[VixTD]

---

Multiple teams-of-four, IMPs
3♣ was Ghestem, showing spades and diamonds, not alerted, explained before East's 3♥ bid as a weak jump overcall.

Result: 4♥(W)-2, NS+200

The TD was called at the end of play for a correction of the misexplanation. West said that had she known 3♣ was Ghestem she would have passed rather than bid 4♥.

What should the ruling be?

[Cyberyeti]

Were they playing the "bad or good" style of Ghestem, if so, N will be bidding again over 3♥ (probably X) so there's probably no damage. I'd probably X anyway regardless of style (the hand is perfectly playable if partner has a stack of clubs), but there may be LAs to that if you don't play bad/good. If partner passes, it may well be the same 200. I think he's allowed to wake up if I X or bid 3♠ as it's almost inconceivable I could have a WJO and reopen here (and he has no UI provided I haven't given it away by my demeanour).

[WellSpyder]

VixTD, on 2011-June-14, 06:48, said:

What should the ruling be?

I think a little more fact-finding is in order before ruling. I would ask West why they would have bid differently with a different explanation.

[blackshoe]

Not coming from a culture which wants to hang anyone who makes a Ghestem mistake, as I've heard is the case in at least some places, I would treat this just like any other MI case. Why does West claim she would have passed?

I think EW's problem was caused by North using Ghestem when he should have just overcalled 1♠, as his hand is too strong for a weak two-suited overcall, and not strong enough for a strong two suited overcall. It falls right in the middle. But maybe "Ghestem", unlike the two suited overcalls with which I'm familiar, is an "any strength" bid.

[DCardnell]

I'm assuming, for the sake of this post, that the director took a look at agreements and decided that Ghestem was their agreement. If it wasn't I would consider fielded misbid, as I feel at least some players on souths hand would raise. I'd poll and probably expect this to be amber (but my judgement is not good).

Assuming it is ghestem:

I'm not too convinced by the argument that west would pass with the correct explination, but i could imagine that considering P to be short clubs compared with knowing your spades are not too well placed might swing the argument. Assuming a poll backed me up that this is not automatic, i would expect my ruling to contain percentages of west both bidding and passing.

If west does bid, North has a strong hand for his bid, and does have UI, which suggests passing and 5♦ over a 5♣ preference. I would poll on this, but I dont think that 5♣ is an LA.

If west passes then North, being strong might well consider bidding on, again we have UI, and again out of the possible calls, 4♦ and 4♠ and i'd argue passing are suggested over 4♣ (assuming that was prefernce). Were North to bid 4♣, that might get complex as south could well raise, and things could get messy from there. THat said I probably dont expect to find 4♣ to be an LA

Its difficult to give an accurate ruling here as I dont know what the polls would suggest, however my own opinion is: 40% 4♥ -2, 60% 3♥ -1

[DCardnell]

I didn't consider double, but even granting Cyberyeti point, assuming his judgement would be correct in this circumstance, surely if you still think they would pass some of the time the correct ruling is a weighted score between x% of 4♥ -2 for 200 and y% of 3♥X -1 for 200, rather than the table result of 100% of 4♥ -2 for the same (scoring wise at least) 200

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-June-14, 07:08, said:

I think he's allowed to wake up if I X or bid 3♠ as it's almost inconceivable I could have a WJO and reopen here (and he has no UI provided I haven't given it away by my demeanour).

I can accept West's view that she would have passed. Her hand is worse if North is known to have spades. North will indeed reopen with a double. Many play that Ghestem is any strength, and even if North plays good-bad, he is close to the good hand. So there is no chance he will pass. But why should South suddenly wake up? Why cannot North have a WJO, something like xxxx none Kx AJ10xxxx, when he might double back in to show extra offence, extra defence. Or perhaps xx none KJxx AJxxxxx? I know that some people would bid 3NT on that, but there is some danger of that being interpreted as natural these days.

So, no, I don't think South is deemed to wake up, and he should treat double as a WJO with special features. South may well jump to 5C now, which will not be a success. To rule, we need to poll some North-Souths with these methods, and some East-Wests to decide how often West will pass 3H.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2011-June-14, 07:38, said:

I can accept West's view that she would have passed. Her hand is worse if North is known to have spades. North will indeed reopen with a double. Many play that Ghestem is any strength, and even if North plays good-bad, he is close to the good hand. So there is no chance he will pass. But why should South suddenly wake up? Why cannot North have a WJO, something like xxxx none Kx AJ10xxxx, when he might double back in to show extra offence, extra defence. Or perhaps xx none KJxx AJxxxxx? I know that some people would bid 3NT on that, but there is some danger of that being interpreted as natural these days.

So, no, I don't think South is deemed to wake up, and he should treat double as a WJO with special features. South may well jump to 5C now, which will not be a success. To rule, we need to poll some North-Souths with these methods, and some East-Wests to decide how often West will pass 3H.

The first hand you quote gets nowhere near making 5♣, the second would have been overcalled 2♣ by quite a few. I don't think 5♣ is even in the frame although 4♣ might be and then you're possibly heading off down a murky road with 3 wheels and no foglights.

[iviehoff]

lamford, on 2011-June-14, 07:38, said:

I can accept West's view that she would have passed. Her hand is worse if North is known to have spades.

And if N has a WJO in clubs, W thinks losing clubs are being ruffed on the table.

We can observe that E bid 3H with 9 losers, and W, knowing full well what explanation partner had had, raised with 7 losers. There is a certain poetic justice in the table result, though of course that is no reason to deny EW their legal rights.

[campboy]

Another reason West might have for passing is that they might be playing 3♦ as a good raise to 3♥. I'd certainly want to find out about their agreements over Ghestem.

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-June-14, 07:08, said:

Were they playing the "bad or good" style of Ghestem

Is this where sometimes they have it and sometimes they have a weak jump overcall?

[Cyberyeti]

Quote

Were they playing the "bad or good" style of Ghestem

Vampyr, on 2011-June-14, 11:36, said:

Is this where sometimes they have it and sometimes they have a weak jump overcall?

That's just known as Ghestem, everybody who plays it plays that (Including Mr Ghestem on at least one occasion)

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-June-14, 07:16, said:

Not coming from a culture which wants to hang anyone who makes a Ghestem mistake, as I've heard is the case in at least some places, I would treat this just like any other MI case. Why

Maybe you come from a culture that sees more Ghestem auctions with actual Ghestem hands than with weak jump overcalls. If so, I envy you!

[blackshoe]

No, I come from a culture that very rarely sees any method of two suited overcalls besides Michaels and Unusual NT — and they quite often screw those up.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-June-14, 10:03, said:

The first hand you quote gets nowhere near making 5♣, the second would have been overcalled 2♣ by quite a few. I don't think 5♣ is even in the frame although 4♣ might be and then you're possibly heading off down a murky road with 3 wheels and no foglights.

Actually 5C might well make on the first one - diamonds 3-3 with the ace onside perhaps, and on the second one of course. But it is not relevant whether 5C is good opposite this South hand. It is only relevant what the meaning is of a takeout double by a hand making a WJO for this partnership.

If it says "you forgot Ghestem again partner, wake up", that smacks of a CPU, and using the failure to alert. However, if it says, "I have good offence and good defence for my WJO, pard, take some action", then that is fine and this is how I would interpret it as South, especially if I had forgotten Ghestem in the past.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2011-June-14, 16:15, said:

Actually 5C might well make on the first one - diamonds 3-3 with the ace onside perhaps, and on the second one of course. But it is not relevant whether 5C is good opposite this South hand. It is only relevant what the meaning is of a takeout double by a hand making a WJO for this partnership.

If it says "you forgot Ghestem again partner, wake up", that smacks of a CPU, and using the failure to alert. However, if it says, "I have good offence and good defence for my WJO, pard, take some action", then that is fine and this is how I would interpret it as South, especially if I had forgotten Ghestem in the past.

It's a pretty standard rule that once you've preempted you don't ever have another go, and I know a number of partnerships that play that way as a hard and fast rule, therefore double is indicative of it not being a preempt. You haven't heard partner's description as a WJO, so in the context of how you play your Ghestem, if you should double you are obliged to double.

Anybody's guess what happens next, but it will never be 5♣.

Also there is pretty much no hand that would overcall 3♣ and offer decent play for 5 looking at the south hand, so even if you decided that was what it was, you might bid 4♣ (and possibly play there) but not 5.

[nige1]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-June-14, 10:03, said:

I don't think 5♣ is even in the frame although 4♣ might be and then you're possibly heading off down a murky road with 3 wheels and no foglights.

IMO If Easrt passes or bids 3♥ then without UI the most likely contract is 4♣

[TylerE]

Not to derail the main thread, but just out of curiosity, how exactly do you pronounce ghestem? It just occurred to me that the way I've been pronouncing it in my head is quite probably wrong. (guest-eam, second syllable rhyming with team.)

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-June-14, 17:36, said:

It's a pretty standard rule that once you've preempted you don't ever have another go, and I know a number of partnerships that play that way as a hard and fast rule, therefore double is indicative of it not being a preempt.

It's a pretty standard rule that double does not say "I did not have a WJO". By analogy with the Watson double of 3NT, the Orange Book - or at least an older version - said that you could not double 3NT to ask partner not to lead your suit if you had pysched. It is not clear that the partner of the Ghestem Bidder is ever allowed to wake up - when it has reached the ruling stage; of course he might wake up when the auction continues normally.

[Benoit35]

TylerE, on 2011-June-14, 21:32, said:

Not to derail the main thread, but just out of curiosity, how exactly do you pronounce ghestem? It just occurred to me that the way I've been pronouncing it in my head is quite probably wrong. (guest-eam, second syllable rhyming with team.)

Since Monsieur Ghestem is French, it's probably "guest-em" (second syllable "m" as in "M&M's").