[blml] The term "cue"

[Alain Gottcheiner]

At 16:22 27/06/2006 -0400, Eric Landau wrote:

>>One of San Diego's top players recently explained his partner's
>>unAlerted simple raise of a weak two bid as "non-forcing" when my
>>partner was considering a balancing 3S bid. Partner passed when
>>given this explanation, which should have been something like "That
>>is a drop-dead bid which I must pass."
>
>That's not a misexplanation; that's an outright evasion, no better than a 
>flat refusal to answer the question.  Does this so-called "top player" 
>really know of any partnership anywhere in the world that plays a single 
>raise of a weak two-bid as *forcing*?  I'd be very surprised, to say the least.
>
>But I'll bet this "top player" could cite chapter and verse as to why his 
>non-explanation was not a violation of this or that law.

There is something odd in that case.

Either said partner asked about a non-alerted bid whose classical meaning 
(shut out) is well known ; why on Earth would he do that ?
Either he didn't, and there was a wrong information voluntary offered ; 
that's a severe offence, and it won't be that difficult to obtain redress 
for that.

Could Marvin tell us a little more about the case ?

Regards

     Alain