[VixTD]

---

2♠ was alerted and explained when South asked before bidding 5♠ as Ghestem, showing hearts and clubs. At the end of the hand West corrected the misexplanation to say it was Michaels, showing hearts and a minor. East agreed this was a correct explanation.

South called me and said that he would not have bid 5♠ given a correct explanation. He had assumed that EW had a big club fit, making it more likely that he and his partner had a double fit in spades and diamonds.

How would you rule?

[helene_t]

Yeah I think that is plausible. South might have bid 5♠ anyway but who knows. So I give S the benefit of the doubt.

[ahydra]

I agree with South, but have no clue what would happen to the auction next. What's West going to think when his partner bids 5C? P/C maybe, in which case I guess the score is 5DX (W)-2 [on a very, very brief analysis]? Or maybe 5C is a natural suit and so West bids 5H, leading to 5HX (W) -3?

ahydra

[paulg]

One question for EW is whether 5♣ is natural or pass or correct, or if they've ever discussed this. I'm going to adjust but would like to know if 5♣-X is likely.

Update: Of course West should have alerted 5♣ if it were pass or correct, as it's on the first round of the auction. So perhaps we know what he thought it was.

[blackshoe]

Well, I'm awarding an adjusted score (Law 21B3). As others have said, to what to adjust is not an easy problem. What will West do over South's pass in lieu of 5♠? I don't think we can rule that he will do something that 'uses UI', so what are his LAs and which, if any, could demonstrably be suggested by the UI? Those are out. What's left? Or does West have no LAs, and if so to what call? IAC, in the jurisdiction, we should end up, probably, with a weighted score (Law 12C1{c}) unless we decide it's all just too hard and invoke Law 12C1{d}, leading to an artificial adjusted score of average plus to NS and average minus to EW (Law 12C2). I don't like to do that, though. In most cases, including IMO this one, it's a cop-out that should be disparaged.

[pran]

Unless EW can show an agreement that 5♣ is for P/C I would adjust as if it is for play. ("Forget your suits, we play mine").

I would expect 4♣ in this situation to be P/C.

[paulg]

pran, on 2015-April-23, 09:16, said:

I would expect 4♣ in this situation to be P/C.

Many play that 4NT asks for the minor at the five-level.

[pran]

pran, on 2015-April-23, 09:16, said:

Unless EW can show an agreement that 5♣ is for P/C I would adjust as if it is for play. ("Forget your suits, we play mine").

I would expect 4♣ in this situation to be P/C.

paulg, on 2015-April-23, 09:30, said:

Many play that 4NT asks for the minor at the five-level.

OK, so they have the agreement that 4NT asks for the relevant minor suit and then 5♣ obviously says: "Forget your suits, we play mine".

[Aardv]

There's something odd about this: North seems not to have asked what the 2♠ bid meant. Why on earth not? Surely he would at least consider a different call if given the Ghestem explanation. I want to rule against everyone.

[lamford]

Aardv, on 2015-April-23, 16:29, said:

There's something odd about this: North seems not to have asked what the 2♠ bid meant. Why on earth not? Surely he would at least consider a different call if given the Ghestem explanation. I want to rule against everyone.

He may have already known, depending on his familiarity with EW methods. Or he may have looked at the CC.

[barmar]

Aardv, on 2015-April-23, 16:29, said:

There's something odd about this: North seems not to have asked what the 2♠ bid meant. Why on earth not? Surely he would at least consider a different call if given the Ghestem explanation. I want to rule against everyone.

Looking at his hand, he probably made the natural assumption that it was Michaels. Especially if Michaels is a common agreement where they are.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2015-April-24, 09:45, said:

Looking at his hand, he probably made the natural assumption that it was Michaels. Especially if Michaels is a common agreement where they are.

II suppose that when partner makes an unexpected or undiscussed call, one has to assume some meaning for it. It would be far better, IMO, if partner wouldn't do that. Of course, that's an ideal, and we have to deal with what actually happens. In this case, it seems to me that Ghestem is sufficiently unusual (I never saw it in the three years I played in England) that one ought to remember discussing it, at least, even if not what the final decision was. While I suppose looking at the end could lead to forgetting that the discussion happened, I'd not put it near the top of the list of what might have happened.

[VixTD]

I also could see the logic in South's argument, and ruled on the basis that he would pass 5♣. North would double this, and when this is passed to West he may or may not be allowed to remove the contract to 5♦. This would be doubled by South, and I assigned a score of 5miX(E/W)-4 or -5.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-24, 10:31, said:

II suppose that when partner makes an unexpected or undiscussed call, one has to assume some meaning for it. It would be far better, IMO, if partner wouldn't do that. Of course, that's an ideal, and we have to deal with what actually happens. In this case, it seems to me that Ghestem is sufficiently unusual (I never saw it in the three years I played in England) that one ought to remember discussing it, at least, even if not what the final decision was. While I suppose looking at the end could lead to forgetting that the discussion happened, I'd not put it near the top of the list of what might have happened.

My comment was about an opponent, not the partner of the Michaels/Ghestem bidder. It was in response to Aardv wondering why the opponent didn't ask for the meaning of the cue bid.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2015-April-24, 10:38, said:

My comment was about an opponent, not the partner of the Michaels/Ghestem bidder. It was in response to Aardv wondering why the opponent didn't ask for the meaning of the cue bid.

Ah. Well then you get into "at his own risk" territory.