The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 |
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:53:23 -0800 (PST)
Local: Wed, Nov 7 2012 6:53 pm
Subject: Re: How many QT for an opening one bid?
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 2:43:34 PM UTC-8, derek wrote:
Right, I understand that your statement was conditional. But you then made an argument that started "If I conceded that your interpretation might be right in some cases" but then made an argument that contradicted the premise.
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 4:46:55 PM UTC-4, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Ummm, if you say that it's a conventional opening and it therefore has to be alerted, then you haven't conceded my interpretation.
> Well, I didn't say I _would_ concede it, but let's try "if I conceded that it might be right in some cases..."
> > The whole point is that there are some conventional openings that are announced, not alerted. (And that shouldn't seem strange since there are other conventional bids that are announced and not alerted, such as transfers.) Of course a 1D opening that can be on a void in this situation is conventional. I've never argued otherwise. As for whether it's a "short opening", it may not look like any short opening you're used to (MPP isn't all that popular a system), but the alert rules don't define the term "short opening" nor do they need to.
They don't use the term "short opening" so they don't need to define it. You used it, not the ACBL. The ACBL defines the criteria for when the announcement "may be short" must be made, and a MPP 1D opening meets this criteria. If you want to argue that this is a definition of a "short opening", then the MPP 1D becomes a "short opening" by this definition, and your insistence that it isn't a short opening is not based on anything other than your own opinion of what the term should mean.
> Of _course_ they need to, or we wouldn't be having this debate.
> Meanwhile, I'll rule that opening either minor on a void requires an alert until told otherwise by the ACBL.
You've already been told otherwise, by the ACBL Alert Procedures. The meaning is clear, as long as we assume that the list given around "ALMOST ALL CONVENTIONS MUST BE ALERTED" is not necessarily an exhaustive list, and if it states somewhere that some other convention isn't alertable, then it isn't.
-- Adam You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||