Ghestem misunderstanding

[sfi]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakj872h75djcak84&w=shqj96432daq964c3&n=sqt54hk8d8752ct95&e=s963hatdkt3cqj762&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p1s3c(Red%20suits,%20no%20alert)3s5c5sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

The table result was 5S-2. Director was called at the end of the hand, and the facts as shown in the diagram were agreed. The actual E-W agreement is that 3C shows the red suits, so South was misinformed.

 

South stated he bid 5S because he was expecting club shortage in partner's hand. Polling two players of roughly equivalent standard to South, you find out both would have doubled 5C on the correct information, with 5S deserving consideration. Given the information provided at the table, both said there is a bit more reason to bid 5S, but would still double.

 

How do you rule?

[PrecisionL]

N-S not damaged, result stands. Warning to E-W to know their methods.

[blackshoe]

How do you know NS were not damaged? Does it matter that 5♣ doesn't make?

[sfi]

N-S not damaged, result stands. Warning to E-W to know their methods.

 

What is the reasoning you would give for the ruling? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but it's arguable they were damaged.

 

Just so people don't have to work out the details, E-W can make slam in either red suit. 5C looks most likely to take 6 tricks. 5S took 9 tricks at the table, but 10 are possible.

[barmar]

Although they would have doubled with correct information, that doesn't mean that they get indemnity from their own error. South's justification for bidding 5♠ seems bogus, North hasn't shown anything other than a simple raise. And it appears from his actual hand that they really stretch to support partner over preempts.

 

I wonder if this is a candidate for split scores -- NS keep their score because it was self-inflicted, EW get 5♣x-5.

[mycroft]

East is a passed hand, yes?

 

Unless this pair have no way to preempt in clubs, partner has no possible hand that would want to play 5♣ opposite 12 red cards, especially when South conveniently agrees. Even if partner eagerly said that 3♣ was "red suits", I'm bidding 5♥.

 

You might - just - convince me to let 5♣ undoubled stand: "partner knows what's going on, let him do whatever he's doing", but with 7-5, after the double, nobody's passing, even if partner explained correctly.

 

You also can't convince me that South wouldn't double, either; she is entitled to the action at the table or the real explanation; but not that they're having a misunderstanding (except that the auction tells her, same as West). If she passes, West has a more normal Ghestem call, and +200 is a horrible result.

[lamford]

It looks like NS obtained an excellent result from the EW misunderstanding. There is no way in the world West is passing 5C undoubled let alone doubled. If anything, 5C by a passed hand is an intelligent bid showing the ace of clubs (in case partner has a singleton), and the ability to play in five of a red suit. I think 5S by South is normal, even given the correct explanation that 3C is systemically reds, and therefore 5C is "pick a red but lead a club".

[weejonnie]

Well we can't force on EW bidding conventions that they do not play. However, given the correct informaton South is more likely to double. This is actually a losing decision!

 

East having passed (as always seems to happen in these problems), the call cannot be natural (To West)

 

But what does West do? It turns out that unless you force him to make a call such as 6 Clubs (pick a slam partner), whatever he does is going to be a winning decision. I just cannot see any losing LA. Even if he bids 6 Diamonds or 6 Hearts as a call assuming the CLub bid is a cue, his partner has enough for him to make it.

 

Conclusion: NS not damaged.

 

(I do not think that bidding 5 Spades warrants an adjustment - first of all it is not a serious error (under the meaning of the act). If it was a serious error it is related to the infraction and IMHO it is not a 'wild' or 'gambling' action. (Especially under the new laws, which explain how 'gambling' is meant to be taken.) - A club shortage in partner's hand suggests at least one useful card in the red suits for the raise. (Change the K of H to the A of H and the 10 C to the 10D and 5S makes!))

[sfi]

At the table I did rule no damage, the main reason being that pass by West would not have been a logical alternative. However, chatting about it with West after the session he told me that earlier that evening his partner passed the following East hand:

 

Dealer East

Vul: E-W

 

-

-

JT9732

AT97542

 

Would that have affected your decision, and is it too late to change your ruling? (It was after the scores had been announced but well within any correction period.)

[weejonnie]

I don't think it would. When East held the 7-6 hand he had no information about the other three hands. In this deal West knows that East knows that West has both red suits. (absent UI).

 

Although the point is moot - law 81C -Director's powers

 

3. to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any

manner, within the correction period established in accordance with

Law 79C.

 

So this would allow the director to amend the ruling - although the comma after 'manner' means in theory that he has to do it within the correction period, rather than just become aware of the error