[eagles123]

---

dont remember the exact hand but needless to say i as N thought 5c was a cue and the bbo adv pickup thought it was to play - oops thanks, eagles

[billw55]

Yes, obvious cuebid. BBO randoms are .. random.

Did he comment when he saw dummy?

[eagles123]

IDIOT WTF P

something like that anyway lol

[ArtK78]

As a general rule, one should avoid making one's first cue bid in a suit partner bid naturally. I understand the temptation to do it on this hand, and, quite frankly, opposite a sentient being it is clear that 5♣ is a cue bid. But you see what can happen when playing opposite a piece of wood.

[billw55]

ArtK78, on 2014-May-06, 14:30, said:

As a general rule, one should avoid making one's first cue bid in a suit partner bid naturally. I understand the temptation to do it on this hand, and, quite frankly, opposite a sentient being it is clear that 5♣ is a cue bid. But you see what can happen when playing opposite a piece of wood.

It's an interesting problem. I often play with random "advanced or experts" on BBO, and I do find myself making accommodations for partner's potential mistakes. But I think this can only be bad for my game. Just the other day, my pickup partner (who was actually good) rightly criticized me for not pushing to slam after he opened 2♣. I didn't push, because I know what so many 2♣ openers look like from BBO randoms. I allowed their nonsense to make me do the wrong thing. I think it is a bad habit that should be avoided.

[mikeh]

Even tho 5♣ is clearly a cuebid (why on earth would we ever think that it is better to play in 5♣ than the higher-scoring, fewer-trick needing 4♠ is a mystery to me), it is in my view a mistake to cuebid shortness as one's first cue if one can avoid it, and far, far worse to cue such shortness in partner's main (or presumed) main suit.

The problem is that when partner is looking at something like KQ10xx in clubs, he will and should get very excited if you have the Ace, but his hand is turning to that smelly brown stuff we all occasionally excrete when you have a void, and how is he to tell?

In a similar vein, when he is looking at AQxxx, he can legitimately count some tricks in this suit if he can count on your cuebid being a high card cue...here, obvious, the King but if you could be doing this on shortness, this becomes impossible.

For that reason it is good practice, in my view, to have the general rule that one's first cuebid, if in partner's 'suit', is always honour based and never shortness.

This can cause problems. On this hand, for example, one is forced to cuebid 5♥ and now partner, looking at, say, diamond controls and no club control may feel forced to bid 5♠ when slam is good or even cold. The fact that our diamonds are so good and our shape so extreme makes being able to cue clubs here convenient. However, we don't design bidding methods or styles based on low-frequency freak hands.

[1eyedjack]

There are occasions when showing shortage in partner's suit can work. But must unambiguously be shortage when it happens. "Shortage or Honour" is a match-loser. If partner has a raggedy suit, or one headed by Ace blank, then the "splinter" could wake him up at just the right time. It takes a well honed set of agreements to be sure when these arise, and for an N/B you can certainly live without them.

[gszes]

ArtK78, on 2014-May-06, 14:30, said:

As a general rule, one should avoid making one's first cue bid in a suit partner bid naturally. I understand the temptation to do it on this hand, and, quite frankly, opposite a sentient being it is clear that 5♣ is a cue bid. But you see what can happen when playing opposite a piece of wood.

I swear I think you are developing a sense of humor to go from sentient being to
a piece of wood certainly got a chuckle from me. Note also the player that passed
the obvious cue bid was the one most incensed by their own unthinking mistake and
blaming their poor partner. I remember seeing an idiotic quote once a long time
ago something like --- if you are going to rant and rave about a hand at least have
the decency to be right --- sighhhhhhhhhhh still a cruddy attitude:)

[neilkaz]

eagles123, on 2014-May-06, 14:16, said:

IDIOT WTF P

something like that anyway lol

You stuck around long enough after his pass to see his reply?

[helene_t]

If one p calls his p an idiot or similar, you can be almost sure it is the shouter himself who erred. I see this in real life bridge too. There are probably multiple psychological explanations for this. Maybe it is more humiliating to get a bad result when one subconsciously know to be the culprit. Or maybe it is simply that plauers who have a psychological barrier against recognizing their own mistakes never progress beyond the novice stadium