[VixTD]

This occurred in a Swiss Teams tournament I was playing in. North was the dealer, and South opened 1♣ out of rotation.

....S.......W........N........E

..1♣(1)
.........................P......2♦(2)
...3♦(3).....P.....3♠.......P
...3NT....AP

(1) Either 11+ with a club suit, or any 17+
(2) Multi-2♦
(3) Strong cue bid (?)

The director was called, she explained all the options, 1♣ was not accepted, North passed and East opened with a multi-2♦. South talked to the TD about his options away from the table. She asked if he might have a comparable call to the 1♣ opener, and he said yes, 3♦ is a forcing cue-bid, equivalent to the strong part of the 1♣ opening. That's what offender chose, North alerted it and when asked said he didn't know what it meant. He did seem to be aware that it was artificial and forcing, so maybe it was all good. EW were not happy when 3NT-1 gave them a flat board.

What I thought was interesting was what happens if offender claims to have a comparable call, but partner reads it differently. I don't know of any defence to a multi-2♦ in which a 3♦ overcall is anything other than natural, but I suppose it's possible to have an agreement that all hands with diamonds start with a double, so 3♦ is a cue-bid. I think I'd expect to see this on their convention card. I don't know if the TD asked to see it.

Would you just accept whatever South tells you about replacement calls, and consider adjusting the score afterwards if doesn't turn out to be so?

[RMB1]

The evidence is that South is lying through his teeth.

In hindsight, the TD might have looked at the system card before allowing 3D as a comparable call.
When North cannot explain 3D, I would talk to the him away from the table and try and judge to what extent South was making things up.

In extremis, I would treat this as director's error and rule that 3D was not comparable.

In practice, I suspect NS will play 3NT regardless. If South is told there is no (comparable) forcing call over 2D, they will just bid 3NT.

When offender's partner does not know the meaning of a replacement bid, being told that the replacement is comparable does seem to give partner information to which he should not be entitled.

[steve2005]

3♦ isn't a cue-bid never mind a strong cue-bid to anyone who has played more than a week at bridge!
I have to wonder if the TD had been directing more than a week yet?!

[RMB1]

steve2005, on 2019-April-08, 11:13, said:

3♦ isn't a cue-bid never mind a strong cue-bid to anyone who has played more than a week at bridge!

At a regional event in the West of England 10+ years ago, I was called when 3D was explained as the majors, which it wasn't. I was all ready to go back at the end of the hand and say "nobody plays that, the opposing side should have known it was not the right explanation" - when I was called to another table for the same auction and the same explanation. I now forget what I _did_ say to either table when I finally recovered my composure.

[steve2005]

It is certainly legal and maybe not even totally stupid to play 3♦ as showing the majors.
However, it does not fit the definition of a cue-bid as 2♦ did not show diamonds.

[sanst]

Is there a procedure how to act as a TD in a case like this? Do you advise - away from the table - about the comparability of a call? Do you stay and anounce, after the call is made, whether or not it’s comparable? What you shouldn’t do, is give a call that you consider comparable, which seems to have happened here. Please correct me if I’m wrong. And to let the offender tell the table that a call is comparable, is downright idiotic. The NOS should not accept this.
I think as a TD you should find out what this pair’s defense against a multi 2♦ is before you make any decision. There’s a plethora of defenses to be found in books and on the net and you can’t assume the offender is playing the one of your choice. Maybe not relevant for the case, but S could have passed and waited for her second chance, which would certainly have come and then there wouldn’t have been any constraints for N, although there would have been the UI from the withdrawn 1♣.

[blackshoe]

Steve, what is your definition of a cue bid? Be precise, please.

For the record, mine is the definition in the Bridge World's dictionary: (1) (noun) a bid in a strain that an opponent has bid. Opponent bid 2♦, therefore 3♦ is a cue bid.

Again for the record, there is a second definition: (2) (noun) a bid in a suit that an opponent has suggested artificially (a "virtual cue-bid"). That doesn't apply here unless you want to define both 2♥ and 2♠ as having been suggested artificially. But even if you do, that doesn't change the fact that 3♦ meets definition (1).

[steve2005]

blackshoe, on 2019-April-08, 19:05, said:

Steve, what is your definition of a cue bid? Be precise, please.

For the record, mine is the definition in the Bridge World's dictionary: (1) (noun) a bid in a strain that an opponent has bid. Opponent bid 2♦, therefore 3♦ is a cue bid.

Again for the record, there is a second definition: (2) (noun) a bid in a suit that an opponent has suggested artificially (a "virtual cue-bid"). That doesn't apply here unless you want to define both 2♥ and 2♠ as having been suggested artificially. But even if you do, that doesn't change the fact that 3♦ meets definition (1).

yes, virtual exist over here we call them invisible cuebids
strain means they have shown something Multi's 2D strain is hearts or spades

ACBL definition is
. “Cuebid”: A bid of a suit that an opponent has bid Naturally or Quasi-Naturally or a suit in which an opponent has shown 4 or more cards.

quasi-natural is could be balanced 2+ (plus some other crazy stuff)

[weejonnie]

sanst, on 2019-April-08, 15:19, said:

Is there a procedure how to act as a TD in a case like this? Do you advise - away from the table - about the comparability of a call? Do you stay and anounce, after the call is made, whether or not it’s comparable? What you shouldn’t do, is give a call that you consider comparable, which seems to have happened here. Please correct me if I’m wrong. And to let the offender tell the table that a call is comparable, is downright idiotic. The NOS should not accept this.
I think as a TD you should find out what this pair’s defense against a multi 2♦ is before you make any decision. There’s a plethora of defenses to be found in books and on the net and you can’t assume the offender is playing the one of your choice. Maybe not relevant for the case, but S could have passed and waited for her second chance, which would certainly have come and then there wouldn’t have been any constraints for N, although there would have been the UI from the withdrawn 1♣.

You are going to have to find out whether the call is comparable or not at some stage since it wil affect the partner's right to not pass(unless as in this case, the offender can pass knowing he is going to get another shot - although of course he may not have a suitable call in his system after the response to 2♦ is made).

I don't think there is a set procedure for this. My inclination is to take the player who has been affected away from the table to avoid giving UI (the player next to speak can ask the partner about the system and work out whether a comparable call is possible).

And of course there could be lead penalties.

[VixTD]

sanst, on 2019-April-08, 15:19, said:

Is there a procedure how to act as a TD in a case like this? Do you advise - away from the table - about the comparability of a call? Do you stay and anounce, after the call is made, whether or not it’s comparable? What you shouldn’t do, is give a call that you consider comparable, which seems to have happened here. Please correct me if I’m wrong. And to let the offender tell the table that a call is comparable, is downright idiotic. The NOS should not accept this.
I think as a TD you should find out what this pair’s defense against a multi 2♦ is before you make any decision. There’s a plethora of defenses to be found in books and on the net and you can’t assume the offender is playing the one of your choice. Maybe not relevant for the case, but S could have passed and waited for her second chance, which would certainly have come and then there wouldn’t have been any constraints for N, although there would have been the UI from the withdrawn 1♣.

The TD has to advise the offender whether a call is considered comparable so they can decide whether to make the call or not. It's not the offender who tells the table that the call is comparable. The TD does this when she advises offender's partner that he isn't forced to pass for one round.

I think there are a number of simple-minded souls who have the (maybe unspoken) agreement that a double of a suit bid artificially by the opponents shows that suit, whether that bid is Stayman, a transfer bid, a control-showing cue-bid, a splinter, a strong and artificial 1♣ or 2♣ opener, a Landy or Astro overcall. It may seem logical to them that bidding the suit means something else, as they would double with a good holding in the suit. I would expect to see something to this effect on their convention card before I believed them, either under defence to a strong club or a multi, or under "other uses for doubles".

I perhaps shouldn't have referred to it as a cue-bid - I seem to have set Ed off.

There were a lot of weak-only multis in operation in North Wales that afternoon, and I didn't know if this was one of them (it didn't happen at my table), so it's possible that South wouldn't have had another chance if he had passed.

RMB1, on 2019-April-08, 08:17, said:

When offender's partner does not know the meaning of a replacement bid, being told that the replacement is comparable does seem to give partner information to which he should not be entitled.

This occurred to me too.

[RMB1]

VixTD, on 2019-April-09, 06:58, said:

I perhaps shouldn't have referred to it as a cue-bid - I seem to have set Ed off.

"cue-bid" is a special term for ACBL alerting regulations and can set off directors from North America.

In Wales (and England) artificial bids are alertable and "cue bid" is an ambiguous term used in disclosure.

[blackshoe]

You didn’t set me off, I just wanted to be sure everyone is on the same page.

To me “strain” is a synonym for “denomination,” so three diamonds is a cue bid.

[pran]

RMB1, on 2019-April-09, 07:51, said:

"cue-bid" is a special term for ACBL alerting regulations and can set off directors from North America.

In Wales (and England) artificial bids are alertable and "cue bid" is an ambiguous term used in disclosure.

In Norway "Cue bid" is frequently used (and understood) as an artificial bid showing (usually the first) control in the named denomination. There is no condition that this denomination has already been named or specified by an opponent during the auction.

More generally: If a particular control has already been shown or denied so far during the auction then the cue bid concerns the next control in the denomination concerned.

(Of course "first control" is the Ace or a void, "second control" is the King or a singleton and so on).

[barmar]

While the ACBL Alert Procedure only defines cue bid as a bid of a suit that an opponent has shown, many (probably most) also use it to mean a control bid. The intended meaning is practically always discernable from context. E.g. if the opponents have an unobstructed auction, and bids suits to explore for slam, there's no misunderstanding if they explain them as "cue bids" (although you still might want to know whether they show 1st-round or 1st-or-2nd-round controls). And even if the auction is contested, when you start bidding suits past game the meaning rarely depends on whether the suit was bid by an opponent.

The ACBL Convention Card used to have a column in the Direct Cuebids section for the meaning over artificial bids. So at that time, they were lumping these in with bidding a suit that the opponent has actually shown, but perhaps just for convenience in organizing the card. They've since gotten rid of that, probably because there's not really that much variation -- few in their right mind would check "Michaels".

[barmar]

sanst, on 2019-April-08, 15:19, said:

What you shouldn’t do, is give a call that you consider comparable, which seems to have happened here.

I don't think that's what happened. The OP says:

Quote

She asked if he might have a comparable call to the 1♣ opener, and he said yes, 3♦ is a forcing cue-bid, equivalent to the strong part of the 1♣ opening.

"She" is the director, "he" is the player. So the director asked the player if he thought he had a comparable call, the player described such a call, and the director confirmed that it was.

The only problem is that the player's partner didn't actually agree that this was the meaning. It's interesting that they felt that it was artificial and forcing. Both of the ACBL accepted defenses to Multi say that it's natural and non-forcing -- basically similar to a weak 2♦ preempt.

[blackshoe]

I don't think this took place in an ACBL event.

From the ACBL Alert Procedure:

Control Bid: 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

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

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2019-April-09, 08:59, said:

I don't think that's what happened. The OP says:

"She" is the director, "he" is the player. So the director asked the player if he thought he had a comparable call, the player described such a call, and the director confirmed that it was.

The only problem is that the player's partner didn't actually agree that this was the meaning. It's interesting that they felt that it was artificial and forcing. Both of the ACBL accepted defenses to Multi say that it's natural and non-forcing -- basically similar to a weak 2♦ preempt.

This decision by the director seems so unlikely that I wonder if she felt intimidated by the player. Some volunteer directors have told me that they find it difficult to make rulings concerning players that are a lot st inter than they are. Perhaps the director should have referred the problem to a more experienced director.

[barmar]

Here's a situation that occurred last night, with a club director who isn't really experienced in these matters, and the offending player is a total beginner (she happened to be my partner at last week's pro-am game, which is how we transition our new players into the open game).

Auction was 1NT(15-17) - X(MeckWell) - 1♥. I was the doubler.

She had 5 spades, and intended to transfer to them, but she mistakenly bid one level too low. Declarer told her that she didn't have a comparable call available -- apparently she concluded that 1♥ must show hearts, as if the opening bid had been a suit, so a call that shows spades would not be comparable. She didn't say any of this explicitly, she just said there were no comparable calls, so whatever she bid would bar her partner. She changed her bid to 2♠ and that's where it played.

When some of us were discussing this during the post mortem at the pub, we felt that this was a bad ruling. But there probably wasn't any damage, as they would have gotten the same result in a normal auction (2♠ would have been played from opener's side rather than responder's).

[weejonnie]

barmar, on 2019-April-10, 09:02, said:

Here's a situation that occurred last night, with a club director who isn't really experienced in these matters, and the offending player is a total beginner (she happened to be my partner at last week's pro-am game, which is how we transition our new players into the open game).

Auction was 1NT(15-17) - X(MeckWell) - 1♥. I was the doubler.

She had 5 spades, and intended to transfer to them, but she mistakenly bid one level too low. Declarer told her that she didn't have a comparable call available -- apparently she concluded that 1♥ must show hearts, as if the opening bid had been a suit, so a call that shows spades would not be comparable. She didn't say any of this explicitly, she just said there were no comparable calls, so whatever she bid would bar her partner. She changed her bid to 2♠ and that's where it played.

When some of us were discussing this during the post mortem at the pub, we felt that this was a bad ruling. But there probably wasn't any damage, as they would have gotten the same result in a normal auction (2♠ would have been played from opener's side rather than responder's).

2♥ would be allowable both as the lowest call showing the same denomination(s) AND as a call serving the same purpose (transfer) - note that if the call serves the same purpose it does not have to be similar or a subset. (assuming player would use transfers in this position)
2♠ would be allowable as the lowest suit showing the same denomination if the player did not play 2♥ as transfer.
2♣ or 2♦ might be allowable if they showed the suit and spades. (but not if they showed an unspecified major)

If the player pulled out the 1♥ card by mistake (mechanical error) then she could change it.

Simple.

[barmar]

weejonnie, on 2019-April-10, 12:04, said:

2♥ would be allowable both as the lowest call showing the same denomination(s) AND as a call serving the same purpose (transfer) - note that if the call serves the same purpose it does not have to be similar or a subset. (assuming player would use transfers in this position)
2♠ would be allowable as the lowest suit showing the same denomination if the player did not play 2♥ as transfer.
2♣ or 2♦ might be allowable if they showed the suit and spades. (but not if they showed an unspecified major)

If the player pulled out the 1♥ card by mistake (mechanical error) then she could change it.

Simple.

She's a total beginner (just took the class in January), no fancy conventions, just normal Jacoby transfers.

The director never did ask if she pulled the wrong card inadvertently (she did remember to ask my partner if he wanted to accept the bid, he didn't), but it didn't look like it to me, and usually people who do that try to correct it as soon as attention is drawn to the IB. She was very thoughtful before bidding, although she never asked what the double meant. I suspect she was trying to think whether systems were on over the double (I glanced at the CC, which I was surprised was filled out, since it was a pick-up partnership with a life novice -- it just had a check mark in the "Systems on over_____" field). I think she'd used up most of her brain cells trying to decide, and then absent-mindedly pulled the cheapest heart card.