[jeremy69]

Quote

They're alertable in England for the same reason [OB 5G2{c}{6}].

I don't think 1C(Strong) -1S (Natural and FG) is alertable in England on the basis of the above quoted bit of the Orange Book. It refers to a new suit being forcing to game in response to an opening bid of one of a suit. 1S is not a new suit. It is the first suit bid. 1C is not an opening of one of a suit. It is an artificial noise.

[blackshoe]

Oh, boy. That's an interpretation that didn't occur to me. I wonder how many unfortunate results of the Law of Unintended Consequences we can generate from it.

IAC, while I agree with "artificial" wrt to 1♣, i cannot agree with "noise". Noise does not convey information, 1♣ does.

That part of the OB does not say, afaics, that the opening bid in such sequences must be natural.

[bluejak]

No, it does not, it just seems obvious. What is more, Jeremy and I are in agreement, and that is rare enough!

[Mbodell]

awm, on Nov 19 2009, 10:42 AM, said:

Maybe a clearer example than duschek's:

2♣-P-3♣.

Sure, or there is the auction 2♦-P-2♥. In standard unalerted ACBL the 2♦ was natural and weak and the 2♥ was natural and forcing. If the 2♥ is not forcing it requires an alert. If 2♦ is either a precision 3-suiter short in diamonds or some flavor of mini-roman the 2♥ would be expected to be not forcing. But again I tend to alert the 2♥ bids anyways here on the assumption that my call doesn't mean what it would in the ACBL standard, and it might be surprising to someone that this was non-forcing.

The problem, as blackshoe points out, is that opponents aren't supposed to have to know your agreements or system and aren't supposed to have to figure out, wait, over a precision 2♣ is 3♣ forcing or not.

In addition, you create a problem where if your partner forgot to alert your initial bid (2♣ say) the lack of alert of his 3♣ is going to further disadvantage your opponents. So surely you need to alert it if partner forgot to alert your 2♣. But it is very weird to me that whether you alert a bid or not depends on if partner remembered to alert a previous bid or not.

I must admit that I too would read 5G2c6 the way blackshoe did, just based on the English text.

[duschek]

jeremy69, on Nov 19 2009, 06:20 PM, said:

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.

[Oof Arted]

duschek, on Nov 20 2009, 02:32 AM, said:

jeremy69, on Nov 19 2009, 06:20 PM, said:

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

[gnasher]

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.

Quote

I would recommend changing the wording of the regulation to "a natural opening bid of one of a suit" or the like

That wouldn't cover a 1♠ response to a Precision 1♦.

[duschek]

gnasher, on Nov 20 2009, 04:21 AM, said:

Quote

I would recommend changing the wording of the regulation to "a natural opening bid of one of a suit" or the like

That 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

[blackshoe]

Oof Arted, on Nov 20 2009, 03:47 AM, said:

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.

[aguahombre]

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.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on Nov 20 2009, 11:44 AM, said:

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.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on Nov 20 2009, 02:55 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Nov 20 2009, 11:44 AM, said:

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.