[mikl_plkcc]

In an EBU club, no one vulnerable, LHO opened 2♣ at the third seat, announced as "strong", my pickup partner overcalled 3♣ immediately without a question asked. We hadn't gone through any defences against anything, apart from multi-landy after NT opening.

It resulted in massive misunderstanding and we ended up playing 4♠x with only 6 trumps and got down 8, which ruined our whole evening.

What would you think 3♣ meant without an explicit understanding at this position?

[hrothgar]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-May-30, 16:06, said:

In an EBU club, no one vulnerable, LHO opened 2♣ at the third seat, announced as "strong", my pickup partner overcalled 3♣ immediately without a question asked. We hadn't gone through any defences against anything, apart from multi-landy after NT opening.

It resulted in massive misunderstanding and we ended up playing 4♠x with only 6 trumps and got down 8, which ruined our whole evening.

What would you think 3♣ meant without an explicit understanding at this position?

Long clubs

Its possible that partner might be psyching, but anyone who expects partner to have anything other than long clubs is nuts

[shyams]

As long as you don't assume partner's bid as natural, I reckon you are doing well. Without looking at your hand, it is not possible to give an ideal answer. e.g.if you hold length in both minors then surely it's logical to asssssume that partner has both majors and meant 3♣ as Michaels. If you hold a flat-ish hand, the best meaning would be indeterminate but then I'd bid my 4-card suit and hope we have a fit or the opps fortunately rescue us from this mess.

The only illogical action would be to pass partner's 3♣ and await further developments. That could well result in a disaster for your side when partner lands up playing 3♣ undoubled and makes only 1 or 2 tricks. Imagine the chagrin at realising one lost 4 IMPs vs. a partscore available to opponents.

Hopefully my intended message within the above paragraphs is clear to everyone.

[mikl_plkcc]

 hrothgar, on 2025-May-30, 16:13, said:

Long clubs

Its possible that partner might be psyching, but anyone who expects partner to have anything other than long clubs is nuts

 shyams, on 2025-May-30, 16:17, said:

As long as you don't assume partner's bid as natural, I reckon you are doing well. Without looking at your hand, it is not possible to give an ideal answer. e.g.if you hold length in both minors then surely it's logical to asssssume that partner has both majors and meant 3♣ as Michaels. If you hold a flat-ish hand, the best meaning would be indeterminate but then I'd bid my 4-card suit and hope we have a fit or the opps fortunately rescue us from this mess.

The only illogical action would be to pass partner's 3♣ and await further developments. That could well result in a disaster for your side when partner lands up playing 3♣ undoubled and makes only 1 or 2 tricks. Imagine the chagrin at realising one lost 4 IMPs vs. a partscore available to opponents.

Hopefully my intended message within the above paragraphs is clear to everyone.

I thought my partner had majors because the opening bidder showed long, strong clubs (in EBU rules, a natural 2-level suit opening is announced, and an artificial 2-level suit opening is alerted), so I started bidding my majors (I had 4-4 so I thought we had a massive double fit, and they had a huge ♣ fit) and it turned out that it was my partner having long clubs.

[Huibertus]

2♣ strong means a random strong hand, not strong ♣ nobody plays 2♣ as a strong hand with ♣ only.

Without any agreements against 2♣ openings 3♣ is natural, weak at green or white potentially extremely weak.

[hrothgar]

Thanks for clarifying the rules with respect to alerts and announcements
I wasn't aware of this nuance.

Opposite a hand that is "known" to hold long clubs, I'd treat the cue bid as showing the majors.

[mikl_plkcc]

 Huibertus, on 2025-May-30, 16:23, said:

2♣ strong means a random strong hand, not strong ♣ nobody plays 2♣ as a strong hand with ♣ only.

Without any agreements against 2♣ openings 3♣ is natural, weak at green or white potentially extremely weak.

In EBU rules, a 2-level opening is announced if natural and alerted as artificial. If 2♣ opening does not guarantee clubs (or shows another suit in addition to clubs), it needs to be alerted. However during the months I played in England I have never encountered anyone actually playing natural (old-fashioned) strong two bids.

The director ruled that the table result stand, she told me "I am not a beginner", "the opponents done their job by announcing the bid" and "I damaged myself by making up agreements"

[Huibertus]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-May-30, 16:31, said:

In EBU rules, a 2-level opening is announced if natural and alerted as artificial. If 2♣ opening does not guarantee clubs (or shows another suit in addition to clubs), it needs to be alerted. However during the months I played in England I have never encountered anyone actually playing natural (old-fashioned) strong two bids.

The director ruled that the table result stand, she told me "I am not a beginner", "the opponents done their job by announcing the bid" and "I damaged myself by making up agreements"

Seems to me the director was right. 2♣ as strong ♣ is just not played by anyone, announceable or not.

[shyams]

This occurred in a club setting (even if it may be a very good club) and opps may well have announced an alertable bid.

The debacle that followed was entirely avoidable AND mostly your doing. I really don't understand your actions as the partner of the 3♣ bidder.
* You could have asked opps "What system do you play?" or
* asked for a confirmation about the true meaning of their 2♣ bid or
* done anything else (like passing, if you felt too timid to ask for clarification at your turn).

++ Even if the 2♣ opener had a strong hand with long clubs, what is the weakest "strong" for such hands? 20 HCP? 19? 18?
++ Realistically, how likely was your side to miss out on a game for your side when one opponent holds approx. 50% of the HCPs.
++ And if it did transpire that Opp had a 18 HCP hand with ♣AKQJ10987 and your side can make a major suit game, why not call the Director then and ask for a ruling?

You chose to mastermind non-existent partnership agreements on the spot. To me, that sounds like a very strange thing to do.

[mikl_plkcc]

 Huibertus, on 2025-May-30, 16:45, said:

Seems to me the director was right. 2♣ as strong ♣ is just not played by anyone, announceable or not.

Unfortunately I damaged myself my alerting my partner's 3♣ bid and, when asked, explained that as both majors, despite that I was not playing with my regular partner where there was a meta agreement that under any circumstances overcalling in the opponents' only suit was Michaels.

Would I have a stronger case if I didn't alert the 3♣, and started bidding my majors assuming both club bids were natural?

[hrothgar]

Huibertus, on 2025-May-30, 16:45, said:

Seems to me the director was right. 2♣ as strong ♣ is just not played by anyone, announceable or not.

I think that the director got this dead wrong.

Here's what the 2024 version of the Blue Book says

Quote

Announcements – Two of a Suit Openings

A natural one-suited opening bid of two of a suit showing 5+ cards is announced by stating its
range from the following categories. Partner of the opener says the words shown.

(a) “Strong, forcing“

I don't give a rat's ass whether or not playing a 2♣ as strong and natural is popular.

What I do (now) know is that rules by which this game is being governed directly state that if someone announces "strong" after their partner opens 2♣, this means that they have a strong hand with 5+ clubs. What I also know is that the director should be enforcing the rules as written and not making ***** up as they go along...

[hrothgar]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-May-30, 16:55, said:

Unfortunately I damaged myself my alerting my partner's 3♣ bid and, when asked, explained that as both majors, despite that I was not playing with my regular partner where there was a meta agreement that under any circumstances overcalling in the opponents' only suit was Michaels.

Would I have a stronger case if I didn't alert the 3♣, and started bidding my majors assuming both club bids were natural?

FWIW, there is a rather heated discussion on Bridgewinners in the following thread which seems directly relevant to what transpired here.

https://bridgewinner...ame/?cj=1563097

You might consider post this hand over there and see what folks think that you should have done after the 3!C cue bid.

[thepossum]

Seriously

Random poll of the whole Bridge world with no agreements
2 clubs is 2 clubs

and 3 clubs is natural

I wouldbe in call kinds of trouble in clubs these days. Pun intended

I shall read the bw thread and see how much trouble I could get into lol

And before Precision people jump on me etc lol

[mw64ahw]

Plutarch's Apophthegmata Laconica could be of help here.

[Cyberyeti]

thepossum, on 2025-May-30, 19:01, said:

Seriously

Random poll of the whole Bridge world with no agreements
2 clubs is 2 clubs

and 3 clubs is natural

I wouldbe in call kinds of trouble in clubs these days. Pun intended

I shall read the bw thread and see how much trouble I could get into lol

And before Precision people jump on me etc lol

2♣ is NOT 2♣, if it was it would have been alerted not announced as strong which shows an Acol 2 type hand with clubs, which I have come across as we had a pair that originally played old style culbertson with a natural strong 2♣.

If 2♣ is 2♣, 3♣ is natural, if it isn't it's probably michaels.

[mikeh]

If the facts alleged are correct, then imo the director erred. An alertable bid was not alerted. It was announced and players familiar with the relevant rules would assume that the opps played a natural 2C opening, making 3C takeout of some kind, presumably majors.

It’s not at all as if 2C had been met with no statement from responder. In my experience almost nobody in NA alerts or announces 2C except for ethical big club players or others who use 2C in unorthodox fashion (eg weak in diamonds or strong and artificial).

It was not an omission or failure to do that which the rules required…it was a positive misdescription of the meaning of the bid. It’s as if the partnership played Flannery 2D and it was announced as a weak two bid.

Yes, the OP could have and, imo, definitely should have asked. So too should the 3C bidder. But neither should have to ask. Ironically, if a player makes a mistake that violates a rule, he or she can’t escape the consequences by claiming ignorance of the rule. Why? Because enforcement of the rules can’t be contingent on whether the offender plausibly claims ignorance….we have a lot of lying going on already, imo, when a TD is called*. We don’t need to encourage more. So the principle is that everyone is assumed to know the rules.

So the TD here ignored that presumption….given that ‘everyone knows the rules’, the announcement was sufficient to tell the opps thst 2C was natural…..the damage was done. Again, if the announcement (and I assume it’s really an alert, but say a question was asked) was ‘Flannery’ do the opps have to protect themselves by, in essence, adding ‘are you sure’ or ‘ so 4=5 majors, limited opening?’, the latter just in case this pair thought Flannery meant something else. And it’s no good saying ‘look at your hand’. The first time I held 5=8 majors, my RHO had 4=5 and opened Flannery in front of me.

I’m not sufficiently familiar with the nuances but I don’t think assuming 3C was majors is trying for a double shot….if it was, great but if it wasn’t, you expect the director to give you a good board.

* I doubt I am alone in observing that 90% of players deny that their partner hesitated in an auction in which they clearly took full advantage of the illicit information so conveyed. Some outright lie…oh…there was no hesitation….while most simply say ‘ I didn’t notice anything’…..no matter how long the BIT was

[mikl_plkcc]

 mikeh, on 2025-May-31, 14:51, said:

If the facts alleged are correct, then imo the director erred. An alertable bid was not alerted. It was announced and players familiar with the relevant rules would assume that the opps played a natural 2C opening, making 3C takeout of some kind, presumably majors.

It’s not at all as if 2C had been met with no statement from responder. In my experience almost nobody in NA alerts or announces 2C except for ethical big club players or others who use 2C in unorthodox fashion (eg weak in diamonds or strong and artificial).

It was not an omission or failure to do that which the rules required…it was a positive misdescription of the meaning of the bid. It’s as if the partnership played Flannery 2D and it was announced as a weak two bid.

Yes, the OP could have and, imo, definitely should have asked. So too should the 3C bidder. But neither should have to ask. Ironically, if a player makes a mistake that violates a rule, he or she can’t escape the consequences by claiming ignorance of the rule. Why? Because enforcement of the rules can’t be contingent on whether the offender plausibly claims ignorance….we have a lot of lying going on already, imo, when a TD is called*. We don’t need to encourage more. So the principle is that everyone is assumed to know the rules.

So the TD here ignored that presumption….given that ‘everyone knows the rules’, the announcement was sufficient to tell the opps thst 2C was natural…..the damage was done. Again, if the announcement (and I assume it’s really an alert, but say a question was asked) was ‘Flannery’ do the opps have to protect themselves by, in essence, adding ‘are you sure’ or ‘ so 4=5 majors, limited opening?’, the latter just in case this pair thought Flannery meant something else. And it’s no good saying ‘look at your hand’. The first time I held 5=8 majors, my RHO had 4=5 and opened Flannery in front of me.

I’m not sufficiently familiar with the nuances but I don’t think assuming 3C was majors is trying for a double shot….if it was, great but if it wasn’t, you expect the director to give you a good board.

* I doubt I am alone in observing that 90% of players deny that their partner hesitated in an auction in which they clearly took full advantage of the illicit information so conveyed. Some outright lie…oh…there was no hesitation….while most simply say ‘ I didn’t notice anything’…..no matter how long the BIT was

If the same happened with my regular partner, where we have a written convention card saying that we uses Michaels, I would definitely appeal if the director erred about the ruling of the 2♣ opening.

The problematic board happened when I was playing with a guest coming from another country (Norway) and we had limited understanding on our methods, and both of us made a large number of bids throughout the whole evening in competitive auctions which were nonsensical and/or open to misinterpretation due to the limited understanding.

In American rules, an unalerted 2♣ opening means a strong hand, any hand shape, and a natural 2♣ opening must be alerted, but in English rules, a 2-level suit opening must be either alerted (artificial) or announced (natural).

[helene_t]

Shyams is right, of course. Even Mollo's Secretary Bird would would not get away with pretending to believe that the annoucement was correct.

People get the announcement rules wrong all the time. Everyone knows that while "strong" ought to mean "strong with long clubs", it always just means "strong".

If the same had happened with a 2♦ opening the discussion would have been more interesting.

[hrothgar]

helene_t, on 2025-June-01, 06:34, said:

People get the announcement rules wrong all the time. Everyone knows that while "strong" ought to mean "strong with long clubs", it always just means "strong".

So, in this case we have a visitor from Norway

Are they supposed to intuitively understand that no one in England follows the rules regarding announcements?
We also have a novice player with limited playing experience. Are they supposed to understand the rules that supposedly govern the game shouldn't be followed and, instead, he should do whatever he damn well pleases?

If the rules aren't being followed, then you have a fundamental problem

Addressing it is quite simple

Either change the rules or start enforcing them with penalties.

Penalizing players who are following them (and expect them to be followed) sees problematic

[mikeh]

helene_t, on 2025-June-01, 06:34, said:

Shyams is right, of course. Even Mollo's Secretary Bird would would not get away with pretending to believe that the annoucement was correct.

People get the announcement rules wrong all the time. Everyone knows that while "strong" ought to mean "strong with long clubs", it always just means "strong".

If the same had happened with a 2♦ opening the discussion would have been more interesting.

I’m not sure why you suggest that the OP was pretending to believe anything. Do you seriously argue that he bid to 4Sx down 6 despite believing that 3C was natural?

Now, if you want to argue that the OP ought to have protected himself by asking, which it seems the director thought, that’s a different issue and one that gets us into a pretty grey area, but that’s not the same as claiming that he knew that 2C was any strong hand. How do you explain the result?