[weejonnie]

StevenG, on 2016-October-03, 08:59, said:

I think we need to know what North was thinking. Why did he pass his opening bid? Maybe he'd "lost" an Ace or just miscounted, and was still thinking he had a 9-count when it came back to him. Who knows?

The only basis for an adjustment that I can see is that he might have fielded a misbid. And yet, I don't see any clear alternative to pass, whether North is fielding or not. 4♠ is out of the question after West's bid. 4♦, perhaps? It wouldn't appeal to me, whereas defending 3♠ with declarer in a presumed 5-0 fit looks much more tempting.

The only way to deal with repeated Ghestem (or similar) forgets is to log them. Once there is evidence that it can be bid as per convention card or as a single-suiter, then you can (in the EBU) rule illegal agreement. But one hand, by itself, proves nothing.

Maybe West was psyching with a massive heart fit.

The rules for fielded misbids changed in August. The following are from the White Book.
-----------------------
"There is no longer an automatic adjustment for a fielded misbid. Instead, the TD will determine what the likely partnership understanding is and rule on possible misinformation on that basis."

"Of course, it is possible that a player knows from the legal auction and from his own hand that his partner has misbid – for example, partner shows three aces in response to Gerber but the player has three aces. It is also possible that a player has a hand that makes it very likely but not certain that partner has misbid – for example, partner opens a Texas 4 (showing a good pre-empt in hearts) and the player holds K10xxxx and no clubs. It is not possible to provide guidance as to the strength of evidence required before a player may legitimately act on the basis that partner has misbid. Individual cases are rare, and can be judged on their merits."
-----------------------
So - is the 3♠ overcall (not alerted) sufficiently strong evidence before North can legitimately act on the basis partner has misbid?

(Individual cases are rare - but they seem to end up on forums rather a lot.)

I know we all want to hang NS for 'convention disruption' - but this time they might get away with it (depending on enquiries about whether this has happened before) There is no UI for North so we can't alter the contract to 3♠ XX +1, much as we'd like to. South has UI but I cannot see any LAs to passing 3♠.

[mikestar13]

VixTD, on 2016-October-03, 09:23, said:

My problem with this is that West has to some extent let North off the hook. South and West cannot conceivably both have the spade suit they are advertising. If South's bid is genuine, West's 3♠ is not going to end the auction. If West's bid is genuine, it might be better for North if it did. I know that North normally has to be convinced by legal means that it must be partner who has erred rather than EW, but in either case North doesn't need to act now.

If North's pass is deemed to be fielding, and there's no evidence of any UI from South to North, the board should be scored as 60% to EW and 40% to NS on the assumption that they are playing an illegal method. [WB1.4.5 and 2.8.3.3]

Agree West's 3♠ natural is most unfortunate--it proves that either South or West doesn't have his bid, and North's pass is correct regardless or who it is. Had West passed and North done the same, the adjustment would be totally obvious--North's own cards would make the fielding/illegal convention indisputable. The issue is to what degree E/W should be protected, given they contributed to the damage. To what extent is E/W' s skill level relevant?

<rant>
IMHO, the laws should be amended to allow RA's to enumerate cases for freer adjustment where Not Knowing Your Agreement is more likely to hurt the opponents than you. Yes this is similar to Bobby Wolff's Convention Disruption, but I just can't abide the CD label--as if this can't apply to misremembered "natural' calls, but only to "conventions" -- is it really OK that your partnership has no idea whether a your "natural" call shows four+ hearts or seven+ hearts or might be a weak shut out or a slam try? Most of these situations would not be listed, as they are overwhelmingly more likely to hurt the perpetrators rather than the opponents, but should a call that would otherwise be listed not be because it is natural?.
</rant>

[RMB1]

It is possible to rule that North's actions suggest that there is a partnership understanding that 3♣ might not be artificial; this gives 3♣ a multi-way meaning two-suited without clubs or one-suited with clubs; this understanding is not a permitted agreement and in England we award AVE-/AVE+.

But it appears that every player of the table understood that 3♠ was natural and therefore that 3♣ may not have spades. I would suggest that North's knowledge that South may not have ♠+♦ was not based on any (special) partnership understanding and there is no infraction.

[WellSpyder]

StevenG, on 2016-October-03, 08:59, said:

The only way to deal with repeated Ghestem (or similar) forgets is to log them. Once there is evidence that it can be bid as per convention card or as a single-suiter, then you can (in the EBU) rule illegal agreement. But one hand, by itself, proves nothing.

I found another way to deal with these forgets - I eventually abandoned the attempt to play Ghestem at all....

[barmar]

WellSpyder, on 2016-October-04, 02:07, said:

I found another way to deal with these forgets - I eventually abandoned the attempt to play Ghestem at all....

That's good for you, but it doesn't help you deal with forgets by opponents.

Sometimes it seems like Ghestem needs to be banned in general. Based on my subjective memory in these forums, it seems like at least 75% of the time "forgets" is preceded by by "Ghestem".

[mycroft]

RMB1, on 2016-October-03, 16:23, said:

But it appears that every player of the table understood that 3♠ was natural and therefore that 3♣ may not have spades. I would suggest that North's knowledge that South may not have ♠+♦ was not based on any (special) partnership understanding and there is no infraction.

Even if that is the case, should we not investigate to see if there is such a partnership understanding that 3♣ is "spades and diamonds, or clubs if we forgot again"?

The pass may not be evidence of CPU or illegal use of a CPU, but if the A+/A- ruling is for having an illegal partnership understanding, implied or concealed or otherwise, should we not investigate/record? Or do we only adjust if the illegal understanding is used to determine what call to make?

Or am I over-sensitive because "forget Ghestem"/"forget Flannery"/"forget transfers" is one of my bugbears?