[VixTD]

---

Swiss pairs, MPs -> VPs
1♣ was a phony club, denying a five-card suit, "could be as short as none" (I think they meant "one")
2♣ was not alerted
Result: 3♠(W)-2, NS+100

I was called at the end of play. North had intended her 2♣ bid to be an unassuming cue-bid, showing a decent heart raise unrelated to the club suit. South had not interpreted it as such, in fact, he seemed not to have even heard of an unassuming cue-bid. EW maintained that if they had been aware that 2♣ might have been artifial, they might have reached a club contract. NS are well known to each other, but not a regular partnership.

How should the TD rule?

[StevenG]

Have EW heard of unassuming cue-bids? Are they unaware that irregular partnerships sometimes have misunderstandings with their defence to "may be short" club openings?

[campboy]

If NS have no agreement about the 2♣ bid, which appears to be the case, then it should not be alerted and there has been no infraction.

[ArtK78]

If it were a cuebid, why would it be alertable?

If there is no agreement, how is EW damaged?

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

If it were a cuebid, why would it be alertable?

Because as a matter of regulation in Shropshire where this event was held and indeed in the rest of England a cue bid at this level is alertable.
However from the description it seems as if NS do not have an agreement so no alert is not an infraction if South believed it to be natural.
I don't think EW have suffered damage except perhaps as a result of their own bidding.

[lamford]

Jeremy69A, on 2011-May-18, 11:00, said:

Because as a matter of regulation in Shropshire where this event was held and indeed in the rest of England a cue bid at this level is alertable.
However from the description it seems as if NS do not have an agreement so no alert is not an infraction if South believed it to be natural.
I don't think EW have suffered damage except perhaps as a result of their own bidding.

And surely East-West, unless very weak players, would be aware of the likely meaning, and therefore denied redress under OB5H1?

[f0rdy]

lamford, on 2011-May-18, 16:36, said:

And surely East-West, unless very weak players, would be aware of the likely meaning, and therefore denied redress under OB5H1?

Ah, so the EBU requires EW to play 'could be short' Asking Rebids, a less common relation of 'could be short' Asking Overcalls? (did these have a better name somewhere else? I seem to remember "Australian Asking Bids", but I could have substituted a different nationality for the original)

[alphatango]

f0rdy, on 2011-May-18, 17:15, said:

I seem to remember "Australian Asking Bids"(...)

Tasmanian, I believe, referring to a (very picturesque) state of that country.

[VixTD]

Obviously the phoniness of the club is a possible source of confusion, so I asked South how he would have interpreted 2♣ from North in the sequence 1♣(natural) - 1♥ - P - 2♣. He confessed he didn't know. NS's convention card mentioned UCB under "other conventions", but when I queried this North just said she had printed out a convention card, and maybe that detail had not got through to South.

After much discussion with my fellow TD I decided that I was going to rule as if they were playing UCB (assume misexplanation rather than misbid). I thought that EW would reach 4♣ some of the time, so I adjusted to some percentages of 4♣ making and one off, and some of the table score. (I didn't write them down, and I've forgotten them now.)