kingfish

Thank you.

Sure artificial bids are essential. Artificial bids are inherently different from natural ones. I was just explaining that I see that difference. Artificial bids only work if partner knows what they mean. If they meant what they appear to be they wouldn't be artificial. I am not a newbie rejecting artificial bids, I'm just suggesting that DABs differ from reverses in their presumptive acceptance. I am positing that DABs are not "just part of the bidding" but something someone might not actually play. I agree that this is a situation where natural bidding is not getting the job done well. I don't disagree DABs can be helpful when you are stuck guessing stoppers, they can. Every convention has something it does to make some sticky situation less sticky. Much like avoiding bad slams where a convention helps a lot. Much like identifying shortage. However. conventions are not just like a major suit minimum raise, they have a coded intent and you can opt not to play them. I am trying to ascertain whether, in the presence of an extended partnership discussion of conventions where DABs did not come up and Western Cues were denied, I should just assume DABs are 'on.' I am not denying their value, just trying to find out if DABs are so universal that the cuebid shown will always be taken as a DAB and any exception is partner's mistake. It is obvious that some would take it as a Western Cue but they are close enough that it is almost semantics. But some would take it as diamond support (half of those I've asked) and some would take it as values with the next bid making that clearer. But if these people with other ideas about the meaning are JUST PLAIN WRONG then I can disregard their take. If it is plausible that DABs are not implicitly ON then they are NOT just plain wrong, exceptions might not be partner's mistake and I have to establish an explicit agreement with all partners on the matter. So far, everyone's tone implies that DABs can never be off but their evidence is that it is helpful. Lots of things people don't play are helpful. Exclusion Blackwood comes to mind and you'd NEVER touch that one without an explicit agreement. That is why I seem argumentative. I am trying to battle past the rabid defense of the convention to determine whether it is an explicit agreement thing or a take-it-for-granted kind of thing. The obscurity of the Eastern Cue stops me from taking it as indisputable proof that the convention must be explicitly agreed. The people who don't play a convention don't go around explaining the things they don't play (with the exceptions of Flannery and... wait for it... Western Cues - [there may be others]). So it is hard to find published thought detailing the not playing of DABs. Although this discussion is becoming labored, I am still open to being convinced that DABs are as universal as "playing reverses" however I am not close to being persuaded of that. Thanks to all for trying to help.

This doesn't seem right to me. A bid that constitutes a reverse shows your second suit, something you actually hold. It shows an escalation in the auction commensurate with your held values. You can figure out a reverse even if you've never heard of them because they are what they look like. That makes them "just part of the bidding." That's why they are not a convention and they don't go on your CC. A DAB is an artificial construct that departs from bidding your holdings and if partner isn't in on the secret, he might take it as showing a stopper (or other things related to his thinking in the absence of your thinking). I don't know much about DABs. I admit that. I can't criticize them but I see a major difference between them and reverses - bidding a reverse is telling the truth about your holdings while, just like stayman is a lie about clubs, bidding a DAB is lying about your holdings and hoping partner is in on the lie.

I don't play Western Cuebids. It's not on my CC so even if my bid looks like a Western Cuebid to you, you know it isn't that. I don't know much about DABs but it seems like if DAB isn't on my CC then 2♠ here isn't one even if you wish I played your CC. Splinters? On without discussion. Western Q? Definitely not. DABs? I don't think so. What do you think?

So you would say that 1♦-(1♠)-2♥-(P)-2♠ is NOT a hand worth forcing to game, probably with hearts, but possibly just a strong playing hand for diamonds?

Is it just assumed that everyone plays this? Like 1H-1S-2S which is just assumed to be support and limit+? This is standard, on in the absence of agreements?

What I can find on Directional Asking Bids is: 60% - DAB = Western Cue 30% - DAB is like a Western Cue variant that shows a half stopper instead of none 10% - DAB is a separate convention to be discussed with partner before assuming it's on The timing seems to imply they were once synonymous but regional, with the UK region moving to the half-stopper implication and thereby creating some difference between the terms. Is the above 100% wrong? Or does this convention not apply to the question?

At club matchpoints, the auction starts with Partner as dealer opens 1♦ RHO passes You bid 1♥ LHO bids 1♠ Partner bids 2♦ RHO passes You have 3 decent diamonds and 11 HCP, 12 evaluated You have no spade stopper. Assume you and partner do play cuebids as suit agreement/limit+ as is standard and normal. I am not defining standard nor normal here as that may be part of the issue in question. Assume you have no agreements for Western cues. Assume partner is advanced and thinks you are, too :) Otherwise, you have no history or agreements that come into play. Should you agree diamonds given the fit now known to you? If so, is 2♠ a cudbid agreeing diamonds and limit+ values? Should you ignore the diamond fit and assume partner knows you are bidding stoppers not fit seeking? If 2♠ is a stopper-oriented bid, is it asking or showing? Given that it was bid by opps, does that affect the meaning? Why is your answer correct and knowable? If your answer involves a convention please identify it. Thanks.

Just hoping to find out if most would skip stayman with a flat hand...