[lamford]

The hand is irrelevant, and it was 9 am in the YC Marathon after around 21 hours of bridge, but the principle was interesting. A pair bid, uncontested, 2NT-(Pass)-2C, which was just a sleep-derived error, not mechanical. The player changed it to 3C which was simple Stayman. I think the auction continued without the TD being called. 1NT-(Pass)-2C would have been "Nirvana", a puppet to 2D, and either terminal in diamonds or a game-force without exactly 4 hearts or 4 spades, unless exactly 4-4 in the majors. If the TD had been called, the following questions would arise

a) Which denomination was specified by the IB 2C?
b) Which denomination is specified by the new 3C?

Is this a permitted 27B1a correction? Those that think the denomination specified is clubs in both cases will have no problem with this!

[pran]

lamford, on 2017-October-30, 07:12, said:

The hand is irrelevant, and it was 9 am in the YC Marathon after around 21 hours of bridge, but the principle was interesting. A pair bid, uncontested, 2NT-(Pass)-2C, which was just a sleep-derived error, not mechanical. The player changed it to 3C which was simple Stayman. I think the auction continued without the TD being called. 1NT-(Pass)-2C would have been "Nirvana", a puppet to 2D, and either terminal in diamonds or a game-force without exactly 4 hearts or 4 spades, unless exactly 4-4 in the majors. If the TD had been called, the following questions would arise

a) Which denomination was specified by the IB 2C?
b) Which denomination is specified by the new 3C?

Is this a permitted 27B1a correction? Those that think the denomination specified is clubs in both cases will have no problem with this!

As I have already written in a separate thread:

I consulted the Norwegian LC and discovered that their translation of the laws includes the definition of bid as if it were written:

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

IMHO the whole cause of confusion stems from the unfortunate use of the verb [specify, specifies, specified] both in the definition of bid and in Law 27.
(Before 2017 this was no problem, now it is.)

(With the Norwegian translation "specified" in Law 27 means the denomination(s) referred to in the calls, not the named denomination(s) )

[barmar]

Let's please stop discussing this issue until we get an answer from WBFLC.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-October-30, 08:31, said:

Let's please stop discussing this issue until we get an answer from WBFLC.

Who must think that half of the fun of writing the lawbook is sowing confusion.

I wonder what would happen if someone sensible wrote a comprehensible lawbook. Would thethree authorising bodies accept it? If they did would the WBF have to accept it?

[axman]

Vampyr, on 2017-October-30, 14:15, said:

Who must think that half of the fun of writing the lawbook is sowing confusion.

I wonder what would happen if someone sensible wrote a comprehensible lawbook. Would thethree authorising bodies accept it? If they did would the WBF have to accept it?

no and no.