[jmcw]

---

.

1♣ Alerted as Precision 17+, South's Pass alerted as 0/8 or trap

After making my lead I called the director because East's hand was 6♠ 5♥ 2♦ 0♣ a michaels bid.

The director quickly informed me that 2♣ is a standand call requiring no alert, and to continue play. Had the call beeen alerted the bidding would have been very different.

Unconvinced, a day later I posed this question to the local directors all of whom agreed with the ruling. Saying that cuebids are not alertable.

It is not at all clear to me that this ruling and the opinion of my local directors is correct.

The ACBL offers this definition.

Cuebid: A bid in a suit which an opponent has either bid naturally or in which he has shown four or more cards.

My 1♣ opening bid is not natural and does not show 4 or more cards in ♣, seeminly, a cuebid of an artificial opening cannot be made. It appears to me the director has ruled incorrectly and I would appreciate if someone can provide a proper explaination.

[barmar]

You copied the ACBL's definition of cuebid, should we assume that this happened in ACBL jurisdicion?

If so, you are correct. Bidding a suit that an opponent has bid artificially is not a cue bid, and is not self-alerting. The standard meaning of this bid is natural.

Strangely, the ACBL convention card used to have a column of checkboxes in the Direct Cuebid section for "artificial bids", and all the boxes were black: Natural, Strong T/O, and Michaels. I assume they remove this because it was both misplaced (it's not really a cuebid) and the Strong T/O meaning didn't even make sense (what's a takeout when the opponents haven't shown a suit?).

[jmcw]

barmar, on 2010-November-05, 23:39, said:

You copied the ACBL's definition of cuebid, should we assume that this happened in ACBL jurisdicion?

If so, you are correct. Bidding a suit that an opponent has bid artificially is not a cue bid, and is not self-alerting. The standard meaning of this bid is natural.

Strangely, the ACBL convention card used to have a column of checkboxes in the Direct Cuebid section for "artificial bids", and all the boxes were black: Natural, Strong T/O, and Michaels. I assume they remove this because it was both misplaced (it's not really a cuebid) and the Strong T/O meaning didn't even make sense (what's a takeout when the opponents haven't shown a suit?).

Yes it was indeed within the ACBL. Does the WBF handle this differently?

[blackshoe]

Alert regulations vary from country to country, and the WBF also has its own. I think the WBF's regs on alerting cuebids are dfferent from the ACBL's, but I'd have to look it up to be certain.

[Cascade]

jmcw, on 2010-November-07, 09:26, said:

Yes it was indeed within the ACBL. Does the WBF handle this differently?

I am not sure about the WBF but it is certainly handled differently in some other places where a cuebid is defined as a bid in the suit bid or shown by an opponent without the caveat that the suit bid needs to be natural.