[inquiry]

ACBL

Many know I play 2 Major as limited opening hand (11-15) with 5+ in the major and 4 or more clubs == duely prealerted

At favorable vulnerability I opened 2S with a 6-6 black hand.

The next hand overcalled 3C, no alert (is this a cue-bid? is an alerted needed if it is artificial?) No alert was given.

Anyway, we have different agreements on the meaning of 3C on this auction. My partner "asked the meaning" and later I freely bid my six card club suit (my clubs were solid QJT98x)

The director was called and he ruled that I had UI based on the fact that my partner wanted to know the meaning of the 3C bid. However, if partner passes would I be in possession of UI that he lacks any of the hands he could have based on what the meaning of his bid or double of the possibly artificial bid means. I mean if my partner had passed and I decided NOT to bid my 6-6 hand again, would THAT be UI also.

Something seems broken when partner, who has a right to know the their agreement (or if they have an agreement) inquires before he bids. Oh well.

[Phil]

I don't think 3♣ qualifies as a cuebid. I don't think your partner needs to ask about an unalerted call - if you are damaged, you'll get redress most of the time.

What happened after 3♣?

[kevperk]

Phil, on 2011-February-01, 23:57, said:

I don't think 3♣ qualifies as a cuebid. I don't think your partner needs to ask about an unalerted call - if you are damaged, you'll get redress most of the time.

What happened after 3♣?

The ACBL defines a cuebid as bidding a suit that the opponent has bid naturally or has shown at least 4 cards in.

[Trinidad]

Phil, on 2011-February-01, 23:57, said:

I don't think 3♣ qualifies as a cuebid. I don't think your partner needs to ask about an unalerted call - if you are damaged, you'll get redress most of the time.

What happened after 3♣?

Why do you think 3♣ is not a cuebid? It is a bid in a suit where you know that an opponent has at least four cards. You are free to play it as natural, of course, but it still is a cuebid.

I wish that your statement ("I don't think your partner needs to ask about an unalerted call - if you are damaged, you'll get redress most of the time.") was true. In practice, TDs will look at you with a smile on their face, radiating something like: "Are you telling me that you have never heard of a cuebid before?".

Cuebids are on top of the list when it comes to having to protect yourself. If you don't ask about a cuebid and it turns out that the bid was artificial, the TD will tell you that you sh/c/would have known that it was artificial and that if you would have had any doubts, you sh/c/would have asked.

Rik

[bluejak]

This is a basic problem in bridge with no real answer. Asking questions, unless you ask every single time, tells partner something about your hand, and that is UI. Now, it is all very well saying it is not fair, and it should not count as UI, but that is not the way it works: information partner gets about your hand from your question is unauthorised, and that is all there is to it.

Not asking questions creates problems. It especially creates problems in situations like here where some people will think an artificial 3♣ is alertable and some people will think it is not. Note that it is irrelevant whether it is or not under ACBL rules: so long as people have doubt it will cause problems.

You and your partner could try having a documented agreement that you always ask in situations where a bid might be alerted if it were not the opponent's suit. I recommend printing SCs on a plain piece of paper, with notes on the back, This would be one of those notes. But you must follow it.

[PrecisionL]

SCs ???

[bluejak]

System cards, previously known as Convention cards.

Perhaps this is a good time to remind people - or tell those who never knew - that there are a set of forum rules pinned to the top of each of the four forums. One of those articles is a list of abbreviations for general use in these forums.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-February-02, 07:08, said:

I recommend printing SCs on a plain piece of paper, with notes on the back, This would be one of those notes. But you must follow it.

Well, this only applies in jurisdictions with one-sided convention cards. These must be very few.

Anyway, I believe that in the ACBL cuebids are not alertable. Obviously, though, this can be a source of confusion when the suit has not actually been bid.

I don't think, David, that your proposed solution to asking every time is practical. For instance, again in the ACBL, if I am not mistaken only "unusual" doubles are alertable, not takeout or penalty doubles. Shall a player ask every time their partner's weak 2 or WJO is doubled? Shall players ask every time a double-jump (above 3NT) is bid by an opponent in response to his partner's opening? Shall, alluding to the original problem, players ask every time a direct cuebid is made? After all, whether an artificial cuebid is alertable or not, you may need to know whether it is Micheals, top-and-bottom, Ghestem, etc. This could all get very tedious.

[bluejak]

I did not say it was a great solution. Sure, it is easy to pick holes in it, but what is better?

The query was ACBL specific. My reply, with especial reference to SCs, was ACBL specific, and works in the ACBL.

[hotShot]

My "bad" solution to this problem is that partner and I agreed that in situations like this we take any unalerted bid as natural.
I don't know if this would work in ACBL, but around here it is consitent with most of the alerting regulations.
If opps misinformed us by not alerting we let the TD work it out.
This way partner does not need to ask to clarify the bidding situation.

SCs are no solution, because if partner takes the SC to study it, it creates the same UI and I will have to look at the SC too, creating even more UI.

[jh51]

bluejak, on 2011-February-02, 09:05, said:

I did not say it was a great solution. Sure, it is easy to pick holes in it, but what is better?The query was ACBL specific. My reply, with especial reference to SCs, was ACBL specific, and works in the ACBL.

It should be noted that the ACBL requires the use of the ACBL convention card or something closely resembling it. If you can make such a solution fit in that format, then OK.

[Phil]

kevperk, on 2011-February-02, 01:23, said:

The ACBL defines a cuebid as bidding a suit that the opponent has bid naturally or has shown at least 4 cards in.

Cue bids are not alertable, correct?

If my RHO opens an old-fashioned precision 2♦ with showing either 4=4=1=4 or 4=4=0=5, and I overcall 2 of major, is this a cuebid?

If the auction starts 1♣ - pass - 1♥ and I overcall a natural 2♥, is this a cuebid?

[blackshoe]

Quote

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

Quote

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

Quote

If my RHO opens an old-fashioned precision 2♦ with showing either 4=4=1=4 or 4=4=0=5, and I overcall 2 of major, is this a cuebid?

It is a bid in a suit in which your RHO has shown four or more cards, so yes, it's a cuebid. More interesting is the question whether it's a cuebid if RHO could have only 3 cards in the major. I would say in that case it's not.

Quote

If the auction starts 1♣ - pass - 1♥ and I overcall a natural 2♥, is this a cuebid?

It is a bid in a suit which an opponent has bid naturally, so yes, it's a cuebid.

[Phil]

Phil, on 2011-February-01, 23:57, said:

I don't think 3♣ qualifies as a cuebid. I don't think your partner needs to ask about an unalerted call - if you are damaged, you'll get redress most of the time.

What happened after 3♣?

Interesting, so 3♣ as a cuebid isn't alerted. And they threw the flag because your partner asked?

I'd still like to see the whole hand...

[blackshoe]

Phil, on 2011-February-01, 23:57, said:

I don't think your partner needs to ask about an unalerted call - if you are damaged, you'll get redress most of the time.

If you are damaged by an opponent's infraction of law, you should always get redress — unless, apparently, you fail to "protect yourself", whatever that means.

[blackshoe]

Back to the original post.

inquiry, on 2011-February-01, 23:27, said:

[snip]
The director was called and he ruled that I had UI based on the fact that my partner wanted to know the meaning of the 3C bid. However, if partner passes would I be in possession of UI that he lacks any of the hands he could have based on what the meaning of his bid or double of the possibly artificial bid means. I mean if my partner had passed and I decided NOT to bid my 6-6 hand again, would THAT be UI also.

Something seems broken when partner, who has a right to know the their agreement (or if they have an agreement) inquires before he bids. Oh well.

Having UI is not an infraction of law. Before the TD can adjust the score or issue a PP, he must show there has been an infraction of law. In the case of UI, that infraction occurs when:

1. The UI comes from something partner did or did not do.
2. The UI could demonstrably suggest* a particular action over a logical alternative.
3. The player in receipt of UI takes the suggested action.

* This means that the TD has to be able to show how the UI could suggest the action - he can't just assume it.

One additional thing is required for score adjustment:

4. The opponents are damaged thereby.

If a director told me "you have UI", I would say "So? OK, now what?"

In this situation, where the meaning of the action taken over 3♣ depends on the meaning of 3♣, that latter meaning is AI to both members of the partnership. So, your partner looks at the SC, and takes some action. At your turn to call, you look at the SC. The information you get as to the meaning of 3♣ is AI. If, given that information you have only one logical alternative action, it is no infraction to take that action.

In the case at hand, the question would seem to be whether bidding clubs later in the auction is "taking advantage of UI", as Law 73C puts it. I submit that we have insufficient information to make that determination.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-02, 08:25, said:

I don't think, David, that your proposed solution to asking every time is practical. For instance, again in the ACBL, if I am not mistaken only "unusual" doubles are alertable, not takeout or penalty doubles. Shall a player ask every time their partner's weak 2 or WJO is doubled?

I would, if I agreed with your interpretation. However, I think that in the ACBL a penalty double of either would be sufficiently unusual as to merit an alert.

Quote

Shall players ask every time a double-jump (above 3NT) is bid by an opponent in response to his partner's opening?

I do.

Quote

Shall, alluding to the original problem, players ask every time a direct cuebid is made? After all, whether an artificial cuebid is alertable or not, you may need to know whether it is Micheals, top-and-bottom, Ghestem, etc.

I do.

Quote

This could all get very tedious.

Perhaps it does, but coping with UI is also tedious.

In any case, at some point in the hand your partnership is going to need to know what each of the bids mean. I don't think it makes much difference to the total time consumed to ask as you go along rather than at the end of the auction.

[AlexJonson]

I guess if the partner had a demonstrable (System Card) reason reason to ask, in context, there is a 50/50 chance you get away with the slam auction. Good luck.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2011-February-02, 13:18, said:

I would, if I agreed with your interpretation. However, I think that in the ACBL a penalty double of either [Weak Two Opening or Weak Jump Overcall] would be sufficiently unusual as to merit an alert.

Can't seem to get the quote above to show up.

The ACBL information on their site is woefully inadequate; it does, however, use a penalty double of an opening 3 bid as an example of an alertable call, so you are right as to the weak 2 bid. I think that the WJO might be a little murkier.

Can anyone provide a link to ACBL's full documentation on alerts?

[jallerton]

Try this page on the ACBL website