[VixTD]

An EBU Garden Cities county qualifier, teams-of-eight scored by IMPs between pairs of tables, then adding the result and converting to VPs.

---

NS play five-card majors and a strong NT, 1♣ could have been a three-card suit.
3♣ was alerted and explained when South asked as ♦ and ♠, but the actual agreement was ♥ and ♠.

Result: 3NT(S)-3, NS +300, lead ♠2.

The incorrect explanation was established at the end of play. South wanted a ruling because she claimed she would not have bid 3NT had she been told East had both majors. I asked her why she had bid 3NT with the incorrect explanation, with only seven points, and she said it was on the strength of the club fit and stops in the opponents' suits. I asked her what she would have bid over the correct explanation, and she said she would have passed.

What score, if anything, would you adjust to?

[pran]

VixTD, on 2018-February-01, 08:21, said:

An EBU Garden Cities county qualifier, teams-of-eight scored by IMPs between pairs of tables, then adding the result and converting to VPs.

---

NS play five-card majors and a strong NT, 1♣ could have been a three-card suit.
3♣ was alerted and explained when South asked as ♦ and ♠, but the actual agreement was ♥ and ♠.

Result: 3NT(S)-3, NS +300, lead ♠2.

The incorrect explanation was established at the end of play. South wanted a ruling because she claimed she would not have bid 3NT had she been told East had both majors. I asked her why she had bid 3NT with the incorrect explanation, with only seven points, and she said it was on the strength of the club fit and stops in the opponents' suits. I asked her what she would have bid over the correct explanation, and she said she would have passed.

What score, if anything, would you adjust to?

I would accept South's statement of passing and take it from there.
If East/West most likely would end up with more than 300 I would let the table result stand, otherwise I would adjust.

[paulg]

I'm often asked by directors to help with such a situation so I hope my recommendations are lawful (appreciate comments if they are not).

I tend to believe that South would not bid three no trump with the correct explanation and passing is certainly possible, although I'm less convinced that a person who bids three no trump with this hand opposite a weak no trump would be able to stay silent. But I will assume it is the case.

West would probably bid 3D here although it depends on their Ghestem style, which I'd like to ask them. Then I'd need to ask what 3D means in this auction, but I suspect for many pairs it would be an enquiry over which East would bid 3H. West would think this shows a strong two-suiter and could bid 4S now, which East would pass. Most lines seem to be two down after a club lead.

So I'd obviously have to discover their methods after 3C, but I can see changing the score to NS +200 from NS -300 is probably not a big stretch.

[weejonnie]

paulg, on 2018-February-01, 10:32, said:

I'm often asked by directors to help with such a situation so I hope my recommendations are lawful (appreciate comments if they are not).

I tend to believe that South would not bid three no trump with the correct explanation and passing is certainly possible, although I'm less convinced that a person who bids three no trump with this hand opposite a weak no trump would be able to stay silent. But I will assume it is the case.

West would probably bid 3D here although it depends on their Ghestem style, which I'd like to ask them. Then I'd need to ask what 3D means in this auction, but I suspect for many pairs it would be an enquiry over which East would bid 3H. West would think this shows a strong two-suiter and could bid 4S now, which East would pass. Most lines seem to be two down after a club lead.

So I'd obviously have to discover their methods after 3C, but I can see changing the score to NS +200 from NS -300 is probably not a big stretch.

Well I suppose it seems a reasonable gamble at teams to try for a low-count 3NT - if the clubs run you are going to be pretty close to it - partner could have 4 or even 5 clubs for their opening bid (I know this is unusual but players DO sometimes hold the denomination they bid).

NB the North hand is not known to be a weak no trump. It could be quite distributional - or even 18-19 balanced.

Other than that, I think you have it right. It depends on methods of course (as you say), but giving a default opinion on a forum (with a caveat) seems a sensible thing to do. For instance: The Ghestem call might only be made on intermediate hands, for instance, when 4 ♠ looks to be less likely.

[barmar]

weejonnie, on 2018-February-01, 11:01, said:

NB the North hand is not known to be a weak no trump. It could be quite distributional - or even 18-19 balanced.

If they're that strong there's a good chance they'll reopen. There's no need to make a unilateral decision.

On the other hands, preempts are intended to give opponents problems like this. Assuming clubs run and a lead in one of RHO's expected suits, you just need partner to have 2 fast tricks outside clubs, not a huge gamble.

[pescetom]

If West realised that his explanation was incorrect, then I understand he should have summoned the Director before play commenced.
If not, would it not have been more reasonable to lead a diamond?

[steve2005]

People who can't remember Ghestem should have their bridge license taken away. Even Ghestem stopped playing it from all the forgets.

[wank]

pescetom, on 2018-February-01, 15:19, said:

If not, would it not have been more reasonable to lead a diamond?

no

[Cyberyeti]

wank, on 2018-February-01, 16:38, said:

no

err why not ?

With a club stop, the lead of ♦J would appear to need little more than ♦10xxxx and an entry.

[weejonnie]

pescetom, on 2018-February-01, 15:19, said:

If West realised that his explanation was incorrect, then I understand he should have summoned the Director before play commenced.
If not, would it not have been more reasonable to lead a diamond?

The actual word is 'must'
(the strongest word, a serious matter indeed) - which presumably means that the lawmakers expect a PP to be issued whenever he fails to do so.

"If a player realizes during the auction that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must summon the Director before the end of the Clarification Period and correct the misexplanation. He may elect to call the Director sooner, but he is under no obligation to do so. (For a correction during the play period, see Law 75B2.)"

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2018-February-01, 17:40, said:

The actual word is 'must'
(the strongest word, a serious matter indeed) - which presumably means that the lawmakers expect a PP to be issued whenever he fails to do so.

"If a player realizes during the auction that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must summon the Director before the end of the Clarification Period and correct the misexplanation. He may elect to call the Director sooner, but he is under no obligation to do so. (For a correction during the play period, see Law 75B2.)"

We are not told that West realised his misexplanation during the auction. "The incorrect explanation was established at the end of play" is in the OP.

I agree that South would pass over 3C with the correct explanation (although I would bid 4C) - it matters not an iota whether 3NT is a good bid with the wrong explanation; it is reasonable as xx Jxxx Ax AKxxx makes game in NT cold. After South passes, West, with a double fit, might well bid 4S, or might settle for 3 (I would poll) and North-South will defend. I think South would double 4S but pass out 3S, and always lead her singleton heart. I would therefore adjust to 50% of +100 for NS and 50% of +500. Nothing NS did is remotely esewogian (a new word created by Donald Trump) so the same score for both sides.

[paulg]

lamford, on 2018-February-02, 06:07, said:

I agree that South would pass over 3C with the correct explanation (although I would bid 4C) - it matters not an iota whether 3NT is a good bid with the wrong explanation; it is reasonable as xx Jxxx Ax AKxxx makes game in NT cold. After South passes, West, with a double fit, might well bid 4S, or might settle for 3 (I would poll) and North-South will defend. I think South would double 4S but pass out 3S, and always lead her singleton heart. I would therefore adjust to 50% of +100 for NS and 50% of +500. Nothing NS did is remotely esewogian (a new word created by Donald Trump) so the same score for both sides.

I agree with polling but doubt that West will bid 4♠ on such a double fit opposite the type of values East has (or presumably could have). It is more interesting whether non-game bidders bid 3♦ or 3♠ - at imps you'd expect the safer partscore to be better especially in a potentially uncontested auction.

[cherdano]

Surely
4C 4D P 4H P 4S
is a possible auction? Or just 4C 4S?

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2018-February-02, 06:07, said:

We are not told that West realised his misexplanation during the auction. "The incorrect explanation was established at the end of play" is in the OP.

What we are told does not exclude the possibility that West did realise his misexplanation during the auction but without admitting it, or that he continued to believe his explanation but received UI suggesting that partner had not intended that combination of suits.
The question I think is whether his chosen lead is compatible with the explanation offered, given his diamonds.
I don't play Ghestem, but my understanding is that it should be genuinely competitive and both suits must have some strength.
I certainly would not want partner taking me to 3 level on xxxxx however good the other suit was.

[weejonnie]

lamford, on 2018-February-02, 06:07, said:

We are not told that West realised his misexplanation during the auction. "The incorrect explanation was established at the end of play" is in the OP.

I agree that South would pass over 3C with the correct explanation (although I would bid 4C) - it matters not an iota whether 3NT is a good bid with the wrong explanation; it is reasonable as xx Jxxx Ax AKxxx makes game in NT cold. After South passes, West, with a double fit, might well bid 4S, or might settle for 3 (I would poll) and North-South will defend. I think South would double 4S but pass out 3S, and always lead her singleton heart. I would therefore adjust to 50% of +100 for NS and 50% of +500. Nothing NS did is remotely esewogian (a new word created by Donald Trump) so the same score for both sides.

'esewogian' is misspelt - there is no 'w' in it.

[fromageGB]

weejonnie, on 2018-February-02, 11:38, said:

'esewogian' is misspelt - there is no 'w' in it.

OK, so we have some confusion over its spelling. Do we know how it is pronounced? Do we even know what it means?

[pran]

fromageGB, on 2018-February-03, 04:37, said:

OK, so we have some confusion over its spelling. Do we know how it is pronounced? Do we even know what it means?

Serious Error - Wild Or Gambling

[blackshoe]

Extremely serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or gambling. "Wild" is no long part of it, and "extremely" is intended, I think, to emphasize that merely "serious" errors aren't enough to trigger the relevant law.

[barmar]

So another reason they shouldn't have changed the law -- "esogian" doesn't sounds as funny.

[VixTD]

I was interested to see how many of you would believe that South would pass with a correct explanation. I didn't, and adjusted to a mixture of 4♣(N)=, 5♣(N)-1 and 4 something (W)-4.