[blackshoe]

The ACBL has decreed that here, a Michaels cue bid does not require an alert. This appears to be based on the idea that "everybody" plays the cue bid as Michaels. Does that mean that the agreement that a cue bid of a 1minor opener shows both majors, or the cue bid of a 1major opening shows the other major and a minor is "GBK"? I don't think it does, but if someone can make an argument for it, I'll listen.

[mycroft]

I'm not going to disagree with blackshoe's question, but the ACBL hasn't made Michaels unAlertable because "everybody plays Michaels", and that in this case is a flaw in the ACBL's Alerting policy. Michaels is unAlertable because "only highly unusual and unexpected" cuebids (of the opponents' suit, ever, even of suits "shown" but not "bid", by the opponents) are Alerted, and that boils down to pretty much "natural in cases where we've actually shown the suit".

Unfortunately, that means (explicitly, it has been ruled such) that "top and bottom" cues are not Alertable. So, without checking, you can't know whether 1♦-2♦ shows hearts or clubs (and spades) - it also would not be Alerted if it was hearts and clubs (and not spades). Especially in this area, where all-but-two pairs play Michaels, this is a problem. I've even been asked about it by the people playing T&B; and I give them the Correct Answer (even though it's more of a problem than Alerting it and having people expect it to be natural).

More in answer to the question, though, it is considered GBK that Michaels cuebids are not Alertable in the ACBL. What Michaels cuebids actually *are*, however, I don't think is necessarily GBK (in fact, at least in the ACBL, the fact that "the name of the convention is explicitly not Full Disclosure" leads us to infer that it is not); but in particular, how your partnership plays them (could be 5-4? either way? mini-max, or cards-in-suits? ...) is explicitly *not* G BK and must be disclosed.

On the OP question, it depends on the bid. I don't care how wide a "deviation" you allow in other cases, Flannery (if described like standard) on 4-4 is a psychic call. In the ACBL, because of the regulations, you may allow much wider deviations for some calls than for calls on the edge of legality (although those deviations are "evidence of an illegal agreement", not "psychics" or "illegally psyching an artificial call"). Of course, that's "regulating against our judgement" - no, it's saying that if you decide to play that close to the legal line, you yourself have agreed to limit your judgement to avoid playing an illegal agreement de facto.

I do think that the pro deviation should be attended to more than it is, if in fact the country's regulation is "players must play the same system". Helen Sobel's "Your NT range is 16-18. Mine is 13-19." isn't legal (any more), but I bet it's still played...

[barmar]

 mycroft, on 2014-November-24, 10:45, said:

I do think that the pro deviation should be attended to more than it is, if in fact the country's regulation is "players must play the same system". Helen Sobel's "Your NT range is 16-18. Mine is 13-19." isn't legal (any more), but I bet it's still played...

A few years ago, it was common in the NABC midnight zips for junior experts/pros to play with caddies who barely knew how to play. They played asymmetric systems where the caddy's bids were all transfers, the pro's were all natural, so the pro would always declare.

But it's the midnight game, half the players are drunk and no one really cares about legalities like this. Juniors frequently experiment with weird systems in these games (recently popular: Phantom Club, where most opening bids mean what they would have meant if they were an overcall over RHO's 1♣ bid).

[Vampyr]

 Fluffy, on 2014-November-23, 06:45, said:

I suggest you find a good translator first, your best argument is threatening me? really?

Obviously if what you said was true, a person might well consider it their moral duty to protect your opponents. I am happy to believe that you were joking, but it's not really an appropriate thing to joke about. As you can see, some people thought you were serious,

[Vampyr]

 mycroft, on 2014-November-24, 10:45, said:

Unfortunately, that means (explicitly, it has been ruled such) that "top and bottom" cues are not Alertable. So, without checking, you can't know whether 1♦-2♦ shows hearts or clubs (and spades) - it also would not be Alerted if it was hearts and clubs (and not spades). Especially in this area, where all-but-two pairs play Michaels, this is a problem.

Alerting is not the answer either, though. Here all artificial cuebids are alerted, so we have the same problem as you do.

[mycroft]

Still happens, still happens :-) One of the reasons why I mourn the death of the Midnight game. Where else can you have that kind of fun with people who know what's going on?

I remember playing "5-rule Club" in a midnight with a partner who'd never played a limited opener system before. Our entire set of agreements:

• 1♣ is 16+ any. 1♦ in response to 1♣ is 0-7, only NGF bid.
  
• 1NT is 10-12, 2-way (If I did it again, it would be Keri, because that's what we play)
  
• 1M is 11-15, 5+M.
  
• 2♣ is 11-15, 6+♣.
  
• 1♦ is 11-15 other.

Everything else was "GDK" (General Drunk Knowledge). It was fun. We didn't win.

[Trinidad]

 Vampyr, on 2014-November-25, 11:30, said:

Obviously if what you said was true, a person might well consider it their moral duty to protect your opponents. I am happy to believe that you were joking, but it's not really an appropriate thing to joke about. As you can see, some people thought you were serious,

Perhaps you could point out what law Fluffy would be breaking when he freely "upgrades" his hands to a 1NT opening? I am not joking (and I don't think Fluffy is either).

He is not concealing any agreement and he doesn't have an illegal agreement, simply because -as long as his partner is clueless- he doesn't have an agreement to freely upgrade his hand to a 1NT opening. Agreements are made between two people. His opponents are entitled to know what his partner knows... and his partner doesn't know better than that 1NT shows 15-17 (or whatever range they agreed).

So, there are no opponents to protect since there is no infraction.

Rik

[Vampyr]

 Trinidad, on 2014-November-25, 14:48, said:

His opponents are entitled to know what his partner knows... and his partner doesn't know better than that 1NT shows 15-17 (or whatever range they agreed).

So, there are no opponents to protect since there is no infraction.

All very true the first time it happens (unless, of course, this partner has heard of this upgrade from another of Fluffy's partners or experienced it as an opponent. Or read the post in question in this forum).

After that the disclosure issue kicks in.

[Trinidad]

 Vampyr, on 2014-November-25, 15:32, said:

All very true the first time it happens (unless, of course, this partner has heard of this upgrade from another of Fluffy's partners or experienced it as an opponent. Or read the post in question in this forum).

After that the disclosure issue kicks in.

He can continue this as long as his partner is clueless. I suspect that with some of Fluffy's partners this means that he can go on for ever (), but Fluffy can probably judge that best.

Rik

[Vampyr]

 Trinidad, on 2014-November-25, 16:10, said:

He can continue this as long as his partner is clueless. I suspect that with some of Fluffy's partners this means that he can go on for ever (), but Fluffy can probably judge that best.

Maybe you are right, and it doesn't matter if the partner never notices or finds out some other way; Fluffy just needs to disclose his methods. The opponents need to know what the "actual" methods are even more than they need to know what the "agreed" methods are. I am ready, however, to give Fluffy the benefit of a doubt and assume that he has heretofore been ignorant of his requirements under the laws.

[Fluffy]

Thanks Rik, it is actually one, and only one partner. I have remembered today how useless it is to argue with Richard. So I won't try it any more.

But maybe Richard will like to know that after today's game with that partner, where our side held average 22.7 HCP (vs 17.3 on theirs), with all the complaints that followed, and several players who wanted to simply leave the game out of boredom, I have started a request to fix the hands and avoid this happening in the future.

[blackshoe]

I have disapproved a message from Richard and Rik's reply to it. Certain things you don't say, whether at the table or here.

Edit: having reviewed the thread, I've disapproved an earlier message from Richard which, while not quite as blatant as the more recent one, is also not appropriate.

[nige1]

 barmar, on 2014-November-24, 10:18, said:

Where does something like "natural bidding means you normally bid suits in decreasing order of length" fall, is that GBK? The fact that a particular pair bids naturally is a PU, but it seems like the general idea of natural bidding, and that it's in use unless the pair alerts that they're playing a canape system, seems general to me.

Another excellent example but I fear that not all would agree with you. For example, if 2/1 or SEF is the only system, with which you're familiar, then you might describe partner's 1♣ opener as "Natural"

[gordontd]

 Fluffy, on 2014-November-25, 17:23, said:

I have started a request to fix the hands and avoid this happening in the future use hands that are not randomly dealt and don't conform to the requirements of the laws.

FYP

[Vampyr]

 Fluffy, on 2014-November-25, 17:23, said:

Thanks Rik, it is actually one, and only one partner.

This is good; you have to change only one convention card.

Obviously your RA allows asymmetric systems, or you wouldn't be playing this particular method. So just disclose it properly and you will be fine.

[helene_t]

 Trinidad, on 2014-November-24, 02:22, said:

[...] that a 4-4 fit might play better (at game level or higher) than a 5-3 fit, or 3NT often scores better than 4M with a 3334 opposite 5332.

This is knowledge that bridge players gather over their bridge career that is not related to their partner or partnership.

Yes but to what extent you tune your bidding agreements to take advantages of this is partnership understanding.

For example, if the auction starts
1♥-2♥
there may or may not be an inference that responder can't have four spades and three hearts. This is partnership dependent.