CUEbid Confusion over Michaels or Natural
#1
Posted 2012-January-16, 11:36
The 1♣was announced as 'may be short'.
The question is in ACBLland; Is the 2♣ natural or Michael's for the majors?
#2
Posted 2012-January-16, 11:40
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#3
Posted 2012-January-16, 19:12
IWithout the short club announcement, I think it would be pretty unusual to want to bid clubs naturally in this auction (the 1NT bidder usually has some clubs, because he doesn't have a suit to bid, so they likely have at least a 6 card fit). I'm not so sure how unusual it is over a short club -- it may depend on how short it can be (short as 2 still seems dangerous, but 0 or 1 may make it reasonable).
#4
Posted 2012-January-16, 21:09
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#5
Posted 2012-January-17, 10:13
#6
Posted 2012-January-17, 10:22
blackshoe, on 2012-January-16, 21:09, said:
You may well be right, but what we are considering here is not a direct cue-bid.
London UK
#7
Posted 2012-January-17, 11:54
mycroft, on 2012-January-17, 10:13, said:
Then it's not natural, and a natural cue bid does not require an alert.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#8
Posted 2012-January-17, 16:18
blackshoe, on 2012-January-16, 21:09, said:
Just to clarify, the 1♣ bid is only considered natural if the 2-card club suit can ONLY be bid with 4=4=3=2 distribution. If you could bid it with 4=3=4=2 then it's still considered artificial, and then 2♣ is not considered to be a cuebid.
#9
Posted 2012-January-17, 16:19
gordontd, on 2012-January-17, 10:22, said:
The ACBL Alert Procedures doesn't distinguish between direct and non-direct cuebids. It only says:
Quote
#10
Posted 2012-January-18, 01:26
barmar, on 2012-January-17, 16:18, said:
Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic, but a bid in a suit bid or shown by the opponents is a cue bid, willy-nilly. So 2♣ is a cue bid, whatever it means. Of course, if 1♣ is artificial, then 2♣, although it is a cue bid, does not require an alert, even if it's natural.
Pedantically speaking, the alert chart and the alert procedure are not always 100% in agreement. Where that matters, I would consider the procedure to take precedence over the chart or, for that matter, over whether the particular checkbox or space on the system card is red or blue or black.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#11
Posted 2012-January-19, 03:05
The definitions document says a cuebid is a bid in a suit that an opponent has bid naturally or shown at least 4 cards in. A "could be short" 1♣ that doesn't fit the new criteria is neither natural nor shows 4+ cards.
However, I agree with you that this is probably not what the authors of the alert procedures intended. When they said "bid naturally", they probably meant only to exclude bids that explicitly show something OTHER than the suit bid (e.g. transfers, minors in Astro and Capp). A could-be-short club or diamond bid doesn't show anything specific about a suit other than the one bid.
#12
Posted 2012-January-19, 10:03
I note that The Bridge World's Glossary definition of "cue bid" doesn't have this problem. A bid in a strain the opponents have bid or shown is a cue bid, even if the original bid was not natural. E.g. (1♦ ("may be short"))-2♦, 2♦ is a cue bid by TBW's definition, but not by the ACBL's.
No, you didn't mention the alert chart. I did. It exists, people look at it and then look no further. Therefore it has a part in this discussion.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#13
Posted 2012-January-19, 14:30
blackshoe, on 2012-January-19, 10:03, said:
The way you brought it up seemed to suggest that it was part of why you were disagreeing with me, as if my reasoning was based on something in the chart rather than the procedures.
#14
Posted 2012-January-19, 17:23
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#15
Posted 2012-January-24, 17:35
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#16
Posted 2012-January-25, 11:54
I expect this is what the authors of the ACBL regulation intended: it's a cue bid if it's in a suit that an opponent has bid in a way that's treated as ostensibly natural.
#17
Posted 2012-January-28, 00:34
#18
Posted 2012-February-01, 09:09
barmar, on 2012-January-25, 11:54, said:
I expect this is what the authors of the ACBL regulation intended: it's a cue bid if it's in a suit that an opponent has bid in a way that's treated as ostensibly natural.
Certainly the word "everyone" is an overbid. A majority of people perhaps.
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>