Another IB

[weejonnie]

So is the general concensus that e.g. a Blackwood 4NT does not specify any denomination?

 

Law 18

 

A. Proper Form

 

A bid designates a number of odd tricks (tricks in excess of six), from one to seven, and a denomination. (Pass, double and redouble are calls but not bids.)

 

Note the word is 'designates', not 'specifies' - which is lucky otherwise you could never make an asking/ relay/ conventional bid that does not specify a denomination. It would seem to me that if the IB does not specify any denomination e.g. a precision club then the lowest call that doesn't specify any denomination would be acceptable. Thus if you made an insufficient call of 3♣ after e.g. 2NT - 3♥ 3♣, then you could replace it with 4NT (if you have no other bids in between that did not specify any denomination) even if the purpose of the call is different.

----

 

"“Or else it doesn't, you know. The name of the song is called ‘Haddocks' Eyes.’”

 

“Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?" Alice said, trying to feel interested.

 

“No, you don't understand,” the Knight said, looking a little vexed. “That's what the name is called. The name really is ‘The Aged Aged Man.’”

 

“Then I ought to have said ‘That's what the song is called’?” Alice corrected herself.

 

“No, you oughtn't: that's quite another thing! The song is called ‘Ways And Means’: but that's only what it's called, you know!”

 

“Well, what is the song, then?” said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.

 

“I was coming to that,” the Knight said. “The song really is ‘A-sitting On A Gate’: and the tune's my own invention.”

[WellSpyder]

I confess I am now utterly bewildered. An IB doesn't specify anything, anyway, if we interpret this as what it shows rather than what it designates, since it is surely illegal to have an agreement about what an IB shows.

[weejonnie]

I confess I am now utterly bewildered. An IB doesn't specify anything, anyway, if we interpret this as what it shows rather than what it designates, since it is surely illegal to have an agreement about what an IB shows.

It would not be illegal per se BUT any information from a withdrawn IB is UI for the OS - so couldn't be used.

 

It is perfectly reasonable for the TD to try and find out what the IB would have meant had it been made in the circumstances the IB player thought existed when making the IB. The TD then allows the player to make a sufficient bid/ call to convey the same information without penalty. (This is abridged - everyone here knows what I mean - just skipping the formalities). If he can't do so then he should make a call that would be in the side's best interests, knowing partner will be silenced. The TD should offer guidance as to whether the replacement call will be accepted by him as a call that allows the auction to proceed normally.

[WellSpyder]

It is perfectly reasonable for the TD to try and find out what the IB would have meant had it been made in the circumstances the IB player thought existed when making the IB. The TD then allows the player to make a sufficient bid/ call to convey the same information without penalty. (This is abridged - everyone here knows what I mean - just skipping the formalities).

They do? Are you explaining 27B1(b) (which I think I more or less understand) or 27B1(a) (which is what I am struggling with at the moment)?

 

(I wonder, actually, why we even need 27B1(a) when we have 27B1(b), but that is a discussion to be had in another 10 years' time, I guess.)

[gordontd]

They do? Are you explaining 27B1(b) (which I think I more or less understand) or 27B1(a) (which is what I am struggling with at the moment)?

 

(I wonder, actually, why we even need 27B1(a) when we have 27B1(b), but that is a discussion to be had in another 10 years' time, I guess.)

27B1a allows a correction of a call that is not comparable with the lowest call that specifies the same denomination. The example I have mentioned before, which comes to my mind first, is something like 1S-(2H)-1NT corrected to 2NT.

[WellSpyder]

27B1a allows a correction with a call that is not comparable with the lowest call that specifies the same denomination.

I don't actually understand why we would want to allow that! But I recognise that we have to use the law as it is.

[lamford]

27B1a allows a correction with a call that is not comparable with the lowest call that specifies the same denomination. The example I mentioned before that first comes to my mind is something like 1S-(2H)-1NT corrected to 2NT.

Is it necessary for 1NT to have been natural, and for 2NT to be natural? Many play that 1NT is artificial and forcing for 1R, and many more play that 2NT is a four-card spade raise. Where do you, or the EBU, stand on which denomination is "specified" in such cases, please?

- Confused of Tunbridge Wells

[pran]

I don't actually understand why we would want to allow that! But I recognise that we have to use the law as it is.

Law 27B1(a) is a law that has existed essentially unchanged at least since 1932.

 

It has always been a simple and easily understood law with no real reason for being discontinued.

[WellSpyder]

Law 27B1(a) is a law that has existed essentially unchanged at least since 1932.

 

It has always been a simple and easily understood law with no real reason for being discontinued.

Except that it really isn't easily understood, is it? I'm not just trying to be awkward in saying that I don't really know whether there is an agreed and non-controversial interpretation of "specified" as "shown" or as "named".

 

I do realise that something like this law has always been with us. But my assumption was that it long pre-dated anything like 27B1(b) or the precursor of that law. Now that we have the concept of a comparable call, it seems to me more logical only to allow a replacement without penalty if there is a comparable call, not in addition when there is a call that specifies the same denomination but isn't comparable - though I am, of course, not trying to get the laws changed at this moment in time.

[barmar]

Except that it really isn't easily understood, is it? I'm not just trying to be awkward in saying that I don't really know whether there is an agreed and non-controversial interpretation of "specified" as "shown" or as "named".

 

I do realise that something like this law has always been with us. But my assumption was that it long pre-dated anything like 27B1(b) or the precursor of that law. Now that we have the concept of a comparable call, it seems to me more logical only to allow a replacement without penalty if there is a comparable call, not in addition when there is a call that specifies the same denomination but isn't comparable - though I am, of course, not trying to get the laws changed at this moment in time.

I think I explained what I think the rationale is earlier. If the replacement specifies the same denomination as the IB, but it's not actually a comparable call, the only difference would presumably be the strength shown. And for whatever reason, the Lawmakers have always considered this to be a small enough difference to allow the replacement.

[barmar]

I confess I am now utterly bewildered. An IB doesn't specify anything, anyway, if we interpret this as what it shows rather than what it designates, since it is surely illegal to have an agreement about what an IB shows.

What's obviously meant is what it would have specified had it been sufficient (either because the preceding bids were at a lower level or if they'd bid the same denomination at a sufficient level).

[pran]

Except that it really isn't easily understood, is it? I'm not just trying to be awkward in saying that I don't really know whether there is an agreed and non-controversial interpretation of "specified" as "shown" or as "named".

 

I do realise that something like this law has always been with us. But my assumption was that it long pre-dated anything like 27B1(b) or the precursor of that law. Now that we have the concept of a comparable call, it seems to me more logical only to allow a replacement without penalty if there is a comparable call, not in addition when there is a call that specifies the same denomination but isn't comparable - though I am, of course, not trying to get the laws changed at this moment in time.

The understanding of Law 27B1(a) has never been questioned among qualified directors until the creation of "comparable" calls (in the 2017 Law 23). At the same time a restriction in Law 27B1(a) that it applied only to non-artificial calls was removed.

 

I find it surprising that WBFLC failed to introduce a clause similar to

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.

if the intention was to have a similar understanding of Law 27B1(a) in the new laws.

 

And if such a change in the understanding of Law 27B1(a) was really intended then why not just delete the entire Law 27B1(a)? Any situation covered by this law would then also be completely covered by the new Law 27B1(b).

[WellSpyder]

What's obviously meant is what it would have specified had it been sufficient (either because the preceding bids were at a lower level or if they'd bid the same denomination at a sufficient level).

And if the "either" and "or" parts of your parenthetical explanation give different answers as to what would have been specified then we are back to trying to read the mind of the insufficient bidder, are we (with their help, of course)?

[WellSpyder]

At the same time a restriction in Law 27B1(a) that it applied only to non-artificial calls was removed.

I guess that is exactly why this is now more difficult, isn't it? When we had the condition that the IB and the same denomination made sufficient were incontrovertibly not artificial, then there was no difference between the denomination shown and the denomination named anyway, so it wouldn't have mattered how we interpreted "specified".

[barmar]

And if the "either" and "or" parts of your parenthetical explanation give different answers as to what would have been specified then we are back to trying to read the mind of the insufficient bidder, are we (with their help, of course)?

As has been mentioned several times before (maybe in a different thread), we don't need to do this. We don't have to determine which case actually occurred, just whether the replacement specifies the same denomination as, or is comparable with, one of them. The IBer's partner doesn't know which situation occurred, either, so little UI is passed from the initial IB.

 

The point of this whole thing is to try to get as close as possible to what would have happened without the IB. We just don't want the IBer replacing it with something completely different from what was originally intended. For instance, if the replacement call would put them at a level higher than they were comfortable, so they replace it with a Pass, it bars partner; if he actually had enough strength to force to game, they'll miss it as a result. Conversely, if this ends up being the only way they could stop at a low level and make their contract, the TD can adjust because it damaged the opponents.

[WellSpyder]

As has been mentioned several times before (maybe in a different thread), we don't need to do this. We don't have to determine which case actually occurred, just whether the replacement specifies the same denomination as, or is comparable with, one of them. The IBer's partner doesn't know which situation occurred, either, so little UI is passed from the initial IB.

Oh! I understood - and, indeed, I thought I championed - this approach with regard to 27B1(b). But I hadn't realised that a similar approach was being suggested for 27B1(a). So "specified" doesn't really mean "shown" or "named", but actually means "might have been intended to be shown"?

[pran]

I guess that is exactly why this is now more difficult, isn't it? When we had the condition that the IB and the same denomination made sufficient were incontrovertibly not artificial, then there was no difference between the denomination shown and the denomination named anyway, so it wouldn't have mattered how we interpreted "specified".

Except for the difficulty in defining whether a call is artificial or not.

Law 27B1(a) is now a simple law to use because it no longer bothers about the meaning of a call, only about the actual words used in that call.

 

Remember that back in the thirties artificial calls were a rarity (except for 4NT).

[gordontd]

Oh! I understood - and, indeed, I thought I championed - this approach with regard to 27B1(b). But I hadn't realised that a similar approach was being suggested for 27B1(a). So "specified" doesn't really mean "shown" or "named", but actually means "might have been intended to be shown"?

No, I don't think so: I think 27B1a is quite different from 23A1 arrived at via 27B1b.

 

It's probably also worth saying that "same or similar" in 23A1 does not apply to 23A2 or 23A3

[WellSpyder]

It has always been a simple and easily understood law with no real reason for being discontinued.

Law 27B1(a) is now a simple law to use because it no longer bothers about the meaning of a call, only about the actual words used in that call.

I agree that that would make it simple. But you do realise that this interpretation puts you at odds with most of the other authorities who have commented, don't you? I don't think it is fair to describe something as easily understood just because you think it is easy for you to understand, when your easy reading of it is completely at odds with the reading of other intelligent TDs.

 

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.

+1

[pran]

I agree that that would make it simple. But you do realise that this interpretation puts you at odds with most of the other authorities who have commented, don't you? I don't think it is fair to describe something as easily understood just because you think it is easy for you to understand, when your easy reading of it is completely at odds with the reading of other intelligent TDs.

I shall be most interested in learning how the understanding of "other intelligent TDs" can leave Law 27B1(a) relevant and not made completely superfluous by Law 27B1(b)?

 

A specific example anyone?

[VixTD]

The understanding of Law 27B1(a) has never been questioned among qualified directors until the creation of "comparable" calls (in the 2017 Law 23).

This isn't true. I started directing at my university club in 1986 (no one else wanted to take on the role of TD) and I found myself having to decide whether an insufficient bid and its replacement were both "incontrovertibly not conventional" (if I remember the 1976 laws correctly). I was so confused about how I was supposed to divine the meaning of an insufficient bid that I wrote to the chairman of the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee for advice. Grattan Endicott kindly replied, and from what I remember his advice was to consider something similar to what are now described as "attributable" meanings; i.e. think what offender might have meant without indulging in flights of fancy.

 

We departed from this briefly in the 2007 laws when we took offender away to ask their intention (this was never written into the laws, it was just advice for interpreting it), and we're now back to possible attributable meanings.

[pran]

Can anybody present a situation where Law 27B1(a) is applicable with the understanding that it is the denomination (or denominations) indicated (not literally specified) that is important, and where Law 27B1(b) cannot be applied?

[lamford]

This isn't true. I started directing at my university club in 1986 (no one else wanted to take on the role of TD) and I found myself having to decide whether an insufficient bid and its replacement were both "incontrovertibly not conventional" (if I remember the 1976 laws correctly). I was so confused about how I was supposed to divine the meaning of an insufficient bid that I wrote to the chairman of the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee for advice. Grattan Endicott kindly replied, and from what I remember his advice was to consider something similar to what are now described as "attributable" meanings; i.e. think what offender might have meant without indulging in flights of fancy.

 

We departed from this briefly in the 2007 laws when we took offender away to ask their intention (this was never written into the laws, it was just advice for interpreting it), and we're now back to possible attributable meanings.

In 1997 27B1a said:

If both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted are incontrovertibly not conventional and if the bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination, the auction proceeds as though the irregularity had not occurred (Law 16C2 does not apply to this situation, but see (b) following).

 

In 2007 it was:

1. (a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination and in the Director’s opinion both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16D does not apply but see D following.

 

In 2017 it says

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.

 

So, it is interesting that the changes have been to relax the requirement to not be artificial. "Convention" was defined in the 1997 laws, and that definition was dropped in 2007 and "artificial" was defined there, with similar meaning. There are two possibilities now, probably equally likely.

 

a) The Lawmakers intend to allow a "miss" by a level (or more) to be corrected by a call in the same denomination regardless of whether the bid was conventional or artificial. A bid can therefore always be corrected to the minimum level regardless of meaning.

 

b) The Lawmakers also require the suits shown by both bids to be the same in 27B1a for a minimum correction to be allowed. In one example, therefore, 1H-(2D)-1NT, the TD would tell the player that he can change this to 2NT if both 1NT and 2NT "showed" no trump. He would also be able to change 1NT to a comparable call if there was one in his methods. If the pair were using the Kaplan interchange, then he would only be able to change it to 2NT if that "showed" spades, regardless of whether he had just missed by a level. He could still make a comparable call, of course.

 

Unless we know which of a) or b) is to be applied, we cannot rule on any insufficient bid. The principle of being more relaxed about errors leading to insufficient bids suggests to me that a) should be applied.

[barmar]

Can anybody present a situation where Law 27B1(a) is applicable with the understanding that it is the denomination (or denominations) indicated (not literally specified) that is important, and where Law 27B1(b) cannot be applied?

27B1(a) only deals with the denomination specified, not hand strength. So if the IB shows hearts and 6-10 HCP, and the replacement shows hearts and 11+ HCP, they would not be comparable, so 27B1(b) cannot be applied. But 27B1(a) still fits.

 

Why is this allowed? Perhaps because in many cases this is likely to result in the offending side getting too high, so the opponents won't be damaged.

[pran]

Can anybody present a situation where Law 27B1(a) is applicable with the understanding that it is the denomination (or denominations) indicated (not literally specified) that is important, and where Law 27B1(b) cannot be applied?

27B1(a) only deals with the denomination specified, not hand strength. So if the IB shows hearts and 6-10 HCP, and the replacement shows hearts and 11+ HCP, they would not be comparable, so 27B1(b) cannot be applied. But 27B1(a) still fits.

 

Why is this allowed? Perhaps because in many cases this is likely to result in the offending side getting too high, so the opponents won't be damaged.

Then please present a real auction (not only the two bids in question) with your example, i.e. the named denomination in both bids shall be the same and different from hearts.