Oof Arted Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 1C is not an opening of one of a suit.In that case, I would recommend changing the wording of the regulation to "a natural opening bid of one of a suit" or the like. Clubs are definitely a suit, so 1♣ is an opening of one of a suit, Precision or not. It is necessary to follow this path when making a ruling, regardless what was intended by the regulation-makers. As was stated in a recent thread here, we cannot know whether the entire board of regulation-makers thought they agreed to a meaning other than the meaning actually implied by the wording, so should assume that they meant what they wrote. :) However it is not an opening bid of a 'suit' it is a convention therefore not a Natural suit :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 The regulation that permits you to play a strong 1♣ appears under the heading "One of a Suit Opening Bids". So, unless the terminology changes from one page of the Orange Book to the next, "one of a suit" includes all 1♣ openings, regardless of meaning. I would recommend changing the wording of the regulation to "a natural opening bid of one of a suit" or the likeThat wouldn't cover a 1♠ response to a Precision 1♦. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duschek Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 I would recommend changing the wording of the regulation to "a natural opening bid of one of a suit" or the likeThat wouldn't cover a 1♠ response to a Precision 1♦.OK, so I will have to generalise. I would recommend changing the wording of the regulation to whatever reflects the desired meaning :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 However it is not an opening bid of a 'suit' it is a convention therefore not a Natural suit A bid names a denomination. That denomination is either NT, or it's a suit. Therefore a bid is either "of NT" or "of a suit". If the denomination named is a suit, then it's a bid "of a suit", artificial or not. Gnasher's point is even better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 As more and more people become familiar with artificial openings and their responses, the term "unexpected" gets blury.1M/1C carries two messages --suit length, and HCP: both being other than what might be expected if 1C were not artificial. In ACBL, I get alerted to this on a regular basis and am grateful for the reminder. This is a first round action, and no forcing club partnership is going to be giving themselves any UI by alerting it, so I believe it should be alerted --whether someone can find an excuse in the LAWS not to or not. Disagree that over-alerting is ok when it applies to later rounds where UI is more likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 Disagree that over-alerting is ok when it applies to later rounds where UI is more likely. You can disagree all you like - argue it with the ACBL, since that's what their regulation says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted November 22, 2009 Report Share Posted November 22, 2009 Disagree that over-alerting is ok when it applies to later rounds where UI is more likely. You can disagree all you like - argue it with the ACBL, since that's what their regulation says.Glad I am free to disagree whether something is ok. I didn't say I would expect a ruling for over-alerting, ever. Just don't like it in later auctions, and felt it "ok" to express same on the forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.