[kgr]

Not sure that the hands are correct, but they should be sufficiently correct to illustrate the issue:

MP's Club Tournament

---

Country: Belgium (Flanders)
North-South are a regular pair (Belgian sub-top) that play together for more then 2 years.
West is a very good player (Belgian top) who is playing with an occasional partner (and less good).
1♠ by South was alerted by North as Spades and Diamonds. This explanation was correct (N-S play part of West's system, so it is clear for everybody that this explanation is correct). South had bid too fast and should have bid 1♥ as transfer to ♠. (3♦ of North is rather preemptive)
West leads a ♦ to give his partner a 'certain' ruff. East returns a ♥ because he thinks that his partner didn't lead a ♥ from ♥A..
Result: 3♠+1 for an absolute top for N-S.
West thinks that the score should be adjusted (proposing 3♥C for E-W) with the following arguments:
- N-S are playing together for a long time. So it is more logic to rule against misbids. They should know their system
- Clearly E-W had a bad score as a result of the misbids.
- 1♠ bid is a two-suited bid. It should be treated as Gesthem. And for Gesthem misbids it is generally accepted to rule against the misbidders.
- this is a friendly tournament. South should have said that he had rebid before the opening lead; or should at least accept a correction of the score after the deal.
=> The Gesthem argument is put in bold because that one is most interesting for me:
- I think I've read somewhere that Gesthem misbids are more easily penalized then other misbids (Maybe that is only a Belgian thing?)
- If that is true; do you treat the 1♠ two-suited bid in the same way?

Thanks,
Koen
Edit: I did add an initial pass for N.

[hrothgar]

I suspect that we would need to read Belgian to render an appropriate ruling.

My understanding is that the Begian Ghestem rule applies to Ghestem.
Ghestem has a specific meaning which is not synonomous with "two suited overcall"
Therefore, the Ghestem rule does not apply.

[blackshoe]

kgr, on 2011-April-16, 04:37, said:

West thinks that the score should be adjusted (proposing 3♥C for E-W) with the following arguments:
- N-S are playing together for a long time. So it is more logic to rule against misbids. They should know their system
- Clearly E-W had a bad score as a result of the misbids.
- 1♠ bid is a two-suited bid. It should be treated as Gesthem. And for Gesthem misbids it is generally accepted to rule against the misbidders.
- this is a friendly tournament. South should have said that he had rebid before the opening lead; or should at least accept a correction of the score after the deal.
=> The Gesthem argument is put in bold because that one is most interesting for me:
- I think I've read somewhere that Gesthem misbids are more easily penalized then other misbids (Maybe that is only a Belgian thing?)
- If that is true; do you treat the 1♠ two-suited bid in the same way?

Thanks,
Koen

West's argument that the TD should rule against NS because they are an experienced partnership is nonsense.
West's argument that a bid that is not Ghestem should be treated as if it were Ghestem is nonsense.

Based on the laws, I don't believe there is any basis for a score adjustment here. I don't know Belgian regulations, so I'm not aware of any that would support an adjusted, and if there is one, it may be in conflict with the laws.

[campboy]

The reason that Ghestem misunderstandings are more likely to lead to an adjusted score is simply that the two possible meanings (say, 3♣=natural with clubs vs 3♣=hearts and diamonds) are so different. But we should take each case on its merits and not rule a particular way just because it is a particular convention that has been forgotten.

In general, there are two things we need to look at in this sort of ruling.

1. Was the information given to opponents correct according to system, and if not might they have done better given correct information?

Here there seems sufficient evidence that the explanation was correct. Opponents are entitled to know your methods; they are not entitled to that you had forgotten them.

2. When the bidder hears an explanation which doesn't match what he expected, he is not entitled to use that information. Might he have done something else if he hadn't been woken up?

Here the answer seems to be "yes". South knows that North is pre-emptively raising diamonds because of the alert. He is not entitled to that information -- how would he have taken a 3♦ advance of a natural 1♠ overcall? It's difficult to say, without knowing the N/S methods in more detail, what he might do; it's also difficult to say whether E/W were damaged, as either 3NT or 4♠ could easily make (West would still lead a diamond against 4♠).

[kgr]

campboy, on 2011-April-16, 06:27, said:

2. When the bidder hears an explanation which doesn't match what he expected, he is not entitled to use that information. Might he have done something else if he hadn't been woken up?

Here the answer seems to be "yes". South knows that North is pre-emptively raising diamonds because of the alert. He is not entitled to that information -- how would he have taken a 3♦ advance of a natural 1♠ overcall? It's difficult to say, without knowing the N/S methods in more detail, what he might do;

- There was a mistake in the bidding diagram. North was a passed hand. I will try to correct that.
- Very likely I would have woken-up myself even without partner's alert, but I decided that I would not run if the contract would get to 3♦X. Maybe that is not what I need to do because if 1♠ shows only ♠ then 3♦ must be a fit-jump in our system. I think pass is still my action then given that partner is a passed hand and I have no ♦-fit, but some values (3♠ would be weaker)

[campboy]

Ok, in that case (partner is a passed hand) I don't see that you have any alternatives other than pass and 3♠; since both of these lead to the same contract, presumably with the same defence, there seems no reason to adjust.

[bluejak]

kgr, on 2011-April-16, 04:37, said:

- N-S are playing together for a long time. So it is more logic to rule against misbids. They should know their system

Misbids are not illegal. Playing together for a long time does not change that.

kgr, on 2011-April-16, 04:37, said:

- Clearly E-W had a bad score as a result of the misbids.

Shame.

kgr, on 2011-April-16, 04:37, said:

- 1♠ bid is a two-suited bid. It should be treated as Gesthem. And for Gesthem misbids it is generally accepted to rule against the misbidders.

It is not Ghestem so it should not be treated as Ghestem.

It is not generally accepted to rule against the misbidders when it is a Ghestem misbid unless there is a specific Belgian regulation saying so as a condition of playing the convention. It is true that at one time I believe there was such a Dutch regulation, but:

• it no longer applies because it was realised it was basically illegal, and
  
• Belgium is not the Netherlands

kgr, on 2011-April-16, 04:37, said:

- this is a friendly tournament. South should have said that he had rebid before the opening lead; or should at least accept a correction of the score after the deal.

If it was a friendly tournament why is West acting in such an unfriendly fashion? He has got an unlucky bad board and the friendly thing to do is to shut up.

[kgr]

Thanks for the answers!

[nige1]

bluejak, on 2011-April-16, 19:00, said:

If it was a friendly tournament why is West acting in such an unfriendly fashion? He has got an unlucky bad board and the friendly thing to do is to shut up.

How often have we been told in these fora, that players must explain how they think they were damaged? For some partnerships, over a natural 1♠ overcall, North's 3♦ woiuld be a game try with four card support. Some directors might rule that South could have used the UI from his partner's explanation to pass rather than bid 4♠. IMO it is OK for West to call the director and to explain his concerns -- even if he is mistaken -- no matter what the director's decides -- friendly game or not. IMO, it is better to call the director than to complain afterwards. .

[bluejak]

I am not objecting to him calling the TD. I am objecting to him asking for an unfair approach to ruling "because it is a friendly tournament".

[mycroft]

They're never getting to play 3H - if anything South with the "wakeup" UI is not going to be allowed to pass 3D, as David says. North (with no UI) bid 3S over 3H; nothing in there is illegal, so nothing to rule back. So, their "suggested" ruling is impossible.

Having said that, unless there is a habit of misremembering this part of the system, then it's just a misbid, and misbids happen. If this does happen often enough, then the effective agreement is "spades, and diamonds if partner remembered", and now, (assuming it's a legal agreement, which I can't imagine it not being) as long as the [edit: MI] didn't cause damage (different defence to 3S), there isn't a problem (a heart lead is likely going to lead to 3S=, 5S, HA, 2D and another trick (D or C). It is possible that 3S will go down on heart, heart (trying to set up the ruff), then club, club, diamond, club ruff, diamond ruff; or heart, two rounds of trump, diamond, then club, club, diamond ruff, so some piece of that might be given (it's matchpoints, after all).

If we rule that 3D is a fit jump and that they get to 4S, then of course more points. But there is no way, given the auction as stated and what UI is claimed exists, that 3H is a possible contract.

[Free]

I'm with bluejak on this one. West makes a very poor case, comparing Ghestem with Freewill overcalls (or some variant of them). It's not the same, Freewill shows at least 4-4, Ghestem shows at least 5-5. All other arguments are equally silly.

- You should indeed know your system, but that doesn't mean that you can't make a mistake.
- The argument that E-W have a bad score is pretty obvious, otherwise they wouldn't call the TD.
- The most hypocrite argument is that it's a friendly tournament and therefore you should break the rules and tell them you've made a mistake. Come on...

[kgr]

mycroft, on 2011-April-18, 12:44, said:

Having said that, unless there is a habit of misremembering this part of the system, then it's just a misbid, and misbids happen. If this does happen often enough, then the effective agreement is "spades, and diamonds if partner remembered", and now, (assuming it's a legal agreement, which I can't imagine it not being) as long as the UI didn't cause damage (different defence to 3S), there isn't a problem (a heart lead is likely going to lead to 3S=, 5S, HA, 2D and another trick (D or C). It is possible that 3S will go down on heart, heart (trying to set up the ruff), then club, club, diamond, club ruff, diamond ruff; or heart, two rounds of trump, diamond, then club, club, diamond ruff, so some piece of that might be given (it's matchpoints, after all).

If we rule that 3D is a fit jump and that they get to 4S, then of course more points. But there is no way, given the auction as stated and what UI is claimed exists, that 3H is a possible contract.

For my understanding: All the above is under the assumption that "this does happen often enough" and you then mean MI where you said UI?

Note: I perfectly know this part of the system. I think that the misbid is caused by looking at my hand and preparing for a ♠ overcall in case RHO opens. And then I do it too fast when he opens 1♣ (no transfer over 1♦ or 1♥). I realise this immediately after my bid. This happened 1 or 2 times before (playing this for around 2 years).

[mycroft]

MI is correct in the first paragraph - I'll fix and note the previous post.

I think UI is correct in the second, where I'm talking about South's pass of 3D-(3H).

If your *agreement*, implied or explicit, is "spades, and diamonds if partner didn't forget *again*", then the opponents are entitled to that information (and I actually think that you're getting there - I'd love to know if partner remembers that you sometimes screw up this auction, say in 3 or 4 weeks (after he's forgotten this one specifically). If partner *uses* that information, then it's definitely a CPU (I don't think that happened here). If you're in the habit of forgetting this, and the opponents don't know that, and they would have defended differently with the real agreement (hard to say), then they get the MI ruling.