[lamford]

---

IMPs lead ♦6 Table Result EW+620

A friend asks me about the above hand at a team event of County B standard, just below Life Master perhaps. Redouble and 2C were both alerted and explained correctly. West's 3C was not alerted, and North did not want to double as he thought that would help the opponents. There was no statement before the opening lead by dummy that there had been a failure to alert. The TD established that there was no agreement about 3C and North stated that he would have doubled 3C if it had been alerted, and his partner would have led a club, which would defeat the contract. The TD ruled that there was no clear agreement, but did not address whether dummy should have said something before the opening lead. He allowed the score to stand. Do you agree with his ruling?

[mgoetze]

Well, Blue Book 2D2 states (in part):

Quote

Unless a player knows that his partner's call is not alertable (or announceable) he must alert.

I'm not sure I consider this a great regulation (I might find it more practical to not alert when one thinks it quite probable, without being certain, that the meaning is not alertable), but given that (I presume) this regulation is in force, the correct ruling would seem to be that there was misinformation. As to whether the score should be corrected, I believe that the TD ought to poll North's peers as to whether they would indeed have doubled 3♣ had it been alerted.

[steve2005]

If 3♣ to play 2♣ would be -4. if North still not sure 3♣ is artificial he could ask.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2016-January-10, 19:58, said:

MPs lead ♦6 Table Result EW+620
A friend asks me about the above hand at a team event of County B standard, just below Life Master perhaps. Redouble and 2C were both alerted and explained correctly. West's 3C was not alerted, and North did not want to double as he thought that would help the opponents. There was no statement before the opening lead by dummy that there had been a failure to alert. The TD established that there was no agreement about 3C and North stated that he would have doubled 3C if it had been alerted, and his partner would have led a club, which would defeat the contract. The TD ruled that there was no clear agreement, but did not address whether dummy should have said something before the opening lead. He allowed the score to stand. Do you agree with his ruling?

---

Agree with MGoetze that East should alert West's 3♣ and, If asked, explain "No agreement". At this stage, some directors might expect NS to "protect themselves", although I agree with North that, normally, it would only help E-W. At the end of the auction, but before the opening lead, West must call the director and fess up that he intended his 3♣ bid to be a cue-bid.. IMO the misinformation made a ♣ lead less likely. Hence the director should rule 4♥-1 or -2. Also, at this level, he should seriously consider a procedural penalty for West. Agree with Blackshoe that directors are too reluctant to issue pps.

[StevenG]

Presumably East thought 3♣ was natural, and therefore there was no reason to alert. Without knowing why West bid 3♣, it's difficult to comment further.

[lamford]

West bid 3♣ as he thought it was takeout of clubs. East did not alert as he did not know what it was. As nigel says there were potentially two infractions but a PP seems too harsh

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2016-January-11, 09:40, said:

Agree with MGoetze that East should alert West's 3♣ and, If asked, explain "No agreement" … At the end of the auction, but before the opening lead, West must call the director and fess up that he intended his 3♣ bid to be a cue-bid.

My brain is not firing on all cylinders, but... If they have no agreement, but east said they did have some agreement, then what West must do is call the director and tell him and the opponents that they have no agreement. He is not required to, and IMO should not, tell them what he intended his bid to mean. If East correctly explains the situation ("no agreement") then West should not call the director and should not say what he intended his bid to mean.

A cue-bid is a bid in a suit bid or shown by an opponent. "It's a cue-bid" is no more a proper explanation of such a bid than is "Michaels" if the bid shows both majors or the other major and a minor.

My response to "it's a cue-bid" would likely be "of course it is. What does it mean?"

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2016-January-12, 05:27, said:

A cue-bid is a bid in a suit bid or shown by an opponent. "It's a cue-bid" is no more a proper explanation of such a bid than is "Michaels" if the bid shows both majors or the other major and a minor.

My response to "it's a cue-bid" would likely be "of course it is. What does it mean?"

There doesn't seem to be an official EBU definition of the term "cue-bid", but FWIW the ACBL have one which doesn't agree with what you wrote, and by which this is not a cue-bid (whatever it may mean). From the Alert Procedures:

Quote

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

[blackshoe]

You don't like my paraphrase? Fine. I guess I have to copy and paste everything then. Or maybe I'll just say "screw it" and stop posting altogether. Aside from that, I wasn't talking about any "this", and I'm not going to bother trying to figure out what "this" is.

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2016-January-12, 14:30, said:

You don't like my paraphrase? Fine. I guess I have to copy and paste everything then. Or maybe I'll just say "screw it" and stop posting altogether. Aside from that, I wasn't talking about any "this", and I'm not going to bother trying to figure out what "this" is.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the 3♣ bid being discussed in this thread, and saying it was a cue-bid by definition (rather than by meaning). I think it's not a cue-bid (again by definition, rather than meaning). If I misunderstood your post, I apologise.

[blackshoe]

campboy, on 2016-January-12, 15:13, said:

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the 3♣ bid being discussed in this thread, and saying it was a cue-bid by definition (rather than by meaning). I think it's not a cue-bid (again by definition, rather than meaning). If I misunderstood your post, I apologise.

No, I was saying that explaining the meaning of a bid by saying "it's a cue-bid" is not adequate disclosure, even if it is a cue-bid.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2016-January-12, 05:27, said:

My brain is not firing on all cylinders, but... If they have no agreement, but east said they did have some agreement. then what West must do is call the director and tell him and the opponents that they have no agreement. He is not required to, and IMO should not, tell them what he intended his bid to mean. If East correctly explains the situation ("no agreement") then West should not call the director and should not say what he intended his bid to mean.

The UI from East's failure to alert is a mild indication that East believed West's 3♣ to be natural but, IMO, not enough to exonerate West from telling the director what he thought it meant when he bid it. I agree with Blackshoe that, even if the partnership really had "no agreement" and West sadistically made a meaningless bid, he must still call the director to confess to that rather than risk the opponents believing that the systemic meaning was "natural".

blackshoe, on 2016-January-12, 05:27, said:

A cue-bid is a bid in a suit bid or shown by an opponent. "It's a cue-bid" is no more a proper explanation of such a bid than is "Michaels" if the bid shows both majors or the other major and a minor. My response to "it's a cue-bid" would likely be "of course it is. What does it mean?"

It seems that Blackshoe agrees that West's 3♣ was a cue-bid although he dislikes the term.. South had bid a 3-card suit, as is often the case in a pass/correct auction. Hence, systemically, West's 3♣ might be intended as either natural or a cue-bid. East seems to have treated it as a cue-bid (although he might claim it was a lucky guess).

IMO, until East's failure to alert, West is likely to have believed that the systemic meaning was cue-bid, and absent evidence to the contrary, the director should assume such misinformation.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2016-January-12, 19:20, said:

The UI from East's failure to alert is a mild indication that East believed West's 3♣ to be natural but, IMO, not enough to exonerate West from telling the director what he thought it meant when he bid it. I agree with Blackshoe that, even if the partnership really had "no agreement" and West sadistically made a meaningless bid, he must still call the director to confess to that rather than risk the opponents believing that the systemic meaning was "natural".

I didn't say that. At least, I don't think I did. This is an MI situation, not a UI one. If a correct explanation of the partnership understanding is given, the partner of the explainer has no obligation to "correct" it, even if he intended his bid as something else. If an incorrect explanation is given, the partner of the explainer must correct it, even if the incorrect explanation accurately describes what's in the partner's hand. But they better be thinking about why the explainer was able to correctly describe his partner's holding, if their agreement was something else. They may have to revise their understanding.

nige1, on 2016-January-12, 19:20, said:

It seems that Blackshoe agrees that West's 3♣ was a cue-bid although he dislikes the term.. South had bid a 3-card suit, as is often the case in a pass/correct auction. Hence, systemically, West's 3♣ might be intended as either natural or a cue-bid. East seems to have treated it as a cue-bid (although he might claim it was a lucky guess).

IMO, until East's failure to alert, West is likely to have believed that the systemic meaning was cue-bid, and absent evidence to the contrary, the director should assume such misinformation.

I don't dislike the term. And I'm not sure whether 3♣ was a cue-bid, because I couldn't find a definition of that term in the blue book. I'm also not sure whether "pass or correct" is considered natural or artificial in England. I'd guess probably artificial, but it does say "if you have clubs I want to play in 2♣, if you have diamonds I want to play 2♦ (or possibly more, since if his partner has diamonds he'll get a chance to bid again)". IAC my point was that "cue-bid" is inadequate as an explanation of the partnership understanding. More needs always to be said.

If the partnership agreement on this auction is that 3♣ is artificial, it requires an alert. If the partnership agreement is that 3♣ is natural, it does not. At least, that's how I understand EBU regs.

If the evidence (statements, system cards, notes) indicates that 3♣ is artificial, then there was a failure to alert, and that constitutes MI. If the evidence indicates that 3♣ is natural, then there was no failure to alert. If the evidence is not clear, then the TD must decide which it is. If there is no evidence that 3♣ was natural, then the TD shall rule that there was MI, but in general that will be rare, IMO. Remember that even a self-serving statement is evidence.