Momentary Ghestem misunderstanding

[VixTD]

Club duplicate matchpoint pairs:

[hv=pc=n&s=sak862hak7642dj2c&w=sjt95hqt9dt85ca82&n=s73hj3dq7643ct743&e=sq4h85dak9ckqj965&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1c2np3dp3sppp]399|300[/hv]

At the club last night I was called in the middle of the auction on this hand. EW play standard Benjamin Acol and ask a lot about alerted calls, NS play a scientific, gadget-rich version of Acol with a strong no trump, multi-2♦ and various other things.

 

North alerted 2NT, West asked and he explained it as the lowest-ranking two suits. He bid 3♦ and then realised his mistake after East had passed, called the director and corrected the explanation to both majors. East didn't want to retract her pass, South was warned about unauthorized information and the table was invited to call me back at the end of play if, for example, West might have made a different call with the correct explanation, or if anyone thought there might be cause for redress in any way.

 

There is no indication that South reacted to North's explanation in any way, so let's assume he didn't. The correct explanation was both majors (it's very popular around here, and has caught me out too in the past).

 

South made the contract for 8/8 MPs. I wasn't called back, but do you think I should have been?

[billw55]

It matters what the agreed or default meaning of 3♦ is. If natural, ignoring the majors, then passing it out might be a logical alternative for south, and an adjustment could be considered. Perhaps a poll of peers is in order.

 

Also if south is pulling, I can't imagine why he bid 3♠ instead of 3♥. But that seems irrelevant to the ruling.

[Vampyr]

It matters what the agreed or default meaning of 3♦ is. If natural, ignoring the majors, then passing it out might be a logical alternative for south, and an adjustment could be considered. Perhaps a poll of peers is in order.

 

Yes, I agree. Also it matters what the Ghestem bid promises -- is it 5/5 or better or 9+ cards? Would a natural 3♦ bidder hold ♦Q to seven and out, or is it constructive? There are a lot of variables here, and therefore, very possibly, few peers. Tough problem.

[wank]

i'm guessing from south's 3S bid that 3D is supposed to be a strong spade raise (good agreement), but then south should be investigating slam, so even though he bid spades, not hearts, he's still used the UI.

[mycroft]

If 3♦ after a happy explanation of 2NT as "both majors" is, in fact, "strong spade raise", doesn't 3♠ show extras? Or is it a "game unless you have your usual pile" raise?

 

I can see me bidding 3♥ because 3♦ is a "good spade raise" and I'm cueing, but having that considered "using UI" that partner thought I had diamonds and hearts when they bid 3♦ and so want to show extra length in hearts. Difficult question - and critical to know what 3♦ means in South's system to know what the "AI" shows.

[VixTD]

I'm not sure what I can do to answer your questions, but I'll try.

 

North and South have occasional games together, but are not a well-established partnership. I would imagine their Ghestem overcalls show 5+/5+, and at least approaching opening strength (say 9+ pts) with good suits.

 

Like most club partnerships that agree to play Ghestem, they will not have discussed what a response in a new suit would be.

 

North had asked South afterwards why he had bid spades rather than hearts, and he'd got the reply that it would allow North to bid hearts on the next round, or something like that. (Neither of us could make sense of this.)

[billw55]

In that case I would adjust to 3♦-1. South must bid as if 3♦ was a legitimate call. His explanation for bidding on included nothing about 3♦ being artificial. Ergo pass is a LA.

[sfi]

Passing 3D can't be a sensible option with a 4 loser hand. I was expecting that South bid 3S to show a good hand, while 3H would just show they didn't like diamonds. That might have been what South was trying to say, but I would like to look further into why they chose that particular action.

[helene_t]

I am not convinced that pass by South is an LA but 3♠ looks like an attempt to wake up North (as 3♥ might sound like 6-5 in the red suits).

 

I don't think I would be cruel enough to make North bid 4♦ if he had not been woken up. After all, 3♥ by South would tell North they had a heart fit so he would probably pass it.

 

Score stands but I would have some words with South about the 3♠ bid. Maybe also a friendly advice to EW about not asking when they don't need to know, but I am not sure about this. Asking about alerted calls has the advantage that you don't give a way information about whether you are interested in the answer or not.

[lamford]

Firstly 3D would be three off. Cashing two top diamonds and playing four rounds of clubs is the normal start. Now both locking declarer in dummy and uppercutting on the fifth round of clubs lead to three off.

 

But it looks normal to bid 3H on the South hand. I don't think this pair had any agreement about 3D other than it denied support for the majors. North will pass that, and it also makes nine tricks, so no adjustment. 3S does not seem to take advantage of the UI. By the time it was bid, North had corrected the explanation, so he does not need waking up.

[helene_t]

3S does not seem to take advantage of the UI. By the time it was bid, North had corrected the explanation, so he does not need waking up.

Ah right, yes. My bad.

[billw55]

edit: ninja'd by lamford

[billw55]

But it looks normal to bid 3H on the South hand. I don't think this pair had any agreement about 3D other than it denied support for the majors. North will pass that, and it also makes nine tricks, so no adjustment.

 

What I have been wondering is, what does north do with a hand such as ♠x ♥x ♦QTxxxxx ♣Txxx. Can he bid 3♦ to play? Would south still bid 3♥ if this hand was possible? Maybe. Is maybe good enough?

[johnu]

Passing 3D can't be a sensible option with a 4 loser hand. I was expecting that South bid 3S to show a good hand, while 3H would just show they didn't like diamonds. That might have been what South was trying to say, but I would like to look further into why they chose that particular action.

 

Why isn't passing 3♦ sensible when partner may be 2-1 or worse in the majors, in which case your 4 loser hand suddenly has a lot more losers. Why wouldn't 3♠ just show 6 good spades?

[johnu]

If 3♦ after a happy explanation of 2NT as "both majors" is, in fact, "strong spade raise", doesn't 3♠ show extras? Or is it a "game unless you have your usual pile" raise?

 

3♠ showing extras makes no sense unless 2NT is game forcing. If 2NT is not game forcing, how do you sign off?

[sfi]

Why isn't passing 3♦ sensible when partner may be 2-1 or worse in the majors, in which case your 4 loser hand suddenly has a lot more losers.

 

Because partner might actually have something for you despite showing a long diamond suit. And you have a lot more than you might have.

 

Why wouldn't 3♠ just show 6 good spades?

 

Because you need a call to show a hand like QJTxxx QJTxxx x -, and pass doesn't feel like the right call on this auction.

[lamford]

What I have been wondering is, what does north do with a hand such as ♠x ♥x ♦QTxxxxx ♣Txxx. Can he bid 3♦ to play? Would south still bid 3♥ if this hand was possible? Maybe. Is maybe good enough?

There was probably no agreement on 3D and "no preference" is common. 3H with six is normal and 3S just odd.

[johnu]

Because partner might actually have something for you despite showing a long diamond suit. And you have a lot more than you might have.

 

While you have more than a minimum, passing is still a reasonable alternative IMO.

 

 

 

Because you need a call to show a hand like QJTxxx QJTxxx x -, and pass doesn't feel like the right call on this auction.

 

While it may be sound bidding theory to cater to a 6-6 hand, I would bid 3♥ with that hand.

[cherdano]

I don't get this thread. Not only is passing 3♦ a logical alternative. The only alternative to me would be raising to 4♦ - I have a GREAT hand for diamonds given the bidding.

[Cyberyeti]

Passing 3D can't be a sensible option with a 4 loser hand. I was expecting that South bid 3S to show a good hand, while 3H would just show they didn't like diamonds. That might have been what South was trying to say, but I would like to look further into why they chose that particular action.

 

Why not pass ? x, x, 10xxxxxx, Qxxx would be the sort of thing 3♦ shows.

 

3♠ very much smells of "partner prefers diamonds to hearts, so I'll bid spades".

 

Also it really shouldn't make, was a trump led or something ?

[lamford]

Why not pass ? x, x, 10xxxxxx, Qxxx would be the sort of thing 3♦ shows.

 

3♠ very much smells of "partner prefers diamonds to hearts, so I'll bid spades".

 

Also it really shouldn't make, was a trump led or something ?

Passing 3♦ is only right if you have a specific agreement that it is natural. If it shows no preference between the majors, as four out of five intermediate players at my club thought, then it would not be. I expect the answer to any questions about the NS system is "undiscussed".

[szgyula]

How was 3S made? 2♠ and 2♦ loosers and 1 ♥ (Q or trumped, unless west played the ♠5 in a trump trick).

[VixTD]

How was 3S made? 2♠ and 2♦ loosers and 1 ♥ (Q or trumped, unless west played the ♠5 in a trump trick).

I can't answer that. All I know is that the lead was ♣A and nine tricks were made. The EW players were not very strong. Other scores on the board were 4♥ and 4♥X by South making eight tricks, 3NT and 5♣ by EW both making ten tricks.

[Trinidad]

3S does not seem to take advantage of the UI. By the time it was bid, North had corrected the explanation, so he does not need waking up.

It seems that Lamford doesn't appreciate what the UI is here. The UI is that North misunderstood South when he bid 3♦, and that therefore, 3♦ doesn't mean what it is supposed to mean. The fact that North woke up later is hardly relevant (and also UI).

 

With the UI, South is supposed to bid as if 3♦ meant what it was supposed to mean (presumably a decent hand with good diamonds). But South didn't bid as if 3♦ showed diamonds. Instead, South bid 3♠, using the UI that 3♦ was intended as a mere preference between diamonds and (clubs or hearts, not entirely clear to me).

 

I agree with Cherdano that this hand is way to good to pass 3♦. But I would go even further: I would bid 5♣. (The OP states that NS are a partnership with scientific gadgets.) And I would be very happy that this wasn't IMPs.

 

Rik

[lamford]

It seems that Lamford doesn't appreciate what the UI is here. The UI is that North misunderstood South when he bid 3♦, and that therefore, 3♦ doesn't mean what it is supposed to mean. The fact that North woke up later is hardly relevant (and also UI).

I do appreciate that the UI is that 3D was bid on the assumption that South had the red suits. We have to bid as though North correctly explained 2NT and then bid 3D. We do NOT know what that means in their methods. If it is no-preference, then 3H looks normal, and 5C would be ridiculous. If it is natural, then 3H looks normal as a forward move. I think that 3D is unlikely to be a spade raise, and South's 3S is indeed odd. But I cannot see how it takes advantage of the UI. Somebody suggested that it was an attempt to wake up North. But North (eventually) correctly explained 2NT. UI cannot arise from a correct explanation:

 

16A1c: it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following);

 

So, the fact that your partner DOES know what your bid meant is authorised. Just as when your partner announces 15-17 correctly. The fact that he didn't when he bid 3D is unauthorised.