possible that a player has a hand that makes it very likely but not certain that partner has misbid – for example, partner opens a Texas 4 (showing a good pre-empt in hearts) and the player holds K10xxxx and no clubs. It is not possible to provide guidance as to the strength of evidence required before a player may legitimately act on the basis that partner has misbid. Individual cases are rare, and can be judged on their merits."

-----------------------

So - is the 3♠ overcall (not alerted) sufficiently strong evidence before North can legitimately act on the basis partner has misbid?

 

(Individual cases are rare - but they seem to end up on forums rather a lot.)

 

I know we all want to hang NS for 'convention disruption' - but this time they might get away with it (depending on enquiries about whether this has happened before) There is no UI for North so we can't alter the contract to 3♠ XX +1, much as we'd like to. South has UI but I cannot see any LAs to passing 3♠.

[mikestar13]

My problem with this is that West has to some extent let North off the hook. South and West cannot conceivably both have the spade suit they are advertising. If South's bid is genuine, West's 3♠ is not going to end the auction. If West's bid is genuine, it might be better for North if it did. I know that North normally has to be convinced by legal means that it must be partner who has erred rather than EW, but in either case North doesn't need to act now.

 

If North's pass is deemed to be fielding, and there's no evidence of any UI from South to North, the board should be scored as 60% to EW and 40% to NS on the assumption that they are playing an illegal method. [WB1.4.5 and 2.8.3.3]

 

Agree West's 3♠ natural is most unfortunate--it proves that either South or West doesn't have his bid, and North's pass is correct regardless or who it is. Had West passed and North done the same, the adjustment would be totally obvious--North's own cards would make the fielding/illegal convention indisputable. The issue is to what degree E/W should be protected, given they contributed to the damage. To what extent is E/W' s skill level relevant?

 

<rant>

IMHO, the laws should be amended to allow RA's to enumerate cases for freer adjustment where Not Knowing Your Agreement is more likely to hurt the opponents than you. Yes this is similar to Bobby Wolff's Convention Disruption, but I just can't abide the CD label--as if this can't apply to misremembered "natural' calls, but only to "conventions" -- is it really OK that your partnership has no idea whether a your "natural" call shows four+ hearts or seven+ hearts or might be a weak shut out or a slam try? Most of these situations would not be listed, as they are overwhelmingly more likely to hurt the perpetrators rather than the opponents, but should a call that would otherwise be listed not be because it is natural?.

</rant>

[RMB1]

It is possible to rule that North's actions suggest that there is a partnership understanding that 3♣ might not be artificial; this gives 3♣ a multi-way meaning two-suited without clubs or one-suited with clubs; this understanding is not a permitted agreement and in England we award AVE-/AVE+.

 

But it appears that every player of the table understood that 3♠ was natural and therefore that 3♣ may not have spades. I would suggest that North's knowledge that South may not have ♠+♦ was not based on any (special) partnership understanding and there is no infraction.

[WellSpyder]

The only way to deal with repeated Ghestem (or similar) forgets is to log them. Once there is evidence that it can be bid as per convention card or as a single-suiter, then you can (in the EBU) rule illegal agreement. But one hand, by itself, proves nothing.

I found another way to deal with these forgets - I eventually abandoned the attempt to play Ghestem at all.... :)

[barmar]

I found another way to deal with these forgets - I eventually abandoned the attempt to play Ghestem at all.... :)

That's good for you, but it doesn't help you deal with forgets by opponents.

 

Sometimes it seems like Ghestem needs to be banned in general. Based on my subjective memory in these forums, it seems like at least 75% of the time "forgets" is preceded by by "Ghestem".