[whereagles]

SteelWheel, on Jan 9 2007, 10:15 AM, said:

"Self-alerting" means that as a general rule, a cuebid of an opponent's suit is deemed to automatically carry the message, that "this call is not an offer to play in your bid suit".

Thx for the explanation. I find this definition of self-alerting somewhat misleading, but I digress Anyway, I haven't had time to read what other posters said, so what I'm going to say may overlap with other comments.

Because 1♦ isn't an offer to play diamonds, overcaller's 2♦ is not a cue-bid of opponent's SUIT, but rather a cue of opps' DENOMINATION. Therefore, if 2♦ is artificial, it ought to be alerted.

[paulg]

hrothgar, on Jan 9 2007, 12:56 PM, said:

Hi

There are two separate issues that need to be discussed here.

Issue 1:  Is the 2♦ bid alertable in an ACBL event?

ACBL regulations are fairly clear about cues bids and alerts. 

If the opponents play that one of a suit is a natural opening and you use a direct cue bid as a natural bid then the cue bid is alertable.  For exampe, if the auction (1♣) - 2♣ shows a club suit, this is an alertable cue bid.

No other cue bidding sequences are defined as alertable.

Indeed the ACBL is fairly clear but your summary is not the same as theirs so I'll reproduce it for completeness

Quote

4) CUEBIDS

Most cuebids are not Alertable. However, any cuebid which conveys a very unusual or unexpected meaning still requires an Alert.

EXAMPLE: 1♠-2♥-Pass-2♠
If the 2 bid is a heart raise with values or some constructive hand, no Alert is required. If the 2 bid is a transfer to clubs, an Alert is required.

EXAMPLE: 1♦-2♦
If the 2 bid shows the majors (Michaels), clubs and spades (top/bottom) or some other two-suiter (not including diamonds, no Alert is required.

[helene_t]

csdenmark, on Jan 9 2007, 02:58 PM, said:

Whether 1♣ bidder was harmed thats of course depends of their skills. I see those were not solid


I referred to Wilkosz not as Wilkosz but only to re-address the problems persons with lack of skills are experimenting with strong systems.

Please take care of your language Richard. I have told you before that I am not interested in debates with persons proving hostile attitudes.

So somebody who plays a double of a natural 2♦ overcall as t/o (this was the agreement) has "non-solid" skills? Excuse me?

Quote

The auction coming up in this thread is just proving right many who claims those kind of players are not fit for what they are doing.

OK, we know that you think it takes enourmous amount of system knowledge to play a system with a forcing 1♣. You're entitled to your opinion but it looks as if you think it's more than just an opinion. Which it isn't.

Quote

only to re-address the problems persons with lack of skills are experimenting with strong systems.

There's no such thing as a "strong system". A Google on
"strong system" bridge "bidding system"
gives one link to a document claiming that 2/1 is the "strongest" bidding system (whatever that is supposed to mean), and a lot of links to financial papers about e-bay-like systems. There's something called a "strong pass system" (also known as a weak opening system) but there the brackets go "(strong pass) system", like "(strong club) system". Certainly not "strong (club system)".

Quote

For the 2♦ overcall I would not be surprised if it was poles as this is standard for poles playing Wilkosz.

I hope nobody played Wilcosz as this was an ACBL event. Anyway, it's new to me Wilcosz implies that you play 2♦=majors in this situation. I'd rather expect an immediate overcall of 2♦ over 1♣ showing majors to be extrapolated to this situation.

Quote

Please take care of your language Richard. I have told you before that I am not interested in debates with persons proving hostile attitudes.

If you want to be a good example for Richard, you could stop giving unsolicited "friendly" advice to other posters while at the same time talking about their "lack of skills" and calling them "lame ducks".

[FrancesHinden]

csdenmark, on Jan 9 2007, 12:58 PM, said:

2♦ overcall clearly alert-table. No problem with that. Whether 1♣ bidder was harmed thats of course depends of their skills. I see those were not solid - so yes they were harmed. In my view, thats the general view for good strong club players, he was favoured of the overcall. Unfortunately he has handicapped himself disabling his penalty options.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
We don't know how the auction continued after the 2H bid, all we know is that they got a decent score.

I am also totally bemused as to why you think there is anything wrong with playing a double of a natural 2D bid as takeout in this auction. That would be my first, second and third choice of call.

[hrothgar]

cardsharp, on Jan 9 2007, 04:26 PM, said:

Indeed the ACBL is fairly clear but your summary is not the same as theirs so I'll reproduce it for completeness

http://www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html said:

4) CUEBIDS

Most cuebids are not Alertable. However, any cuebid which conveys a very unusual or unexpected meaning still requires an Alert.

EXAMPLE: 1♠-2♥-Pass-2♠
If the 2 bid is a heart raise with values or some constructive hand, no Alert is required. If the 2 bid is a transfer to clubs, an Alert is required.

EXAMPLE: 1♦-2♦
If the 2 bid shows the majors (Michaels), clubs and spades (top/bottom) or some other two-suiter (not including diamonds, no Alert is required.

Sigh... Two mistakes in one of (my) postings, and neither related to a typo

Thanks for the quote...

[glen]

As noted by almost everybody, even those who don't read the whole thread, 2♦ should have been alerted. As noted as well the ACBL regulations are clear in this case. The f2f club level directors in this area would have all gotten the ruling correct, but most here have a zillion years of experience so everything is "deja vu all over again" for them.

As to the hand, it seems you were not in a bad position after the no alert. You got to make a takeout double of ♦s, and then the 2♦ bidder bid ♥s showing, s/he believes, both majors. Now you can pass or double to show your degree of ♥ values. In addition, since your LHO did not bid a major yet, s/he may also have assumed that 2♦ was natural, and now might assume 2♥ was a single suit, or that the overcaller has the red suits. So personally I would not have called the TD at the point you did, because I think things so far have worked out nicely for our side, and that calling the TD might wake up the overcaller's partner that something is wrong in Denmark.

However I hope you "asked what 2♦ meant" by clicking on the 2♦ and/or 2♥ bid, so that both and your partner then knew it was "majors" when overcaller provided that detail. If you had asked by private message and received reply by the same, you would need to ensure that the overcaller gave this information also to your partner, in order that you were now both on the same page.

[csdenmark]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 9 2007, 03:32 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Jan 9 2007, 12:58 PM, said:

2♦ overcall clearly alert-table. No problem with that. Whether 1♣ bidder was harmed thats of course depends of their skills. I see those were not solid - so yes they were harmed. In my view, thats the general view for good strong club players, he was favoured of the overcall. Unfortunately he has handicapped himself disabling his penalty options.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
We don't know how the auction continued after the 2H bid, all we know is that they got a decent score.

I am also totally bemused as to why you think there is anything wrong with playing a double of a natural 2D bid as takeout in this auction. That would be my first, second and third choice of call.

If 2♥ will be final it will be a borderline but likely to be down. So I assume 2♥ will produce a decent score.

The reason for not accepting DBL as takeout is if Precison all doubles are normally defined as for penalty according to principle of captaincy. Playing strong club you must be ready to accept responsibility. This means to pave the way a decent contract - if any. To play takeout doubles for 1♣opener is rejecting this responsibility.

[csdenmark]

helene_t, on Jan 9 2007, 03:30 PM, said:

There's no such thing as a "strong system".

Please come up with a better term Helene. If you prefer 'artificial system' I certainly know what you mean - but I see nothing artificial.

I try to use the words strong/weak for 2 reasons:

• Strong systems mostly refer to a strong opening feature, can be pass, club or diamonds. Often you additionally as standard has other kind of special strong features available like Namyats
  
• Those kind of systems require additional skills compared to standard system

[keylime]

2D is clearly alertable unless it had diamonds, since diamonds bid previously in this auction is an artificial call. What concerns me is the timing of the alert and the lack of knowing that an alert was required...this is for me a reoccurring problem when opps who are not versed in strong club countermeasures make a call and pard is not aware of what that call means. I've had this type of situation come up at least half a dozen times in this exact style of auction.

[glen]

csdenmark, on Jan 9 2007, 08:55 AM, said:

The reason for not accepting DBL as takeout is if Precison all doubles are normally defined as for penalty according to principle of captaincy. Playing strong club you must be ready to accept responsibility. This means to pave the way a decent contract - if any. To play takeout doubles for 1♣opener is rejecting this responsibility.

Meckwell would double for takeout, so they are not just ready yet to accept responsibility, at least in your view. They play a clever scheme you might have seen - either partner can double for takeout (albeit iyo irresponsible) and then their partner can convert the double to penalty by passing. So to make a penalty double, one passes first and hopes partner can double. If partner cannot double, the opponents might be in a truly awful spot for them (such as having overcalled 2♦ with both majors and being left to play there with only the strong club side having ♦s), or partner might have a very distributional hand where showing the hand type will be necessary.

[helene_t]

officeglen, on Jan 9 2007, 04:21 PM, said:

They play a clever scheme you might have seen - either partner can double for takeout (albeit iyo irresponsible) and then their partner can convert the double to penalty by passing.  So to make a penalty double, one passes first and hopes partner can double.

Wow, hi-tech bidding anno 2007 :-) Have they issued a pattent application already?

[bid_em_up]

While I agree with the majority that 2♦ should be alerted, and on the surface, you should be entitled to redress (without knowing result, its hard to say what that would be). I believe Fred has asked that questions regarding ACBL directors rulings be emailed to acbl@bridgebase.com (I think thats the address, someone correct it if wrong please), instead of being posted on this forum. They will want the ruling, the board number (better yet, a link to the board from myhands), and an explanation of the situation.

That said, I also think you have an obligation to your side to inquire as to the meaning of the bid.

Cuebids, in and of themselves, are self-alerting. The bid may or may not contain a special meaning. It may be natural or it may show something else (however, using 2D to show majors in the sequence is silly, imo, but thats another thread).
If you want to know what 2♦ is, the time to ask is when the 2♦ bid is made, not after the 2♥ bid is made.

You claim that you didnt want to "alert the opps", but if you click on the bid and an explanation is entered, the other opponent will not see the explanation, so they will still be "unalerted". So your claim, on its surface, does not appear to be valid. And it also appears, at least to me, a method of attempting two bites at the apple, so to speak.


jmoo.

[glen]

bid_em_up, on Jan 9 2007, 09:36 AM, said:

While I agree with the majority that 2♦ should be alerted, and on the surface, you should be entitled to redress (without knowing result, its hard to say what that would be).

Just to note in reply - even though the 2♦ should have been alerted, this does not by itself result in "entitled to redress". That would require that there have been damage in some form.

[csdenmark]

officeglen, on Jan 9 2007, 04:21 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Jan 9 2007, 08:55 AM, said:

The reason for not accepting DBL as takeout is if Precison all doubles are normally defined as for penalty according to principle of captaincy. Playing strong club you must be ready to accept responsibility. This means to pave the way a decent contract - if any. To play takeout doubles for 1♣opener is rejecting this responsibility.

Meckwell would double for takeout, so they are not just ready yet to accept responsibility, at least in your view. They play a clever scheme you might have seen - either partner can double for takeout (albeit iyo irresponsible) and then their partner can convert the double to penalty by passing. So to make a penalty double, one passes first and hopes partner can double. If partner cannot double, the opponents might be in a truly awful spot for them (such as having overcalled 2♦ with both majors and being left to play there with only the strong club side having ♦s), or partner might have a very distributional hand where showing the hand type will be necessary.

Glen I think it makes little sense to argue. First your former post I agreed to and second Meckwell is something special. Special because it is very much a system aimed to harbour 3NT whereever it makes some kind of sense. Of other deadly persons will prefer a 4MAJOR here. Please note the general strong preemptive bids are not included either. Those go via other channels - some of them ruled out in 2006.

I looked up their notes. I am unable to find an exact match for your claim. Your may derive it from this below.

Quote

Note:..1:Bidding Style: aggressive, frequent upvaluing, less downvaluing.
Play/defend decisions made by judgement, not mechanical
rule. Both players have latitude to use judgement in any situation.
Playing strength, Vulnerability, and level of bidding are paramount

The other candidate to come close is

Quote

Note:..25:1D and competition: 1D-X-transfers used (unlimited): XX=4+H,
1H=4+S, 1S=ART 8+BAL, 1N=C, 2C=inv nat, 2H=54+ SH less than inv, 2S=
same but inv, 3C=MINs less than inv, 3MAJ=short OM MINs or long D FG.
1D-2C,2S,3C-transfers used only by UPH. If transfers not used, nf
free bids only at 2-level (up to inv strength), with 2D raise as F1.

I trust your comment and I see no problems. But Meckwell is no standard precision approach.

[bid_em_up]

officeglen, on Jan 9 2007, 09:42 AM, said:

bid_em_up, on Jan 9 2007, 09:36 AM, said:

While I agree with the majority that 2♦ should be alerted, and on the surface, you should be entitled to redress (without knowing result, its hard to say what that would be).

Just to note in reply - even though the 2♦ should have been alerted, this does not by itself result in "entitled to redress". That would require that there have been damage in some form.

I think its fairly clear that some damage was incurred (or at least the poster feels that there was), or we wouldnt be seeing this post here.

[Gerben42]

How come this thread is so long? It's very simple: The opening poster was denied some options (cuebids in ♥ and ♠, for one thing) when he didn't know about the artificiality of the 2♦ bid when it was his turn.

Now that it has come this far, you have to play the hand until the end and then the director has to assess possible damage.

[blackshoe]

Since the ACBL alert regulation contains a definition for "cuebid", that is the one to use. Frances and others are correct: the 2 ♦ bid in this sequence does not fit the definition, therefore is not a cuebid, and therefor falls under "most conventions are alertable". It's alertable; there was a failure to alert. TD was incorrect. Tell Gweny, let her deal with it as a training issue. One thought: it might be useful if the ACBL games at bbo had a "Chief TD" - a knowledgeable, experienced TD who can oversee the rulings of table TDs. Or maybe not. <shrug>

[brianshark]

*rant*

I don't think anyone playing either online or in person has ANY obligation to ask for the meanings of bids that should be alerted and aren't. Not only does it slow down the play waiting for a response (sometimes in vain) but it encourages the strategy of reluctant disclosure of methods, and not everyone has the patience, or cares enough, to wait to squeeze every piece of information out of them.

I think they are entitled to assume that the bid is natural. And if/when any damage is done, they are entitled to whatever compensation they get, and the no-alert culprits deserve any punishment they get, and then some.

*rant over*

[hotShot]

Asking about bids create UI, so you should avoid asking unnecessary questions.
Alert is a short form of: "Opps, please ask about this bid!", so if you ask about an alerted bid, no UI is generated.

If I were a natural 2♦ bidder, after this inquiry i would check whether the question was used to show a ♦ control or to ask for one. And if there is indication of this, i will ask the TD for a score correction, because of use of this UI.

An opponent teaching me about the meaning of my bid or about alert rules is a violation of Zero Tolerance. I think the ACBL is enforcing ZT.

[pbleighton]

"If I were a natural 2D bidder, after this inquiry i would check whether the question was used to show a D control or to ask for one. And if there is indication of this, i will ask the TD for a score correction, because of use of this UI."

I disagree with you, because of the context. Bids after a strong club or a 1NT opener are frequently artificial. The opener's partner has every right to ask about an unalerted bid.

Peter