[lamford]

WellSpyder, on 2017-October-17, 10:27, said:

So does 2N - 2♦ specify diamonds or hearts?

The relevant law does not say "shown" and we have the definitions to help us:
Denomination the suit or no trump specified in a bid.

So diamonds is the denomination for the purpose of 27B1(a). However for 27B1(b) the "meaning attributable to 2♦" may well not be diamonds. I think the TD just explains "comparable call" to the player, and reads out the relevant laws and then lets the player make a comparable call. Only the IBer knows what meaning was attributable to 2♦. At the end of the hand he then has to investigate whether the call was comparable and then apply 23C if necessary. I suppose he should read out Laws 27B1(b), 30B1(b)(i), 31A2(a) and 32A2(a) as well, so that the player has full information but by then the two players will have left to get the last tube. I don't think the new law is very "club friendly" if the playing director is tied up for 3 or 4 minutes.

[WellSpyder]

lamford, on 2017-October-18, 06:11, said:

The relevant law does not say "shown" and we have the definitions to help us:
Denomination the suit or no trump specified in a bid.

So diamonds is the denomination for the purpose of 27B1(a).

That seems reasonable to me. But it doesn't seem to be the interpretation of "specified" that has been adopted by others who have commented in this thread. It is also arguably inconsistent with the wording of 27B1(a), which refers to the "lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call". How could the withdrawn call ever specify more than one denomination if it is meant in the way that you have interpreted it?

[weejonnie]

lamford, on 2017-October-18, 05:55, said:

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. In the example you quote above the opening bidder knows that the responder seems to have 5-10 points, and has elected not to replace 1NT with Pass silencing his partner. What else can he have but a balanced 9-10 count with a club stop? If the opener bids 3NT and makes it, then "without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different" and the same applies if opener elects to pass and 2NT is a good result. For all practical purposes the replacement call has to be a comparable call, and that is how it should be.

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.

[barmar]

I think Law 29C makes it clear that the denomination specified is the one that's shown, not the one named in the bid:

Quote

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.

And Law 18 uses the word "designate" to refer to the number and demonination in the bid.

[lamford]

WellSpyder, on 2017-October-18, 07:14, said:

That seems reasonable to me. But it doesn't seem to be the interpretation of "specified" that has been adopted by others who have commented in this thread. It is also arguably inconsistent with the wording of 27B1(a), which refers to the "lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call". How could the withdrawn call ever specify more than one denomination if it is meant in the way that you have interpreted it?

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?

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2017-October-18, 09:17, said:

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]

lamford, on 2017-October-18, 11:28, said:

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]

pran, on 2017-October-18, 12:47, said:

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]

lamford, on 2017-October-18, 13:18, said:

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:

Definition of Bid said:

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

Definition of Contract said:

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)

Definition of Denomination said:

the suit or no trump specified in a bid.

Definition of Trump said:

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

Law 23A said:

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]

pran, on 2017-October-18, 14:45, said:

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]

lamford, on 2017-October-18, 05:55, said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2017-October-18, 19:42, said:

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:

Law 27B1 said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2017-October-18, 19:42, said:

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]

lamford, on 2017-October-19, 07:47, said:

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]

lamford, on 2017-October-18, 11:28, said:

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]

lamford, on 2017-October-18, 13:18, said:

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]

pran, on 2017-October-19, 09:30, said:

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:

Quote

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.