[SteelWheel]

I had this one pop up earlier this evening playing in one of the ACBL BBO thingies:

1♣--P--1♦--2♦
X--P--P--2♥

1♣ was alerted and explained as strong forcing and artificial
1♦ was alerted and explained as 0-7
2♦ was not alerted
X was alerted and explained as takeout

I was the strong clubber. When RHO bid 2♥, I asked what 2♦ meant, and was told "majors". I called the TD, and explained what had been going on thus far. I indicated that I thought the 2♦ call should have been alerted--the meaning of this call is not natural, by any means, and I don't believe I should have to guess, or try to "wake up" my opponents (less of an issue online with self-alerting and self-explaining, of course, but still following my general approach to these sorts of things).

The TD was sympathetic to my argument, but nevertheless could seem to find no rationale in the ACBL regs to support it. All she could find was the general principle that "cuebids are self-alerting", and hence we were not entitled to an alert/explanation unless we asked for one. My contention was that a call in either minor here is not a cuebid, as we have not bid any natural suits.

A simpler version of this would be if I opened a strong club, and LHO bids 2♣: If they're playing, e.g., Truscott or Suction, then I'm entitled to an alert. If they're playing "natural" (a perfectly reasonable treatment), then there should be no alert. Can someone here figure out where in the Laws or ACBL regs one should look for clarification on this? Or am I actually wrong here? (Wouldn't be the first time, and in ACBL-land anything is possible of course....)

Not bothering to post rest of auction, or final result, since it's not relevant (we did get a decent score, fwiw).

If there's a more appropriate BBO forum in which to post this, please feel free to move this post--just didn't know where it should go, so I chose this one.

Thanks all.

[whereagles]

What does "self-alerting" mean? I interpret that as "the person who cues must alert and say what the cue shows". In that case you are entitled to redress if damage was done.

Forum issue: we don't have a specific forum for laws and rulings. Maybe we should. I suggest creating one and, to avoid proliferation of sub-forums, merging the "advanced/expert class bridge" with "interesting hands", which in practice deal with the same sort of hands.

[csdenmark]

SteelWheel, on Jan 9 2007, 11:53 AM, said:

I had this one pop up earlier this evening playing in one of the ACBL BBO thingies:

1♣--P--1♦--2♦
X--P--P--2♥

1♣ was alerted and explained as strong forcing and artificial
1♦ was alerted and explained as 0-7
2♦ was not alerted
X was alerted and explained as takeout

I was the strong clubber.  When RHO bid 2♥, I asked what 2♦ meant, and was told "majors".  I called the TD, and explained what had been going on thus far.  I indicated that I thought the 2♦ call should have been alerted--the meaning of this call is not natural, by any means, and I don't believe I should have to guess, or try to "wake up" my opponents (less of an issue online with self-alerting and self-explaining, of course, but still following my general approach to these sorts of things).

The TD was sympathetic to my argument, but nevertheless could seem to find no rationale in the ACBL regs to support it.  All she could find was the general principle that "cuebids are self-alerting", and hence we were not entitled to an alert/explanation unless we asked for one.  My contention was that a call in either minor here is not a cuebid, as we have not bid any natural suits.

A simpler version of this would be if I opened a strong club, and LHO bids 2♣:  If they're playing, e.g., Truscott or Suction, then I'm entitled to an alert.  If they're playing "natural" (a perfectly reasonable treatment), then there should be no alert.  Can someone here figure out where in the Laws or ACBL regs one should look for clarification on this?  Or am I actually wrong here?  (Wouldn't be the first time, and in ACBL-land anything is possible of course....)

Not bothering to post rest of auction, or final result, since it's not relevant (we did get a decent score, fwiw).

If there's a more appropriate BBO forum in which to post this, please feel free to move this post--just didn't know where it should go, so I chose this one.

Thanks all.

Playing strong club it cannot be the first time you have seen 2♦ coming up from opps. as MAJORs. You press the alert button quering opps. to be sure - simple as that. You are not solid if you need to involve TD for that. I think you have nobody but yourself to blame.

TD explained rubbish as it is NO cue but playing ACBL you cannot expect those TD to have a good knowledge of your kind of methods. To involve TD in this action you are asking for problems - and it looks like you have got exactly that.

[SteelWheel]

"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". For example, a Michaels cue-bid is deemed to be self-alerting in ACBL-land. I'm old enough to remember when such calls were alertable. Eventually, the realization came that if the opponents had just opened 1♠, there was little likelihood of next hand wanting to bid 2♠ and have it actually be intended as a serious offer to play a contract in ♠s. Hence, the current procedure where such cuebids are not alertable (in fact, now it's the other way 'round--if you bid RHO's suit and it IS an offer to play a contract in that strain, that now REQUIRES an alert. But I digress....).

Again, the bone I'm picking here is: The calls my pard and I had taken were not natural, hence the opponents' 2♦ call requires an alert if it is not an offer to play a contract in ♦s.

(We won't even begin to speculate on why their agreement would be that 2♦ shows majors here. What would a bid of 2♣ here have shown? Minors? Another digression....)

[csdenmark]

SteelWheel, on Jan 9 2007, 12:15 PM, said:

(We won't even begin to speculate on why their agreement would be that 2♦ shows majors here.

Maybe not - but this is your really mistake. You are offered an excellent option for asking your weak partner to show preferences cueing opps' majors. You also had the option to show stoppers. Instead you have chosen to waste your strongest weapon - the penalty double - to show takeout putting unreasonable pressure on your weak partner probably producing nothing else than wrongsiding your contract.

[SteelWheel]

Quote

Playing strong club it cannot be the first time you have seen 2♦ coming up from opps. as MAJORs. You press the alert button quering opps. to be sure - simple as that. You are not solid if you need to involve TD for that. I think you have nobody but yourself to blame.

TD explained rubbish as it is NO cue but playing ACBL you cannot expect those TD to have a good knowledge of your kind of methods. To involve TD in this action you are asking for problems - and it looks like you have got exactly that.

Thanks for the lecture. I've seen a million different types of defenses against strong club auctions. As for what 2♦ might mean here, just off the top of my head, I've seen the following: ♥ OR ♠/♣. ♥ OR ♣. ♦ OR ♠. Short in ♦ and therefore takeout for the other three suits. I've even seen a situation where it would mean ♦! Who would have thought it possible?

In fact, with the actual hand I held, "natural" was seemingly consistent: ♠A65 ♥AK52 ♦T4 ♣AK52.

Again, I don't believe it is my responsibility to help the opponents sort out their agreements. I operate under what I assume are the rules of the game. I suppose I lose points in the "solid" department for not asking about the meaning of an apparently natural call at my turn to act.

TD involvement was not "asking for problems"--it was asking TD to try turn something gone wrong back into a bridge hand, which is what TDs are supposed to do. TDs are assumed to be familar with systems like K/S, Precision, 2/1, SAYC in America (at the very least). This was hardly out of the ordinary as these things go. And I think it's insulting to those who direct on BBO to assert that I "cannot expect those TD to have a good knowledge of your kind of methods." As I indicated, the TD understood the issues, just could not find the Laws or ACBL regs to support it.

[SteelWheel]

Quote

Maybe not - but this is your really mistake. You are offered an excellent option for asking your weak partner to show preferences cueing opps' majors. You also had the option to show stoppers. Instead you have chosen to waste your strongest weapon - the penalty double - to show takeout putting unreasonable pressure on your weak partner probably producing nothing else than wrongsiding your contract.

Thank you again for the lecture. I reiterate: My best weapon against a NATURAL 2♦ overcall is to make a TAKEOUT double. If I am made aware of the CONVENTIONAL meaning of my opponent's call, I could take several other courses of actions, IF I AM SUPPLIED WITH THE APPROPRIATE INFORMATION IN A TIMELY FASHION, not in a situation where I have to figure out what silly mistake my opponents may have made.

And BTW: This is four posts in, and we're already totally off-topic. The purpose of my original post was to ask for someone, (preferably an experienced live ACBL player, or better still, "live" TD) to point us in the right direction as to how an issue such as this one is handled under the current regs.

I don't need to hear unhelpful criticisms regarding actions I might have taken in the auction if I had been informed correctly, especially from someone who appears to hold the ACBL (and its TDs) in such low regard. This is not the point of my original post. I'd appreciate it if we can get back on track with the original proposed discussion.

[FrancesHinden]

I don't play in the ACBL but in the spirit of general enquiry, I had a read of the alert chart. Someone will probably tell me I've read the wrong thing in the wrong place, or something, but...

a 'cuebid' is defined as "A bid in a suit which an opponent has either bid naturally or in which he has shown four or more cards"

So the 2D call in your auction is not a cuebid, and as such is alertable unless it shows diamonds.

As a side point, assuming playing online is like playing with screens, surely you can ask your RHO what 2D meant without his partner having to see the reply?

(By the way, I always thought "self-alerting" meant that you didn't alet it whatever it meant. A 'natural' cue-bid is only alertable when directly over a natural opening bid, by the way, so 1H P 1S 2S is not alertable whatever it means)

[paulg]

I only play the Summer Nationals in the ACBL so typically spend the flight relearning the alert chart.

Cue bids are not self-alerting although most are not alerted. However, any cue bid which conveys a very unusual or unexpected meaning still requires an alert. For example, we play 1♥-(1♠)-2♠ as invitational or better with both minors and alert appropriately.

However this is moot here as I agree with Frances that this is not a cue bid and hence should be alerted.

p

[hrothgar]

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.

Issue Two: Do these regulations change Online ACBL Event

Here we get into a somewhat murky area. Bridge Base Online has certain sites rules, one of which is that players should alert any bid that might catch the opponents by surprise. Using these regulations, the 2♦ cue probably should be alerted. However, in the case of an online ACBL tournament BBO is not acting as the sponsoring organization. The ACBL's regulations overwrite those of the site.

To my knowledge, the ACBL has not published a definitive set of regulations for the online game. Therefore we default back to the "normal" alert chart. 2♦ is not alertable.

--------------

There is a secondary issue that needs to be addressed: Does the definition of a cue bid streach to encompass artificial suits. The ACBL's own "Official Encyclopedia of Bridge Defines a cue bid as follows":

"A forcing bid in a suit in which the bidder can not wish to play. It is applied to (1) bids in the opponent's suit at any level. (2) bids to show controls at a high level after a suit has been agreed directly or by indirect inference."

An argument could be made that as following. A 2♣ overcall of a Precision 1♣ opening is not defined as a cue-bid because the precision 1♣ does not show a suit. (Indeed, you advanced this arguement) I would be sympathic towards this claim. Intuitively it makes a lot sense

One last comment: As Frances originally noted: the ACBL's own alert chart defines a cue bid as follows "Cuebid: A bid in a suit which an opponent has either bid naturally or in which he has shown four or more cards." Based on this, the 2♦ is NOT a cue bid. 2♦ is, however, conventional. With a few specific exceptions, all conventions must be alerted. 2♦ doesn't fall under the list of exceptions, therefore it must be alerted.

[FrancesHinden]

hrothgar, for alerting purposes what's wrong with the definition of a cuebid that I took directly from the ACBL alert regs, which clearly makes this 2D bid _not_ a cuebid?

[csdenmark]

SteelWheel, on Jan 9 2007, 12:51 PM, said:

Quote

Maybe not - but this is your really mistake. You are offered an excellent option for asking your weak partner to show preferences cueing opps' majors. You also had the option to show stoppers. Instead you have chosen to waste your strongest weapon - the penalty double - to show takeout putting unreasonable pressure on your weak partner probably producing nothing else than wrongsiding your contract.

Thank you again for the lecture. I reiterate: My best weapon against a NATURAL 2♦ overcall is to make a TAKEOUT double. If I am made aware of the CONVENTIONAL meaning of my opponent's call, I could take several other courses of actions, IF I AM SUPPLIED WITH THE APPROPRIATE INFORMATION IN A TIMELY FASHION, not in a situation where I have to figure out what silly mistake my opponents may have made.

And BTW: This is four posts in, and we're already totally off-topic. The purpose of my original post was to ask for someone, (preferably an experienced live ACBL player, or better still, "live" TD) to point us in the right direction as to how an issue such as this one is handled under the current regs.

I don't need to hear unhelpful criticisms regarding actions I might have taken in the auction if I had been informed correctly, especially from someone who appears to hold the ACBL (and its TDs) in such low regard. This is not the point of my original post. I'd appreciate it if we can get back on track with the original propsed discussion.

It is in fact a helpful critic - what I say is you are a lame duck with no penalty options and therefore riskfree to interfere against.

For the 2♦ overcall I would not be surprised if it was poles as this is standard for poles playing Wilkosz. I think you need to protect your options, and here your correct bid would be 2NT. 2NT showing stoppers with moderate values. Your partners options will be: Pass, 3♦, 3NT, all final.

In the auction you come up with your partner shows ♦ so I wonder why you pass out opps.' 2♥. Again nobody but yourself to blame.

[hrothgar]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 9 2007, 03:10 PM, said:

hrothgar, for alerting purposes what's wrong with the definition of a cuebid that I took directly from the ACBL alert regs, which clearly makes this 2D bid _not_ a cuebid?

At the time I made my original post, I didn't notice the the definitions section built into the alert chart.

I checked "Duplicate Decisions" and didn't find a definition for the expression cue bid, so I defaulted to the Encyclopedia. I agree that the definition found in the Definitions section of the ACBL Alert Chart is the best choice for making this decision.

[helene_t]

Thought experiment: suppose somebody opens 2♦ without alert, you make a t/o double, and the auctions evolves in some silly way as 2♦ turns out to be Benji/Flannery/LR/whatever. Would the TD say that it's you own fault since you could just have asked what 2♦ meant?

Of course not. Report this TD to acbl@you.know.where

[csdenmark]

helene_t, on Jan 9 2007, 02:24 PM, said:

Thought experiment: suppose somebody opens 2♦ without alert, you make a t/o double, and the auctions evolves in some silly way as 2♦ turns out to be Benji/Flannery/LM/whatever. Would the TD say that it's you own fault since you could just have asked what 2♦ meant?

Of course not. Report this TD to acbl@you.know.where

Anybody accepting 2♦ openings to proceed without explanations are rightfully blamed. They have much homework to do.

[hrothgar]

csdenmark, on Jan 9 2007, 03:12 PM, said:

It is in fact a helpful critic - what I say is you are a lame duck with no penalty options and therefore riskfree to interfere against.

For the 2♦ overcall I would not be surprised if it was poles as this is standard for poles playing Wilkosz. I think you need to protect your options, and here your correct bid would be 2NT. 2NT showing stoppers with moderate values. Your partners options will be: Pass, 3♦, 3NT, all final.

In the auction you come up with your partner shows ♦ so I wonder why you pass out opps.' 2♥. Again nobody but yourself to blame.

As usual Claus, you're full of it. You have a lot of strong opinions that bear no relation to reality.

First and foremost: Bridge gets run according to the rules of the sponsoring organization. Not "Claus's Rules of Order". If you are going to bother commenting on this case, please make some effort to reference the rules of the ACBL as they are written.

Second: This is not the place to debate the merits of Steelwheel's defensive structure after the opponents interfere with a strong club auction. There are two critical issues that need to be considered here.

(A) Does the 2♦ bid require an alert
( Was Steelwheel's partnership damaged by the lack of an alert

You don't address either issue

Third: Why are you prattling on about Wilkosz 2♦? Wilkosz has a specific meaning. It is a preemptive 2♦ opening that shows a weak hand (~ 7 - 11 HCP), at least 5-5 shape, and at least one major. This is a 2♦ cue bid that shows both majors. This is a completely different animal. I'd be willing to be dollars to donuts that this was a North American pairs that was mis-applying a Michaels cue bid. I know that you like to pretend that you understand fancy expressions like "Wilkosz 2♦" and "relational database". However, it just comes across as sad...

[matmat]

csdenmark, on Jan 9 2007, 07:12 AM, said:

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

Actually, it was a pair of Martian players playing the nebulous 2D overcall of a negative 1D response to 1C. The actual holding changes depending on whether the opponents ask about the alert or do not.

[matmat]

csdenmark, on Jan 9 2007, 07:31 AM, said:

Anybody accepting 2♦ openings to proceed without explanations are rightfully blamed. They have much homework to do.

really? always thought the onus of alerting alertable bids was on the side making the bid, not on the defending side to probe and ask questions.

[Codo]

CLaus you repeat your opinion, but your opinion is just a opinion.
There is simply no rule, which enforce you to aks your opponents about a natural, non-alerted call.

2 Diamond is no cuebid, it cannot be (read the quotes from Frances and Richard) , so without alert, this just shows diamonds and just diamonds.
Any other treatment must be alerted.

There is just one exception:
The opps can proofe, that they have no agreement about this bid, because it never happened before - f.e. a pick up partnership facing the first strong clubber.

[csdenmark]

hrothgar, on Jan 9 2007, 02:41 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Jan 9 2007, 03:12 PM, said:

It is in fact a helpful critic - what I say is you are a lame duck with no penalty options and therefore riskfree to interfere against.

For the 2♦ overcall I would not be surprised if it was poles as this is standard for poles playing Wilkosz. I think you need to protect your options, and here your correct bid would be 2NT. 2NT showing stoppers with moderate values. Your partners options will be: Pass, 3♦, 3NT, all final.

In the auction you come up with your partner shows ♦ so I wonder why you pass out opps.' 2♥. Again nobody but yourself to blame.

As usual Claus, you're full of *****. You have a lot of strong opinions that bear no relation to reality.

First and foremost: Bridge gets run according to the rules of the sponsoring organization. Not "Claus's Rules of Order". If you are going to bother commenting on this case, please make some effort to reference the rules as the ACBL as the ACBL writes them.

Second: This is not the place to debate the merits of Steelwheel's defensive structure after the opponents interfere with a strong club auction. There are two critical issues that need to be considered here.

(A) Does the 2♦ bid require an alert
( Was Steelwheel's partnership damaged by the lack of an alert

You don't address either issue

Third: Why are you prattling on about Wilkosz 2♦? Wilkosz has a specific meaning. It is a preemptive 2♦ opening that shows a weak hand (~ 7 - 11 HCP), at least 5-5 shape, and at least one major. This is a 2♦ cue bid that shows both majors. This is a completely different animal. I'd be willing to be dollars to donuts that this was a North American pairs that was mis-applying a Michaels cue bid. I know that you like to pretend that you understand fancy expressions like "Wilkosz 2♦" and "relational database". However, it just comes across as sad...

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

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