what convention is this 3 club bid

[cencio]

Explain what is the possible distribution of thid hand

1♠ 3♣ pass 3♦

3♠ double pass 4♣

pass 5♣ pass pass

pass

[jillybean]

Your auction is difficult to read.

I've used the hand diagram available here.

 

[hv=d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1s3cp3d3sdp4cp5cppp]133|100[/hv]

 

Agreements would help, is 3C a strong or intermediate jump overcall?

[helene_t]

Probably 3♣ was meant as a constructive bid. If it was preemptive, the 3♣ bidder would probably have passed in second round.

 

I don't see any reason to think it is a convention. Probably a natural overcall. The double probably shows extra strength, and the 5♣ bid shows longer clubs (at least 7).

 

But you will have to ask the pair what their agreement is.

[mw64ahw]

Probably 3♣ was meant as a constructive bid. If it was preemptive, the 3♣ bidder would probably have passed in second round.

 

I don't see any reason to think it is a convention. Probably a natural overcall. The double probably shows extra strength, and the 5♣ bid shows longer clubs (at least 7).

 

But you will have to ask the pair what their agreement is.

I play 3♣ as a strong minimum or intermediate hand as in The Overcall Structure, but may X initially with the intermediate hand and length depending on side-suit strength. The later X would show some useful ♠ and a singleton in the Red suits; probably ♦

[cencio]

the hand

[hv=pc=n&s=shaqj73daj732caqt&w=s872ht9862dqt98ck&n=st95h5dk54cj87543&e=sakqj643hk4d6c962]399|300[/hv]

[apollo1201]

It is a precised Michael Cue Bid

1M-2M is other M and C

1M-2NT is both m

1M-3C is other M and D

 

Seems N understood properly (min hand, prefers D to H)

 

Over the « strength » X, N proposed his long C suit and S aggressively raised

 

Of course, all of that should have been explained to you

[helene_t]

This convention is called Ghestem. 3c shows 5-5 in the two highest unbid suits. Fairly popular in the Netherlands.

[Zelandakh]

This convention is called Ghestem. 3c shows 5-5 in the two highest unbid suits. Fairly popular in the Netherlands.

But if an established pair play it against me without alerting it, they get booted and blacklisted. That is simply unethical.

[johnu]

But if an established pair play it against me without alerting it, they get booted and blacklisted. That is simply unethical.

 

Tough crowd :P

[DavidKok]

Ghestem is the number one cause of director headaches in the Netherlands, to the point that I have heard directors say they always rule against the pair that had a Ghestem misunderstanding, no matter the situation. In fact, in one tournament there was a specific Ghestem clause added to the list of tournament rules, warning us that they would be merciless. So use it at your own peril. Misunderstandings like this are very common.

[Gerardo]

David Burn about Ghestem

[pescetom]

But if an established pair play it against me without alerting it, they get booted and blacklisted. That is simply unethical.

 

The consequences of a failure to alert depend upon regulations, but that sounds a bit drastic :)

EW would have a hard time convincing the Director they were damaged here, too.

[DavidKok]

David Burn about Ghestem

I recently had the pleasure to read the hilarious "Een goede speler is niet eerlijk" by Joost Prinsen (in Dutch only, as far as I know) which includes an interview with Pierre Ghestem, who said he is not familiar with the convention (source, in Dutch). So I think David Burn is being a bit hard on Pierre Ghestem here - or Ghestem managed to pull a fast one on Prinsen. That being said, the convention itself has little going for it

[Douglas43]

This topic came up in a previous post Lol Lol Lol! - BBO Discussion Forums (bridgebase.com)

 

It helps show the importance of being awake when partner bids 3♣. As posted there, I have played a version called Questem for years, quite happily. Most conventions have this drawback, Stayman doesn't work well if you forget what 2♣ means...

[mycroft]

Of course. But only some conventions don't come up often enough to be instinctive, or "sound" too much like natural to flag the reaction. One of these leads to "oops, forgot" once, maybe twice, then you're comfortable; both is scary. Most conventions, of course, are common enough, or "obvious" enough, that they aren't forgotten (like Stayman).

 

I tell people they will forget all of these, once, while they're learning, and (usually) never again:

• support doubles
  
• Drury
  
• Lebensohl/reverses or doubles of weak 2s
  
• XYZ/NT

And examples of things that sound natural:

• 1♦-1♥; 1♠-2♦ (again, XYZ)
  
• maximal overcall double

Examples of both:

• 2NT-3NT where 3♠ is a transfer
  
• (1♥)-3♣ Ghestem
  
• Kickback (esp. in auctions that start 1♥-1♠ or the like)

But notice that only one of them is in the opponents' auction, where mistakes aren't automatic "Lose 10"s, and in fact could work out in your favour.

 

That's why Ghestem in particular is looked at so aggressively when it's "conveniently" forgotten.

 

Not just that, mind you - I have one opponent that wants to play Suction against our weak NT. Fine, I don't care, play what you like, when it's legal. But in the times he has convinced his partner to play this, inevitably the overcall was "the next suit up, or the other two" *but was actually the suit bid because partner forgot again*.

[Douglas43]

One difference between Questem and Ghestem is that 3♣ always promises clubs (plus the highest unbid suit), unless opener bid 1♣ (in which case nobody is likely to mistake it for a natural bid. South's hand is a 2♠ bid at Questem. 2NT is minors. 3♣ is clubs and hearts.

[Zelandakh]

The consequences of a failure to alert depend upon regulations, but that sounds a bit drastic :)

EW would have a hard time convincing the Director they were damaged here, too.

I am talking about BBO, so no TD and self-alerts. If someone is making the call as described with a regular partner and not self-alerting it, they are unethical and are not welcome at my table. The great thing about BBO is that there is not a shortage of potential opponents and I do not need to play against those that I find obnoxious or undesirable.

[Douglas43]

I am talking about BBO, so no TD and self-alerts. If someone is making the call as described with a regular partner and not self-alerting it, they are unethical and are not welcome at my table. The great thing about BBO is that there is not a shortage of potential opponents and I do not need to play against those that I find obnoxious or undesirable.

 

Quite agree. In a self-alerting context, that is outrageous.

[pescetom]

Quite agree. In a self-alerting context, that is outrageous.

I agree too.

I was thinking about a f2f partner-alerting situation (somehow I just couldn't envision anyone playing Ghestem on BBO, don't ask me why).

[helene_t]

Q: Do many people in the Netherlands play Ghestem?

A: No, but many people have partners who do.

[Douglas43]

Ghestem is the number one cause of director headaches in the Netherlands, to the point that I have heard directors say they always rule against the pair that had a Ghestem misunderstanding, no matter the situation. In fact, in one tournament there was a specific Ghestem clause added to the list of tournament rules, warning us that they would be merciless. So use it at your own peril. Misunderstandings like this are very common.

 

If the Dutch are so absent-minded, that explains why my father moved to England. He always said he was on his way to Canada but never made it there. Poor old fellow probably forgot where he was going...

[pescetom]

Of course. But only some conventions don't come up often enough to be instinctive, or "sound" too much like natural to flag the reaction. One of these leads to "oops, forgot" once, maybe twice, then you're comfortable; both is scary. Most conventions, of course, are common enough, or "obvious" enough, that they aren't forgotten (like Stayman).

 

I tell people they will forgot all of these once while they're learning, and (usually) never again:

• support doubles
  
• Drury
  
• Lebensohl/reverses or doubles of weak 2s
  
• XYZ/NT

And examples of things that sound natural:

• 1♦-1♥; 1♠-2♦ (again, XYZ)
  
• maximal overcall double

Examples of both:

• 2NT-3NT where 3♠ is a transfer
  
• (1♥)-3♣ Ghestem
  
• Kickback (esp. in auctions that start 1♥-1♠ or the like)

 

I wish all my partners learned not to forget XYZ as easily as your people :)

There are some even more common examples, though.

Many splinter agreements, in particular 1♠-4♥, not to mention the ultra-natural sounding 1NT-2NT as transfer to diamonds (which generates a lot more confusion and Director calls than Ghestem, in my experience).

[morecharac]

Of course. But only some conventions don't come up often enough to be instinctive, or "sound" too much like natural to flag the reaction. One of these leads to "oops, forgot" once, maybe twice, then you're comfortable; both is scary. Most conventions, of course, are common enough, or "obvious" enough, that they aren't forgotten (like Stayman).

 

Drury

Or, as we called it, Twice-Forgotten Drury.

[helene_t]

If the Dutch are so absent-minded, that explains why my father moved to England. He always said he was on his way to Canada but never made it there. Poor old fellow probably forgot where he was going...

To be fair, it is really difficult to keep up with different partner's constantly changing systems. Last week I played Split-Range Michaels with Ingrid and constructive Ghestem with Henk, this week I think I play Roman Overcalls with Ingrid and Overcall Structure with Henk but maybe it was the other way round. The alert rules changed last week also, by the way.

 

In England and New Zealand, all my partners play stone-age Acol just like their parents did, so we don't have so many system forgets.