Another IB

[lamford]

Not necessarily - if the person making the 1NT call would have bid e.g. 2 Diamonds had there not been a 2 Club overcall (but can't now without silencing partner as it isn't a comparable call or a 27B1(a) adjustment) and this would have definitely resulted in the same contract then there is no damage.

If he would have bid 2♦ had there not been a 2♣ overcall then why did he bid 1NT when there was? Your scenario does not seem plausible. The chances of it "definitely" resulting in the same contract are also miniscule. He might have intended to open 1NT, but even then he would likely run into a 23C adjustment if he now bid 2NT.

[pran]

I agree that the "(s)" makes no sense according to the definitions as a call can only specify one denomination. But there are plenty of other inconsistencies in the laws, and an unnecessary "(s)" should not change the definitions! I think that the intention is that "specified" should read "shown" in several places, particularly, as Barmar points. out Law 29C. I don't know why they use "specified" rather than "shown".

 

Which denomination do you (and Barmar) think is specified when someone opens a forcing 1NT? or a strong club? Is there not one at all?

The (s) certainly makes sense: There are agreements about calls that designate two denominations, e.g. "both minors".

[lamford]

The (s) certainly makes sense: There are agreements about calls that designate two denominations, e.g. "both minors".

Indeed. You could argue that 1S-(2NT) "specifies" both minors, but "shows" would be the normal phrase. What does "specify" mean in the definition of denomination:?

 

Denomination: the suit or no trump specified in a bid.

 

That does not have "suit(s) specified in a bid", which would be needed for your interpretation of "denomination". Therefore the suit "specified" in a bid is the one that there is a picture of on the bidding card, or the "NT" that is shown thereon. The suit(s) "shown" by a bid may well be different from that specified.

[pran]

Indeed. You could argue that 1S-(2NT) "specifies" both minors, but "shows" would be the normal phrase. What does "specify" mean in the definition of denomination:?

 

Denomination: the suit or no trump specified in a bid.

 

That does not have "suit(s) specified in a bid", which would be needed for your interpretation of "denomination". Therefore the suit "specified" in a bid is the one that there is a picture of on the bidding card, or the "NT" that is shown thereon. The suit(s) "shown" by a bid may well be different from that specified.

Sorry for being imprecise, I should not have used any of the verbs "define", "designate", "name", "show" or "specify", they all have equivalent definitions related to the actual denomination in question:

"an undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks (tricks in excess of six) in a specified denomination.

the undertaking by declarer’s side to win, at the denomination named, the number of odd tricks specified in the final bid, whether undoubled, doubled or redoubled. (See Law 22)

the suit or no trump specified in a bid.

each card of the denomination named in a suit contract.

Law 46 consistently uses the verb designate when referring to a denomination.

 

and finally we have

A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call, if it:

1. has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call, or

2. defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call, or

3. has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the withdrawn call.

 

So the correct characteristic related to comparable calls is the meaning or purpose of the call, not (for instance) the denomination involved.

[lamford]

So the correct characteristic related to comparable calls is the meaning or purpose of the call, not (for instance) the denomination involved.

I agree with you on "comparable calls". The meaning (or attributed meaning) is the deciding factor. However, for the purpose of 27b1(a), I cannot agree. That states: "if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call". "Specified" is not defined in the definitions. If they had meant "shown" or "named" they would have used it.

[blackshoe]

I completely agree that this is not a comparable call, but it does comply with 27B1(a). However, whenever the call chosen is not a comparable call, the TD can, nay should, invariably award an adjusted score.

So when the IBer makes a call compliant with 27B1{a}, the director should nevertheless adjust the score under 27B1{b} if the original and the substitute call are not comparable? I must have misunderstood you.

[pran]

So when the IBer makes a call compliant with 27B1{a}, the director should nevertheless adjust the score under 27B1{b} if the original and the substitute call are not comparable? I must have misunderstood you.

I don't think so:

1. (a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call, the auction proceeds without further rectification. Laws 26B and 16C do not apply but see D following.

(b) except as in (a), if the insufficient bid is corrected with a comparable call (see Law 23A) the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16C does not apply but see D following.

(my enhancement)

 

so Law 27b1b never applies when the replacement call specifies (aka defines, designates, names or shows) the same denomination as the insufficient bid.

 

Note however Law 27D which makes the question of comparable call irrrelevant when Law 27B1a is applicable.

[nige1]

When will rule-makers admit that Bridge-rules are unnecessarily sophisticated and do something about it? In the interests of a fair game, Bridge rules should all be simple enough for players to understand and for directors to enforce consistently.

[lamford]

So when the IBer makes a call compliant with 27B1{a}, the director should nevertheless adjust the score under 27B1{b} if the original and the substitute call are not comparable? I must have misunderstood you.

He adjusts under 27D or 23C when the contract might well have been different without the assistance of the insufficient bid. So, in effect, there is always a requirement to make a comparable call, as otherwise you are giving additional information. In gordontd's example 1H-(2C)-1NT changed to 2NT, that gives extra information and is a target for a 23C adjustment. In the example 2NT-(Pass)-2D, changed to 3D, if both are deemed to have an attributable meaning of hearts, there is no "assistance from the IB".

[pran]

He adjusts under 23C when the contract might well have been different without the assistance of the insufficient bid. So, in effect, there is always a requirement to make a comparable call, as otherwise you are giving additional information. In gordontd's example 1H-(2C)-1NT changed to 2NT, that gives extra information and is a target for a 23C adjustment. In the example 2NT-(Pass)-2D, changed to 3D, if both are deemed to have an attributable meaning of hearts, there is no "assistance from the IB".

Law 23 never applies after a rectification under Law 27B1{a}, instead the Director shall use Law 27D in such situations!

 

edit: I notice that lamford changed his entry (by adding a reference to 27D) after I prepared my comment.

 

This change is immaterial - a fact that a replacing call made under Law 27B1{a} is not comparable to the insufficient bid is itself never a reason for adjusting a score. Law 23 is never relevant when Law 27B1{a} has been applied, and an adjustment may only be made if the non-offending side has been damaged from the irregularity. .

[barmar]

I don't know why they use "specified" rather than "shown".

The best guess I could come up with is that they didn't want to confuse it with the use of the word to mean that you let other players see your cards.

 

Also, words like "specify" and "designate" sound more sophisticated and "legalese".

[barmar]

Indeed. You could argue that 1S-(2NT) "specifies" both minors, but "shows" would be the normal phrase. What does "specify" mean in the definition of denomination:?

 

Denomination: the suit or no trump specified in a bid.

 

That does not have "suit(s) specified in a bid", which would be needed for your interpretation of "denomination". Therefore the suit "specified" in a bid is the one that there is a picture of on the bidding card, or the "NT" that is shown thereon. The suit(s) "shown" by a bid may well be different from that specified.

The word being defined is singular, so the definition describes a single thing. In a particular context you can write "denomination(s)" if multiple suits are possible.

[pran]

The laws do not distinguish between verbs "define", "designate", "name", "show" or "specify", they all have (more or less) equivalent definitions related to the actual denomination in question.

 

The laws do however clearly distinguish by using the noun "meaning" when referring to the understanding of a call rather than the actual denomination specified as part of a bid.

[lamford]

The laws do not distinguish between verbs "define", "designate", "name", "show" or "specify", they all have (more or less) equivalent definitions related to the actual denomination in question.

I think they do, or at least try to do so; as Barmar quoted:

If a call out of rotation is artificial, the provisions of Laws 30, 31 and 32 apply to the denomination(s) specified, rather than the denomination named.

"named" must surely mean the denomination on the bidding card, and "specified" seems to mean the suit that is shown, or perhaps no trump. My view is that

a) with a two-suited call, two denominations are specified

b) with something like 1♠ in a Kaplan interchange, no trump is specified

c) with many artificial bids, such a strong club, no suit is specified

[barmar]

I think the confusion may be due to the fact that the clause about specifying the same denomination is distinct from the clause about comparable calls. Isn't a call that specifies the same denomination also inherently comparable?

 

The difference seems to be that a CC also needs to specify the same (23A1) or more restrictive (23A2) strength. But the clause that allows replacing an IB with a call that specifies the same denomination has no such requirement. So if you show the same denomination, we don't bar partner if the replacement bid sounds stronger than the original bid. E.g. 1X (2Y) 1NT can be corrected to 2NT.

 

27D still allows for adjusting the score if such an auction allows the offender to get to a result they couldn't have achieved normally and the NOS are damaged.

[pran]

I think they do, or at least try to do so; as Barmar quoted:

 

"named" must surely mean the denomination on the bidding card, and "specified" seems to mean the suit that is shown, or perhaps no trump. My view is that

a) with a two-suited call, two denominations are specified

b) with something like 1♠ in a Kaplan interchange, no trump is specified

c) with many artificial bids, such a strong club, no suit is specified

Bid: an undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks (tricks in excess of six) in a specified denomination.

(my enhancements)

[barmar]

I'm not sure what your enhancement is intended to indicate. An artificial bid is a bid, but the number of tricks and the denomination it specifies is not necessarily the same as the number and denomination in the bid. For instance, Jacoby 2NT indicates the intent to take at least 10 tricks in opener's major, not 8 tricks in no trump.

[pran]

I'm not sure what your enhancement is intended to indicate. An artificial bid is a bid, but the number of tricks and the denomination it specifies is not necessarily the same as the number and denomination in the bid. For instance, Jacoby 2NT indicates the intent to take at least 10 tricks in opener's major, not 8 tricks in no trump.

You should be careful not to confuse intent or meaning of a call with the actual elements constituting that call.

 

Although the meaning of (or intention with) Jacoby is to indicate willingness to win 10 tricks in opener's major suit, the bid itself is (technically) still an offer to win 8 tricks in no trump.

 

The importance of this distinction is evident with Law 27B1(a). Unlike previous laws that law is no longer concerned with the meaning or purpose of an insufficient bid or its replacement call. The only thing that matters here is that the replacement bid must have (literally) the same denomination as the insufficient bid and that the replacement bid is made at the lowest (now) legal level, or the offender's partner must pass for the remainder of the auction.

 

The moment you want to involve the meaning or purpose of an insufficient bid in a ruling you must leave Law 27B1(a) and instead go to Law 27B1(b).

[axman]

You should be careful not to confuse intent or meaning of a call with the actual elements constituting that call.

 

Although the meaning of (or intention with) Jacoby is to indicate willingness to win 10 tricks in opener's major suit, the bid itself is (technically) still an offer to win 8 tricks in no trump.

 

The importance of this distinction is evident with Law 27B1(a). Unlike previous laws that law is no longer concerned with the meaning or purpose of an insufficient bid or its replacement call. The only thing that matters here is that the replacement bid must have (literally) the same denomination as the insufficient bid and that the replacement bid is made at the lowest (now) legal level, or the offender's partner must pass for the remainder of the auction.

 

The moment you want to involve the meaning or purpose of an insufficient bid in a ruling you must leave Law 27B1(a) and instead go to Law 27B1(b).

 

I would read 27B1a more closely: "...specifies the same denomination(S) as that specified by the withdrawn call,.."

 

if a single call specifies several denominationS it is not equivalent to say that it specifies but one denomination.

[Vampyr]

You should be careful not to confuse intent or meaning of a call with the actual elements constituting that call.

 

Although the meaning of (or intention with) Jacoby is to indicate willingness to win 10 tricks in opener's major suit, the bid itself is (technically) still an offer to win 8 tricks in no trump.

 

The importance of this distinction is evident with Law 27B1(a). Unlike previous laws that law is no longer concerned with the meaning or purpose of an insufficient bid or its replacement call. The only thing that matters here is that the replacement bid must have (literally) the same denomination as the insufficient bid and that the replacement bid is made at the lowest (now) legal level, or the offender's partner must pass for the remainder of the auction.

 

The moment you want to involve the meaning or purpose of an insufficient bid in a ruling you must leave Law 27B1(a) and instead go to Law 27B1(b).

 

This is weird. An isuffici nt Jacobs 2NT call cannot be replaced with 4NT intended as Blackwood, and no twisting of words will make this so,

[barmar]

You should be careful not to confuse intent or meaning of a call with the actual elements constituting that call.

 

Although the meaning of (or intention with) Jacoby is to indicate willingness to win 10 tricks in opener's major suit, the bid itself is (technically) still an offer to win 8 tricks in no trump.

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree regarding whether "specifies" means "shows" or "names".

[pran]

This is weird. An isuffici nt Jacobs 2NT call cannot be replaced with 4NT intended as Blackwood, and no twisting of words will make this so,

Sure it can under Law 27B1(a) (if 4 is the lowest level available for a notrump bid).

 

But the point is that in such a situation Law 27D will certainly kick in after play is completed and the score most likely be adjusted.

[lamford]

This is weird. An insufficient Jacoby 2NT call cannot be replaced with 4NT intended as Blackwood, and no twisting of words will make this so.

 

Sure it can under Law 27B1(a) (if 4 is the lowest level available for a notrump bid).

 

But the point is that in such a situation Law 27D will certainly kick in after play is completed and the score most likely be adjusted.

I agree with pran, if 2NT specifies no trump and if 4NT also specifies no trump, which I am convinced is the case according to the definitions. However, I think it is unlikely that 27D will apply. There is no likely "assistance" in preceding 4NT (RKCB) with an insufficient bid. The opener will just respond in the normal way. If 4NT might not be agreeing opener's first suit, however, say 1S-(4H)-4NT (instead of 2NT), where I bet that with many pairs it is undiscussed, then 27D may well apply.

[lamford]

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree regarding whether "specifies" means "shows" or "names".

Well, we also need to know how to rule and which it is leads to a different ruling under 27B1(a). Time for the WBFLC to issue an announcement I think.

[barmar]

Well, we also need to know how to rule and which it is leads to a different ruling under 27B1(a). Time for the WBFLC to issue an announcement I think.

I think I already know how to rule. I think the meaning of "denomination specified" is pretty clear, and I'll base my rulings on my understanding, although a statement from WBFLC couldn't hurt. And if their statement confirms your interpretation, I'll happily adjust.

 

Luckily I only direct at most 2-3 small club games a year, so even if I'm wrong I have practically no opportunities to make an incorrect ruling on this.