[hrothgar]

 Karert, on 2019-August-29, 11:27, said:

I know standards have slipped at even the highest levels on occasion (even in recent years), but if I ask for an explanation of a bid, I would expect it to be provided clearly & accurately – just as I would always explain as clearly as possible to my opponents.

Expect what you want.
Just prepare to be disappointed, especially when your expectations are inconsistent with the rules of the game.

Once again, you have no right to get an explanation of a bid, rather, the opponents should provide you with the partnership understanding.

And, if this is none, you're SOL

[blackshoe]

The event was an individual, using the Standard American Yellow Card (SAYC) as the required system. Were ACBL regulations in effect? I'll presume so for the moment, where it matters.

3!S is a cue bid by definition ("a bid in a suit bid or shown by an opponent"). A control bid (historically "control showing cue bid", but TPTB now define it as just "control bid") is "a bid, not intended as a place to play, which denotes a control (usually first or second round). The control need not be in the denomination named. These bids are used to investigate slam." Usually one does not make a control bid unless their side has a known fit. So logically this is a cue bid, but not (at least, not yet) a control bid. What does it mean? SAYC does not define it in this auction, but it does make the general statement "A cuebid overcall when the opponents have bid only one suit is a Michaels cuebid, showing a 5–5 two-suiter (or more distributional). If the opening is in a minor suit, the cuebid shows the majors; if the opening is in a major, the cuebid shows the other major and an unspecified minor." That might apply in this auction, and it might not. SAYC doesn't seem to think opponents will ever interfere after a 2!C opening.

OP asked the meaning. He was told "it's a cue bid. If you don't know what a cue bid is, go read a bridge book." It's not clear whether the second sentence occurred at the same time as the first, or after OP sought further clarification. Either way, the response is wrong on two counts: "it's a cue bid" is not adequate disclosure, and the second comment is rude and a violation of Law 74A1, 74A2, and the ACBL's Zero Tolerance policy.

The director apparently decided on his own what the bid means, and informed OP that it's "cue bid not only michael, its different. He just showed short in spade and ask to his partner for bid excepting of spade". This seems to mean "it's for takeout", which is still not adequate disclosure, and besides, it's not up to the TD to explain the opponents' methods. Also, if 3!S is takeout, what's double? Penalty?

I think the director's ruling was inadequate and incorrect in law. However we're not told what the rest of the auction was, or the table result, or what the other three hands were, or whether the TD considered whether there was damage, so I'm not going to speculate on whether the score should be adjusted. I will say that the director should have given the player who said "go read a bridge book" a disciplinary penalty of 25% of a top.

I suspect that the correct explanation of 3!S is "undiscussed but over a one level opening 2!S would show hearts and a minor, 5-5 or better, any strength (or perhaps 'weak or very strong', I'm not sure how SAYC plays it)". I also think that if the 3!S bidder intended it as "takeout" as the director claimed, he screwed up — why would his partner have any reason to expect that? IAC, if I were North, and 3!S came round to me, I'd double. If West bid something, I'd bid however many spades I need to bid to buy the contract.

[blackshoe]

 hamish32, on 2019-August-29, 09:37, said:

Its an individual so there is no agreement and you are only entitled to know agreements.

However the term ‘cue bid’ just means that it is not showing spades. Its a forcing bid not showing spades.

Since you opened 2C as a psych without a game forcing hand…

I would presume that if OP had intended 2!C as a psych, he might have said so. Especially given his comments in post #5. I suppose one might argue that 2!C is a misbid, but it's not a psych.

It's an individual that imposes SAYC on all the players so the agreement is whatever the SAYC booklet says it is. As I said else thread, the booklet doesn't seem to cover this, so there is no agreement. However, there are other pertinent auctions in which a similar bid would have a defined meaning, and that is a required part of the disclosure in this case.

Helene T said "I have seen some indy TDs requiring the bidder to tell opps how they hope partner will understand the bid." I don't think that's legal. The telling, not the seeing.

[TomSawyer4]

Does no one remember that a "standard" cue bid is a 17+ takeout? Michaels isn't standard.

In this case, since partner must respond at the four level, I wold expect more like 20+, and I'm a little surprised given your two club opening, but ultimately nothing unusual or improper (without seeing the hand).

[Vampyr]

 TomSawyer4, on 2019-August-29, 18:17, said:

Does no one remember that a "standard" cue bid is a 17+ takeout?

I do. I remember the GF double raise too.

[smerriman]

 blackshoe, on 2019-August-29, 16:05, said:

.. Were ACBL regulations in effect? ..

.. a violation of Law 74A1, 74A2, and the ACBL's Zero Tolerance policy ..

.. inadequate and incorrect in law..

Law 6A is being broken by the fact this is a Goulash tournament. If that law isn't enforcable, I'm not sure the others really apply.

[hamish32]

It does not matter what 3S means. It only matters what agreement they have about the meaning of 3S.

The standards have not slipped there is something you are failing to understand here. Re-read the posts and solve your annoyance by developing your understanding.

I repeat the wost bid is 2C. But 3S is a good and easy to understand / flexible response to an understrength 2C. 3S says its not him that has the strong hcp hand its me it is 1 2 or 3 suited and if you listen to the auction you will find out which and be able to decide how many spades to bid as a sacrifice.

[johnu]

 smerriman, on 2019-August-29, 19:08, said:

Law 6A is being broken by the fact this is a Goulash tournament. If that law isn't enforcable, I'm not sure the others really apply.

Bridge laws have not been updated for online bridge so there are lots of things that happen online that are not in full agreement with the Laws Of Duplicate Bridge (or rubber bridge)

Software prevents players from bidding out of turn, making insufficient bids, leads out of turn, revokes, etc. It's impossible to make a face down opening lead. Surely those software guardrails are more important than insufficient randomness in Law 6.

By extension, you are saying goulash or not, no laws are enforceable in online bridge. I disagree.

[joris999]

Why all this non sense??
Goulash is not bridge

[sfi]

 TomSawyer4, on 2019-August-29, 18:17, said:

Does no one remember that a "standard" cue bid is a 17+ takeout? Michaels isn't standard.

"Standard" is hardly an immutable concept. Since Michaels is actually used, it is far closer to standard than something almost nobody will have bid in decades.

[smerriman]

 johnu, on 2019-August-29, 20:08, said:

By extension, you are saying goulash or not, no laws are enforceable in online bridge. I disagree.

Nah, just there is a huge amount of difference in expectation of what bids mean, so a lot of different rules need to be applied.

Giving a polite response is of course still one that applies always.

[msjennifer]

 helene_t, on 2019-August-28, 15:44, said:

It is ridiculous to explain the meaning of a bid by using a fancy word like "cue-bid". They need to say in normal English (or whatever the local language is) what 3♠ means. For example "3-suited short in spades" or "hearts and a minor" or "no agreement" or whatever applies.

Madam/Miss, I concur and agree fully.After the director ruled and one got the full information one may tell that rude opponent "HA HA SEE.I did not have to read any book.!"

[GrahamJson]

To my way of thinking the situation is as follows: it’s an individual event so, unless the opponents happen by coincidence to be regular partners, there is no partnership agreement so nothing to disclose. Actually, even if they were a regular partnership I’d be very surprised if they had an agreement that covered this situation, other than general principles (e.g. “over a strong 1C we bid immediately on weak hands but pass and come in later on strong hands”).


As to what the bid does mean, my guess would be a strong two suiter. With a weak two suiter you would bid immediately over 2C (probably), with a three suiter you would double 2S and with a single suiter you’d just bid the suit.

[torgums]

I think the meaning is quite clear. It says "Partner I don't want to play in this partnership any longer"

[barmar]

 torgums, on 2019-August-30, 02:04, said:

I think the meaning is quite clear. It says "Partner I don't want to play in this partnership any longer"

Snce it's an individual, they're only playing together for 2-3 boards in the first place.

[msjennifer]

Sirs Personally, I would open this hand 2C and bid 3S next ,a bid asking partner to show specific Acs/Aces and later the specific Kings and Queens.. as per the scheme elaborated in the article."Embellishments to a 2C opening" published in the Bridge World , and which I got from from my grand father, I feel in 1973.(that is 19 years before I was born) .Of course this is just my passing remark ,THANKS.

[miamijd]

 dsLawsd, on 2019-August-29, 13:05, said:

Step 1: never ask about 3♠.
Step 2: Bid 4 or more spades.
Let the opponents, who are more or less forced to use their general knowledge to try and bid their hands at the 5 level.
Do not bid 2C with this hand. Bid 4,5,or 6 spades.
The Director did not help at all as they should have said something else or perhaps simply play the hand and call me back if you think you were damaged. (I am ACBL Cert Director).

Step last: 3 Spades should have a specific meaning among partners that play regularly. Otherwise it should show a very strong 2-suited hand since there is no space available otherwise. 3NT or 4 NT should be minor suit oriented. A valuable lesson hand here.

I suppose it depends on your methods over 2C. I don't really have much use for 3S here ever, actually. With a two-suiter, I'm bidding over 2C if I'm bidding at all (that is the safest time to bid, not later on). I generally play CRASH over 2C (I think that's the most common method nowadays), but Truscott and Suction are popular, too.

With a really good three-suiter, I will pass and then X opener's rebid if he shows a one-suiter in my short suit. I don't see a need to force partner to the four-level when we can easily stop at the three-level.

But if I had to guess what this bid meant if a good player used it, I would be pretty certain it was the three-suiter and not some sort of Michaels bid.

Cheers,
Mike

[blackshoe]

 smerriman, on 2019-August-29, 19:08, said:

Law 6A is being broken by the fact this is a Goulash tournament. If that law isn't enforcable, I'm not sure the others really apply.

So if the Conditions of Contest break one law, no laws apply? Cool, I can do whatever I want!

[blackshoe]

 johnu, on 2019-August-29, 20:08, said:

Bridge laws have not been updated for online bridge so there are lots of things that happen online that are not in full agreement with the Laws Of Duplicate Bridge (or rubber bridge)

Software prevents players from bidding out of turn, making insufficient bids, leads out of turn, revokes, etc. It's impossible to make a face down opening lead. Surely those software guardrails are more important than insufficient randomness in Law 6.

By extension, you are saying goulash or not, no laws are enforceable in online bridge. I disagree.

There was a set of laws for online bridge produced in 2001. Not very good, I'm afraid, but they exist.

[blackshoe]

 GrahamJson, on 2019-August-30, 01:58, said:

To my way of thinking the situation is as follows: it’s an individual event so, unless the opponents happen by coincidence to be regular partners, there is no partnership agreement so nothing to disclose.

According to the stated conditions of contest, they're playing the SAYC so their agreements are whatever's on the card.