[ehhh]

The auction goes 1♣ ... P ... 1NT ... 2♣.
The 1♣was announced as 'may be short'.
The question is in ACBLland; Is the 2♣ natural or Michael's for the majors?

[blackshoe]

Depends on the partnership agreement. If they have one.

[barmar]

Perhaps what he meant was whether an unalerted 2♣ bid should be assumed to be natural or artificial. Or turned around, which agreement requires alerting? The ACBL Alert Procedure says that most cue bids are not alertable, unless they convey a "very unusual or unexpected meaning." So to decide if a meaning may need to be alerted, we need to how unusual it is.

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).

[blackshoe]

According to the Alert Chart, a direct cue bid of a natural bid, which cue bid is intended as natural, requires an alert. As of 1 January, a 1♣ opening that could be as short as two (i.e., made on 4=4=3=2 distribution) is defined as natural. Ergo, a cue bid of such an opening requires an alert.

[mycroft]

Ah, but what if it could be not 4=4=3=2, but still "could be short"?

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-16, 21:09, said:

According to the Alert Chart, a direct cue bid of a natural bid, which cue bid is intended as natural, requires an alert. As of 1 January, a 1♣ opening that could be as short as two (i.e., made on 4=4=3=2 distribution) is defined as natural. Ergo, a cue bid of such an opening requires an alert.

You may well be right, but what we are considering here is not a direct cue-bid.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2012-January-17, 10:13, said:

Ah, but what if it could be not 4=4=3=2, but still "could be short"?

Then it's not natural, and a natural cue bid does not require an alert.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-16, 21:09, said:

According to the Alert Chart, a direct cue bid of a natural bid, which cue bid is intended as natural, requires an alert. As of 1 January, a 1♣ opening that could be as short as two (i.e., made on 4=4=3=2 distribution) is defined as natural. Ergo, a cue bid of such an opening requires an alert.

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.

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2012-January-17, 10:22, said:

You may well be right, but what we are considering here is not a direct cue-bid.

The ACBL Alert Procedures doesn't distinguish between direct and non-direct cuebids. It only says:

Quote

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

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-January-17, 16:18, 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.

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.

[barmar]

I never mentioned the alert chart. I only referenced the alert procedures and the accompanying definitions.

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.

[blackshoe]

You're right, if the opponent's bid is not natural, then your bid in their suit is not a cue bid. I wonder what we should call it?

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.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-19, 10:03, said:

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.

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.

[blackshoe]

No, I was just trying to cover all the bases.

[bluejak]

Players' perceptions may affect what you might alert. In England, for example, a 2♦ overcall over a 1♦ opening would be called a cue-bid, even if the 1♦ opening could be on zero diamonds. However a 3♣ overcall over a Stayman response would not be called a cue-bid. I think that a cue-bid in England in people's normal view is a bid of the suit the opponents bid naturally, or a bid in the opener's suit if it is a short club or short diamond.

[barmar]

The difference between short club/diamond and artificial club/diamond is that in the first case, everyone (opponents and partner) typically treats it as an actual suit until opener has a chance to clarify.

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.

[lolopuffin]

Bottom line: if you might take an action depending on the meaning of a cue bid, protect yourself by clicking on the bid in question to ask about the partnership agreement. You may verify by checking the CC if you wish.

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2012-January-25, 11:54, said:

The difference between short club/diamond and artificial club/diamond is that in the first case, everyone (opponents and partner) typically treats it as an actual suit until opener has a chance to clarify.

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.