[pran]

lamford, on 2017-October-19, 10:01, said:

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

(2017 Laws) Definitions said:

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]

barmar, on 2017-October-20, 08:16, said:

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]

pran, on 2017-October-20, 11:26, said:

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]

pran, on 2017-October-20, 11:26, said:

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]

pran, on 2017-October-20, 11:26, said:

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]

Vampyr, on 2017-October-21, 19:21, said:

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]

Vampyr, on 2017-October-21, 19:21, said:

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.

pran, on 2017-October-21, 22:17, said:

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]

barmar, on 2017-October-21, 21:03, said:

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]

lamford, on 2017-October-23, 08:16, said:

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.

[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]

WellSpyder, on 2017-October-24, 03:11, said:

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]

weejonnie, on 2017-October-24, 04:25, said:

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]

WellSpyder, on 2017-October-24, 05:06, said:

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]

gordontd, on 2017-October-24, 05:21, said:

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]

gordontd, on 2017-October-24, 05:21, said:

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]

WellSpyder, on 2017-October-24, 05:27, said:

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]

pran, on 2017-October-24, 05:58, said:

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]

WellSpyder, on 2017-October-24, 07:28, said:

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.