[wanoff]

I received a reprimand recently from the club's Laws and Ethics committee for my explanation of an Unassuming Cue bid.
Trying to be helpful after (1♣)-1♠-(P)-2♣ I described it as 'A high card raise to at least 2♠'.

Are they correct ?
If so, should I instead use my partner's rather vague description 'Asking about the overcall' which they've never previously complained about ?

[pran]

wanoff, on 2015-July-29, 02:26, said:

I received a reprimand recently from the club's Laws and Ethics committee for my explanation of an Unassuming Cue bid.
Trying to be helpful after (1♣)-1♠-(P)-2♣ I described it as 'A high card raise to at least 2♠'.

Are they correct ?
If so, should I instead use my partner's rather vague description 'Asking about the overcall' which they've never previously complained about ?

I suppose they must have given a specific cause for their reprimand?
What was the precise cause for the reprimand and what is your exact agreement?

I have met players who in this (or similar) situations alert the 2♣ bid and explain it as a "good raise to 2♠, apparently as contrary to just a (mild) preemptive raise. I have never seen any problem with that and I cannot see how the alternative explanation from your partner is any better, provided of course that your own explanation is correct.

[Vampyr]

Whose explanation i correct -- yours or partner's? You and partner need or establish this first of all.

Assuming that your interpretation is the correct one, what explanation did th committee suggest?

[wanoff]

Vampyr, on 2015-July-29, 03:49, said:

Whose explanation i correct -- yours or partner's? You and partner need or establish this first of all.

Assuming that your interpretation is the correct one, what explanation did th committee suggest?

We play a bog standard UCB, just the same as everyone else - so I'm asking for the correct explanation of this.
As we all know, some of the time it's a hand that needs to force, so partner's stock answer,even though vague, would do the job.

[WellSpyder]

I, too, would be interested to hear more about what any advice from your club's L&E committee about how your wording could be improved. I tend to give an explanation very similar to yours, and that is how I think about the bid. This is also the explanation one of my partners gives. But I have noticed that some rather old system notes of his actually describe the bid much more along the lines of your partner's explanation. Having said that, I don't think the sort of hands on which he makes the bid has changed at all. So I'm not actually convinced that there is any difference in practice between the two ways of looking at the bid, even if one sounds like it is asking and the other showing.

The key difference in the explanations really, I think, is that one implies support for partner's suit and the other apparently does not. But if all the hands on which the bid is chosen actually have support then I prefer your explanation to your partner's. If 95% of hands on which the bid is used have support but a few very strong hands also make the bid anyway then it gets murkier. I suppose in that case the explanation should be "usually a high card raise to at least 2♠, but sometimes a GF hand without primary support that wants to find out more about my hand."

[Vampyr]

WellSpyder, on 2015-July-29, 04:31, said:

The key difference in the explanations really, I think, is that one implies support for partner's suit and the other apparently does not.

Yes, I consider this a pretty big difference, and in fact do not think it is ethical to explain as, "asking blah blah blah" and not mentioning what the bid actually shows.

Quote

But if all the hands on which the bid is chosen actually have support then I prefer your explanation to your partner's. If 95% of hands on which the bid is used have support but a few very strong hands also make the bid anyway then it gets murkier. I suppose in that case the explanation should be "usually a high card raise to at least 2♠, but sometimes a GF hand without primary support that wants to find out more about my hand."

This is similar to how my partner and I explain it (when the bid is made by an unpassed hand, obviously). We play that a change of suit is constructive but NF, so all non-fitting GF hands have to be bid via this auction.

[PhilKing]

wanoff, on 2015-July-29, 04:27, said:

As we all know, some of the time it's a hand that needs to force, so partner's stock answer,even though vague, would do the job.

I don't agree that we all know that. I don't recall ever making a UCB on a strong hand with no fit.

[mike777]

wanoff, on 2015-July-29, 02:26, said:

I received a reprimand recently from the club's Laws and Ethics committee for my explanation of an Unassuming Cue bid.
Trying to be helpful after (1♣)-1♠-(P)-2♣ I described it as 'A high card raise to at least 2♠'.

Are they correct ?
If so, should I instead use my partner's rather vague description 'Asking about the overcall' which they've never previously complained about ?

I would say
"general force, often a limit raise in spades but not 100%, tell me more pard"

If it matters I play new suit here as constructive but nf so 2c is my way to force.

[wanoff]

PhilKing, on 2015-July-29, 06:15, said:

I don't agree that we all know that. I don't recall ever making a UCB on a strong hand with no fit.

I don't remember using it either without a fit but ........ big balanced, 2 cd fit, 0/1 stop in their suit comes to mind.
The point is, does the EBU require chapter and verse, something like 'Either a good spade raise excepting the mixed raise to 3 level (and possibly the limit raise), or some other unspecified hand that has never occurred before' ?
I am sufficiently an anorak to be able to give this explanation, but is this really the direction the EBU wish to go in attracting new members ?

[wanoff]

pran, on 2015-July-29, 03:15, said:

What was the precise cause for the reprimand and what is your exact agreement?

I have met players who in this (or similar) situations alert the 2♣ bid and explain it as a "good raise to 2♠, apparently as contrary to just a (mild) preemptive raise. I have never seen any problem with that and I cannot see how the alternative explanation from your partner is any better, provided of course that your own explanation is correct.

It was based on an insufficient explanation. We had no agreement that it may be less than a 3cd fit but I have read that it may also be a hand that can control the auction. As you've probably guessed, partner had less than 3cd support.

[pran]

pran, on 2015-July-29, 03:15, said:

What was the precise cause for the reprimand and what is your exact agreement?

I have met players who in this (or similar) situations alert the 2♣ bid and explain it as a "good raise to 2♠, apparently as contrary to just a (mild) preemptive raise. I have never seen any problem with that and I cannot see how the alternative explanation from your partner is any better, provided of course that your own explanation is correct.

wanoff, on 2015-July-29, 13:09, said:

It was based on an insufficient explanation. We had no agreement that it may be less than a 3cd fit but I have read that it may also be a hand that can control the auction. As you've probably guessed, partner had less than 3cd support.

A fundamental rule about alleged misinformation is that the deciding factor is your actual agreements and not the hand held by your partner in the actual case.

The fact that he in this particular case had less than 3cd support is itself not sufficient to rule misinformation if you had reason to expect 3.

However, there is probably cause for ordering you and your partner to clarify your agreements on this bid?

[1eyedjack]

Whatever, getting a reprimand from your club's Laws and Ethics committee has to be the overreaction of the millennium.

[FrancesHinden]

I play the cue bid as promising 3-card (or more) support for partner's overcall. Not 'either 3-card support or some other strong hand that wants to control the auction'. At my table the overcaller is allowed to bid game with five cards in his overcall suit if he wants either now or later - we have no way of saying 'no I didn't mean it, I don't have support'

If you play the cue as 'either 3-card support or some strong hand with no suitable bid' then you have to say so. As your partner didn't have 3-card support, and you had read 'may also be a hand that can control the auction' then your agreement was definitely not 'high card raise to 2S' and I agree you gave MI.

The right explanation is something along the lines of 'either a good raise or a game force with no suitable bid'

I assume you play a change of suit as non-forcing, otherwise there aren't really any possible hands with no fit, no suit to bid and no stop (OK there are but they are so vanishingly rare I'll bid NT or a suit when one comes up)

[FrancesHinden]

wanoff, on 2015-July-29, 04:27, said:

We play a bog standard UCB, just the same as everyone else - so I'm asking for the correct explanation of this.
As we all know, some of the time it's a hand that needs to force, so partner's stock answer,even though vague, would do the job.

What you have probably learnt from this thread is that you don't play a 'bog standard UCB'
Never assume that what you think is 'standard' is the same in anyone else's book.

[wank]

which club is this? (just so i can avoid it)

[blackshoe]

FrancesHinden, on 2015-July-29, 16:26, said:

If you play the cue as 'either 3-card support or some strong hand with no suitable bid' then you have to say so. As your partner didn't have 3-card support, and you had read 'may also be a hand that can control the auction' then your agreement was definitely not 'high card raise to 2S' and I agree you gave MI.

I agree with the first sentence. I don't agree with the second. The fact that one player has read something somewhere doesn't mean that his partner has read it, doesn't mean they've discussed it, and certainly doesn't mean that they've agreed to play it that way. In fact, wanoff said specifically (post # 10) that his partnership does not have that agreement. So unless the club's ethics committee is privy to some information about wanoff's partnership understandings or experience that has not been give to us here, I think they owe wanoff a retraction and an apology.

[Vampyr]

wanoff, on 2015-July-29, 12:37, said:

I don't remember using it either without a fit but ........ big balanced, 2 cd fit, 0/1 stop in their suit comes to mind.
The point is, does the EBU require chapter and verse, something like 'Either a good spade raise excepting the mixed raise to 3 level (and possibly the limit raise), or some other unspecified hand that has never occurred before' ?
I am sufficiently an anorak to be able to give this explanation, but is this really the direction the EBU wish to go in attracting new members ?

No, probably better to keep people in ignorance about their opponents' methods.

[nige1]

wanoff, on 2015-July-29, 02:26, said:

I received a reprimand recently from the club's Laws and Ethics committee for my explanation of an Unassuming Cue bid.Trying to be helpful after (1♣)-1♠-(P)-2♣ I described it as 'A high card raise to at least 2♠'.Are they correct ?If so, should I instead use my partner's rather vague description 'Asking about the overcall' which they've never previously complained about ?

OK, if your agreement is that the cue-bid shows a high card raise to at least 2♠. Some play the cue-bid as literally unassuming (the way that wanoff's partner seems to do) and If that's how the partnership plays it, then that's how you should describe it -- for example, you might add that it's often

• a good pudding (4333) raise to 2♠.
• a good 3-card raise to at least 2♠ (good 4+ card raises normally go through 2N or splinters with some partners and fit-jumps with others).
• a notrump probe.

[Cascade]

I have always assumed that an unassuming cue bid did not guarantee a fit. I call a cue-bid that shows a fit a cue-raise. I note that not all of the literature makes that distinction. Therefore it is necessary to clarify an agreement beyond the name of this convention - as with many other conventions.

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2015-July-29, 17:15, said:

I agree with the first sentence. I don't agree with the second. The fact that one player has read something somewhere doesn't mean that his partner has read it, doesn't mean they've discussed it, and certainly doesn't mean that they've agreed to play it that way. In fact, wanoff said specifically (post # 10) that his partnership does not have that agreement. So unless the club's ethics committee is privy to some information about wanoff's partnership understandings or experience that has not been give to us here, I think they owe wanoff a retraction and an apology.

The question is not whether they've agreed to play it that way; the question is whether they've agreed to play it as it was actually described. And it sounds like the answer is no. If wanoff thought it could potentially be a strong hand without support (as he's said in this thread) and his partner thought the same thing (since he bid it with such a hand), it seems clear that they do not have the agreement that it always has support. So there was MI.

Wanoff's partner's normal explanation is inadequate, of course. But that is not likely to cause a problem in practice, since it is obviously not a full description and opponents can ask for more information.