[bluejak]

Ok, this seems to have died, so ...

I was South. I play cheapest = other suit as I expect the better English players to play, but I had not discussed with my San Franciscan partner this sequence - do you discuss it when playing with a partner for the second time? So, while I play 2♠ as showing clubs, I was not sure what this partner meant. However, when he doubled as well, I gambled he meant clubs. Despite rude comments about the bidding, I expect any sensible bridge player to bid 5♣ if he believes partner to have better than a limit raise in clubs: if going off the opponents should have game on. Note that he must have better than a limit raise because of his double the second round.

Partner spoke to the TD at the end of the auction and recalled him at the end of the bidding, and asked for a ruling. The TD told West off thoroughly and strongly for his joking remark, especially when holding the majors, but ruled no damage. He said it was North's fault for not asking, and for not calling the TD immediately on finding out it was the majors, ie when I asked about the meaning of 2♣ before explaining 2♠. Thus the result stood.

In casual conversation with the TDs later, I discovered that the view of this hand was not unanimous: there was some feeling N/S were hard done by, and there was some feeling that a split score, both sides to get a bad result, was fairest. In my view the ruling was correct: I told my partner I think that bidding 2♠ without asking about the meaning of 2♣ got what it deserved.

I have found one interesting difference between bridge in North America and bridge in the UK: in North America players frequently ask the meaning of alerted calls, but vary rarely about unalerted calls. In the UK there are fewer questions about alerted calls but unalerted calls get more questions than in North America.

[bluejak]

barmar, on Dec 1 2009, 07:46 AM, said:

I've heard the opposite argument, though, for higher=support.  In that case, you want to allow room for opener to cue bid the opponent's other suit to suggest NT if you don't have a fit in either of your suits.

Not just for that reason, though similarly: to allow room for development via a cue-bid. If the bidding goes 1♠ (2NT) 3♣ to show hearts, it is easy if you have either a heart fit or strong rebiddable spades. With neither, 3♦ gives partner a chance to rebid his hearts to show extra length or to bid spades to show secondary support, apart from the possibility of bidding no-trumps if suitable. This seems far more important than allowing room for one extra cue-bid which can easily be bid at the four level.

As for game tries, fair enough, but I still think they are less important. Game tries after limit raises just seem a luxury, like a fourth television set: you would not throw it away if someone gave you one, but you hardly need it.

[pran]

bluejak, on Dec 1 2009, 10:29 AM, said:

Partner spoke to the TD at the end of the auction and recalled him at the end of the bidding, and asked for a ruling. The TD told West off thoroughly and strongly for his joking remark, especially when holding the majors,  but ruled no damage.  He said it was North's fault for not asking, and for not calling the TD immediately on finding out it was the majors, ie when I asked about the meaning of 2♣ before explaining 2♠.  Thus the result stood.

I find it quite interesting to notice that this Director's ruling seems to be word for word identical to how I reasoned in my own comment?

[mycroft]

Interesting, David. Let me be the first, then...the only two ways I've heard of playing unusual over unusual are "Low shows low" and "Low shows limit" (i.e. raise, support). I'd never heard of "higher shows support" before.

Also, arguably, 2S (showing spades) over 2C natural, or 2S (showing some known minor) over 2C Michaels are both not Alertable in the ACBL. So it wasn't necessary for South to know at East's turn (except when East asks, to explain).

From the Alert Definitions (emphasis mine):

Quote

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

From the Alert Procedure:

Quote

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

Enough people play UvU (and most of the rest will realize, after potentially some thought) that the very unusual or unexpected meaning of this cuebid is "Spades" (similarly to the examples). I would expect all of "clubs", "diamonds", or "shows/denies a spade stopper in a NT try" to be not "very unusual or unexpected".

Having said that, I have yet to meet someone who does not alert UvU (even me), but according to the documents, it's probably not required.

Note: after looking at the examples, if it's a raise, it's almost certainly not Alertable. If it's the other minor, it might be. Don't you just love the ACBL Alert Chart?

[blackshoe]

I would not rely solely on the Alert Chart, I would read the Procedure as well. With luck, it will provide clarity. Although it might take quite a bit of luck.

[mycroft]

Ed, you might want to reread my post, especially the quote headers. :-)

I agree, for information you or I can't get off the top of our heads, the Chart is likely not going to help. That's why I don't bother looking at it any more.

Not a criticism...I am known as not being the clearest writer sometimes...

[JanM]

mycroft, on Dec 9 2009, 02:31 PM, said:

Interesting, David.  Let me be the first, then...the only two ways I've heard of playing unusual over unusual are "Low shows low" and "Low shows limit" (i.e. raise, support).  I'd never heard of "higher shows support" before.

I'll add my vote to David's on which cue should show which suit, although with a little twist. I think that having the cheaper cue bid show the 4th (i.e. our unbid) suit is usually better than having it show either the lower suit or the opened suit. That's because we need more room when we haven't yet established a fit. I do have two exceptions: 1) if the cheaper cue is below 3 of the opened suit and the higher cue is above it, we use the cheaper cue to show support, as that allows us to stop in 3 of the opened suit; 2) if the cheaper cue is below 3NT, the higher cue is above 3NT and our opened suit is a minor, we use the cheaper cue to show support, so we can stop in 3NT. Of course in both of these "exception" cases, the cue bid that shows support is not as strong as the cue bid that shows the 4th suit.

I wouldn't expect an unfamiliar partnership to be on firm ground about UvU, though. Nor, I confess, is it something I'd tend to discuss with a new partner if we didn't have much time before playing. In that situation, which I gather is the one David was in, I have no idea how to interpret a cue bid, except as not natural. I guess that's why some of us have many pages of notes defining agreements, most of which never seem to come up .

[barmar]

When I agree to play UvU with a new partner, I always make sure to ask which form.

And while cue bids in general don't require alerts, I think UvU is still uncommon enough that I think it falls within the "highly unusual and unexpected" category. Although it's obvious that it shouldn't be natural, the specific meanings of the different cue bids are unexpected enough that I want opponents to know they should ask about it. The ACBL Alert Procedure says, "when in doubt, alert", and this one is at best borderline, so I have no qualms about alerting it.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on Dec 10 2009, 04:44 PM, said:

Ed, you might want to reread my post, especially the quote headers. :-)

I agree, for information you or I can't get off the top of our heads, the Chart is likely not going to help. That's why I don't bother looking at it any more.

Not a criticism...I am known as not being the clearest writer sometimes...

I said what I did because a lot of people look only at the alert chart — and think it is at least as definitive as the Procedure itself.

[mycroft]

Ah, okay; it read to me as if it were aimed at me, not "in general".

Sorry for the confusion.

[bluejak]

JanM, on Dec 11 2009, 07:54 AM, said:

I'll add my vote to David's on which cue should show which suit, although with a little twist. I think that having the cheaper cue bid show the 4th (i.e. our unbid) suit is usually better than having it show either the lower suit or the opened suit. That's because we need more room when we haven't yet established a fit. I do have two exceptions: 1) if the cheaper cue is below 3 of the opened suit and the higher cue is above it, we use the cheaper cue to show support, as that allows us to stop in 3 of the opened suit; 2) if the cheaper cue is below 3NT, the higher cue is above 3NT and our opened suit is a minor, we use the cheaper cue to show support, so we can stop in 3NT. Of course in both of these "exception" cases, the cue bid that shows support is not as strong as the cue bid that shows the 4th suit.

Good: you and I can play without further discussion, since I play the same for the same reasons! It just seems logical to me.