[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-January-17, 17:39, said:

I agree with the rectification adjustment to 5♣x by North; you are right that the contract would probably make two tricks rather than three.
<snip>
3. High level competitive bidding decisions are rarely easy. To illustrate the point, we need look no further than the people consulted by the TD: two out of the three said they would double 5♥, despite holding a trump void and probably at most one defensive trick.
<snip>

Certainly a percentage of one trick on a trump lead, and two tricks on a top spade lead.

And I agree that double of 5 hearts is ridiculous. Partner's 4S bid also seems a poor bid, surely East can show a good raise in some way!

[bluejak]

No doubt. But a poor bid before the UI infraction is not going to be SEWoG.

I agree with Jeffrey's comments. One point is that "continuing to play bridge" was an official ACBL interpretation under an earlier Law book. Whether it still is is arguable, and it has no real force outside the ACBL.

[mfa1010]

jallerton, on 2011-January-17, 17:39, said:

1. As a matter of Law, the TD can only deny redress to East/West if either of their Passes over 5♥ is deemed to be "wild" and/or "gambling". It is not sufficient for either of the Passes to be deemed to be a "serious error" as the opportunity to make these calls is clearly related to the infraction of the 5♥ bid.

Why is that clear?
Wouldn't that logic exclude any serious error after any illegal bid, since we can always say that the opponent only got the opportunity to err because the illegal bid put him in the actual position?
That can hardly be the true intention of it.

[mfa1010]

lamford, on 2011-January-18, 06:19, said:

All North can do is carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI. He should redouble, because that is the bid that he might have made if South has said "Ghestem, at least 5-5 in the reds". If he had heard that there would be no question of waking South up. If he redoubles, with the intention of waking his partner up, that would be an infraction using the UI, but that should not prevent him making the bid.

I don't understand.

If north passes, he is basing his bid on UI, so TD adjusts to 5♣R.
If north redoubles and south runs, then north has chosen a LA suggested by UI, so TD adjusts to 5♣D.

So north will be breaking the law regardless of his action. Never heard of this. Or?

[jallerton]

mfa1010, on 2011-January-18, 15:18, said:

Why is that clear?
Wouldn't that logic exclude any serious error after any illegal bid, since we can always say that the opponent only got the opportunity to err because the illegal bid put him in the actual position?
That can hardly be the true intention of it.

I understand the point you are making, but the fact is that the lawmakers chose to include in Law 12C1[b] the wording "serious error (unrelated to the infraction)". If a non-offender's first opportunity to call or play after the infraction is "unrelated to the infraction" it is hard to see what actions would be deemd to be related.

In my opinion, it is rarely appropriate for Law 12C1[b] to be invoked, but let me give you a theoertical example of where it might be appropriate.

N/S "use UI" to arrive in 6♠, whereas had complied with Law 16/Law73, they would have stopped in 4♠. West has the same obvious opening lead against both contracts and is normal for South to adopt the same line of play. The 6♠ contract reached at the table is destined to go off until East revokes. With the revoke trick transferred, 6♠ now makes. As there is not much of a link between the revoke (which might equally have happened had East been defending 4♠) and the N/S infraction during the auction, the two incidents may be considered to be unrelated.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2011-January-18, 06:28, said:

Certainly a percentage of one trick on a trump lead, and two tricks on a top spade lead.

And I agree that double of 5 hearts is ridiculous. Partner's 4S bid also seems a poor bid, surely East can show a good raise in some way!

If you were to give a weighting to one trick, it should be a fairly low percentage! Whilst the TD should give the benefit of the doubt to the non-offenders in close cases, this does not mean he should assume that they will defend double dummy. Even if East finds a small trump lead, why is it obvious that West will put in the 7 if dummy plays low (or the 10 if dummy plays the 8 or 9)? An opening lead of the club jack might make the defence easier, but even you did not seem to be proposing that.

[mfa1010]

jallerton, on 2011-January-18, 16:06, said:

I understand the point you are making, but the fact is that the lawmakers chose to include in Law 12C1[b] the wording "serious error (unrelated to the infraction)". If a non-offender's first opportunity to call or play after the infraction is "unrelated to the infraction" it is hard to see what actions would be deemd to be related.

In a recent appeal from a national tournament it was decided that a serious error was related to the infraction.
E was told that the 1NT overcall after his artificial 1♣ showed two "odd" suits, but it was indeed natural. NS stumbled into 4♠ with ♠xx in dummy after S had taken partner's 2♥ as transfer, and declarer (S) played ♠A, ♠K, ♠x. E won T from ♠QTxx and promptly drew partner's ♠J with the queen...
RHO (2nd division) felt damaged by the explanation. AC decided that he was damaged, that drawing the last trump was a serious error as the position was, but that the error was related to the infraction and therefore free of charge.

Quote

In my opinion, it is rarely appropriate for Law 12C1[b] to be invoked, but let me give you a theoertical example of where it might be appropriate.

N/S "use UI" to arrive in 6♠, whereas had complied with Law 16/Law73, they would have stopped in 4♠. West has the same obvious opening lead against both contracts and is normal for South to adopt the same line of play. The 6♠ contract reached at the table is destined to go off until East revokes. With the revoke trick transferred, 6♠ now makes. As there is not much of a link between the revoke (which might equally have happened had East been defending 4♠) and the N/S infraction during the auction, the two incidents may be considered to be unrelated.

Yes, I agree with that example. But it doesn't strike me as particularly relevant if the error occurs immediately after the infraction or later in play. But I don't know. It is not clear to me what the law text means here.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-January-18, 16:20, said:

If you were to give a weighting to one trick, it should be a fairly low percentage! Whilst the TD should give the benefit of the doubt to the non-offenders in close cases, this does not mean he should assume that they will defend double dummy. Even if East finds a small trump lead, why is it obvious that West will put in the 7 if dummy plays low (or the 10 if dummy plays the 8 or 9)? An opening lead of the club jack might make the defence easier, but even you did not seem to be proposing that.

I disagree, and surveyed ten reasonable players on OKBridge and nine of them led a trump. Given that North could easily have a spade void and two trumps, the top spade - the only (barely) sensible alternative - is just ridiculous, isn't it? Probably not quite a SEWoG, but close. I agree that the TD should give the benefit of the doubt to the non-offenders, so this does not mean defending misère. I did not consider which trump to lead, but it does not matter much, although the jack looks much better as North might easily have a singleton nine or ten. On a low trump lead, if North has J(x) in trumps it will not cost for West to put in the seven, and when partner has the jack, which the lead of the two would suggest, then it is obviously better.

But by far the more important issue is not to decide what percentage of one trick North-South should have - it should be much nearer 90% than your ludicrous "fairly low percentage" - is to decide what percentage of -4600 or -5200 to give. I must admit that I would be surprised if any TD gave any amount of redouble - they just don't do they?

[dburn]

If North-South "use UI" to bid 5♥ over 4♠ by East-West, and East lets through 5♥ by revoking, can he claim that this serious error was "related to the infraction" because if the opponents hadn't cheated he would have been dummy at 4♠ and thus not had a chance to revoke?

[nige1]

dburn, on 2011-January-20, 05:30, said:

If North-South "use UI" to bid 5♥ over 4♠ by East-West, and East lets through 5♥ by revoking, can he claim that this serious error was "related to the infraction" because if the opponents hadn't cheated he would have been dummy at 4♠ and thus not had a chance to revoke?

Seriously though, SEWOG legislation is hard to implement, sensibly and consistently

[bluejak]

dburn, on 2011-January-20, 05:30, said:

If North-South "use UI" to bid 5♥ over 4♠ by East-West, and East lets through 5♥ by revoking, can he claim that this serious error was "related to the infraction" because if the opponents hadn't cheated he would have been dummy at 4♠ and thus not had a chance to revoke?

No, I do not believe so. I accept that logically this makes sense but I believe that the interpretation of this Law we use is that if you do something like this in a contract that is SEWoG and the fact that you should not be in such a contract is not treated as relevant.

This carries on from earlier interpretations. In the past there was an impression [not cited in the Laws] that the double shot was unacceptable, for example if the opponents bid 4♠ illegally, trying a speculative double on the basis that if it works, fine, if not we try for an adjustment. Again, it could be argued logically that without the illegal 4♠ the double shot was impossible, so why not adjust anyway?

At least the ACBL interpretation [not justified in the Laws] did not suffer from this failing. They said a non-offending side had to "continue to play bridge" to get redress. But that is not the way the Law-makers have gone.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2011-January-19, 05:32, said:

I disagree, and surveyed ten reasonable players on OKBridge and nine of them led a trump. Given that North could easily have a spade void and two trumps, the top spade - the only (barely) sensible alternative - is just ridiculous, isn't it? Probably not quite a SEWoG, but close. I agree that the TD should give the benefit of the doubt to the non-offenders, so this does not mean defending misère. I did not consider which trump to lead, but it does not matter much, although the jack looks much better as North might easily have a singleton nine or ten. On a low trump lead, if North has J(x) in trumps it will not cost for West to put in the seven, and when partner has the jack, which the lead of the two would suggest, then it is obviously better.

But by far the more important issue is not to decide what percentage of one trick North-South should have - it should be much nearer 90% than your ludicrous "fairly low percentage" - is to decide what percentage of -4600 or -5200 to give.

I agree that declarer could have a spade void from West's point of view, which is why West is unlikely to find the deep finesse at trick 1.

However, from East's point of view, the lead of the "much better" club jack rates to "pin" a singleton honour in West's hand rather than pinning anything in declarer's hand. East has received the (correct) explanation that 3♣ is natural and should be assumed to select his opening lead on that basis.

Quote

I must admit that I would be surprised if any TD gave any amount of redouble - they just don't do they?

When, as here,there is no plausible auction to end in a redoubled contract, no they don't.

[dburn]

bluejak, on 2011-January-20, 07:13, said:

At least the ACBL interpretation [not justified in the Laws] did not suffer from this failing. They said a non-offending side had to "continue to play bridge" to get redress. But that is not the way the Law-makers have gone.

I am not sure about this; the Lawmakers have left it to the discretion of Regulating Authorities to decide what constitutes "serious error, wild or gambling action". Recent and highly commendable efforts by Frances Hinden have ensured that the EBU now has comprehensive guidance on the question to the effect that if your opponent is a cheat, it does not matter if you are a moron. If the ACBL wants to continue to say that "failure to play bridge" may be a serious error unrelated to an infraction, I believe that it may legally do so (and at a personal level, I will continue to applaud its stance).

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-January-20, 16:13, said:

I agree that declarer could have a spade void from West's point of view, which is why West is unlikely to find the deep finesse at trick 1.

However, from East's point of view, the lead of the "much better" club jack rates to "pin" a singleton honour in West's hand rather than pinning anything in declarer's hand. East has received the (correct) explanation that 3♣ is natural and should be assumed to select his opening lead on that basis.

Why would a spade void in North make it less likely for West to find a medium club at trick one? West, looking at a heart void, knows there is no quick entry to South.

North should have advised East that he believed there was a failure to alert Ghestem, before the opening lead. The fact that the CC only mentions weak jump overcalls is not that relevant - most pairs who play Ghestem also play weak jump overcalls; WJO on the CC is not evidence that the pair do not play Ghestem, and the TD is to assume misinformation rather than misbid. But it is surely obvious that a wheel has come off - where are all the hearts? - and that makes a trump lead clearly indicated.

And I agree that it is unlikely that North would redouble at the table.

[Vampyr]

AndreSteff, on 2011-January-12, 17:29, said:

North justifies his 5♥bid with the the "common knowledge" that you may run from a Ghestem misunderstaning with a singleton.

I love it!

mycroft, on 2011-January-13, 14:31, said:

I think there is a legal advantage to playing top 2 unbid cuebid, 3C T/B rather than T/B cuebid. At least when you or partner forgets, *you have clubs* unless the auction is 1C-3C.)

I am a little uncomfortable, however, with this. I once played against two ladies who were playing this, and partner corrected to the "Ghestem" bidder's "other" suit, and they took their -800 with good grace. Incidentally, this explains why Ghestem misunderstandings are never recorded for the purpose of putting some kind of sanction on the people playing/not playing it. It seems a bit churlish to call the director while you are recording +800 or more against nothing.

However, if you play that "clubs shows clubs" then partner may pass with a better fit for bidder's "other" suit and a poor hand, with the excuse of not running until they start doubling.

[Vampyr]

AlexJonson, on 2011-January-14, 15:22, said:

I have found this post very interesting.

I need to get out more and meet players who go for 2300-5200,knowingly, either to punish partner - or themselves as in this case.

I'm not really convinced that this constitutes anything resembling ethics. Until I am convinced, I'll bid as a card player and leave it to the opponents and the TD.

I think you are misreading Lamford's intentions here. The idea is not to purposely go for 2300, 2600 or 5200; what he is talking about is trying not to "get out of" the score that should be coming to you.

[phil_20686]

This is why when you play ghestem you should agree that these kinda of raises are not natural. The one and only time I agreed to play Ghestem I was handed a sheaf of agreements in which (on this auction) 5c = general slam try in hearts, and 4N = general slam try in diamonds, on this auction. That would have covered me well here . I mean, in reality, how many times is it right to bid 5c with a misfit anway? Much better to have a slam try available. North needs to practice his appeal comittie technique imo

[mycroft]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-06, 14:55, said:

I am a little uncomfortable, however, with this. I once played against two ladies who were playing this, and partner corrected to the "Ghestem" bidder's "other" suit, and they took their -800 with good grace. Incidentally, this explains why Ghestem misunderstandings are never recorded for the purpose of putting some kind of sanction on the people playing/not playing it. It seems a bit churlish to call the director while you are recording +800 or more against nothing.

However, if you play that "clubs shows clubs" then partner may pass with a better fit for bidder's "other" suit and a poor hand, with the excuse of not running until they start doubling.

Oh certainly. But that's not the "forget" that I'm worried about, it's responder's forget (as in this thread). The number of times that the required pass will at least be a reasonable score is higher, and also, the number of times that "pull to the suit" is going to be plausible is going to be much less. In other words, when you have a Ghestem forget by partner, you will legally and rationally be constrained to do something not totally murderous to your score.

I am *not* advocating "trying to get away with using the UI", I am advocating "setting up my system so that 'not using the UI' is as minimally damaging as possible". Which is legal as far as I know.

[lamford]

phil_20686, on 2011-February-07, 12:14, said:

This is why when you play ghestem you should agree that these kinda of raises are not natural. The one and only time I agreed to play Ghestem I was handed a sheaf of agreements in which (on this auction) 5c = general slam try in hearts, and 4N = general slam try in diamonds, on this auction. That would have covered me well here . I mean, in reality, how many times is it right to bid 5c with a misfit anway? Much better to have a slam try available. North needs to practice his appeal comittie technique imo

I think it is his ethics he needs to practise. I agree that the methods of playing 5C as a slam try in hearts and 4N as a slam try in diamonds make sense. With both red aces and an extra-card in the red suits, North does not want to sign off in 5D or 5H and according to jallerton he will never redouble, so perhaps we should just give him the slow-play penalty now as there is nothing for him to bid. The more I think about it, a significant percentage of -5200 is correct, and if I was only given -2600 (or -2300) as North by the TD, I would appeal, just to annoy the AC, and waste their meal break, probably costing the appeal fee however.