BBO Discussion Forums: Another IB - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Another IB and a coommon one

#41 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,397
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2017-October-19, 15:30

View Postlamford, 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)
0

#42 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 16,584
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2017-October-20, 08:16

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.

#43 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,397
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2017-October-20, 11:26

 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).
0

#44 User is offline   axman 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 622
  • Joined: 2009-July-29
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2017-October-20, 13:14

 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.
0

#45 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,908
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2017-October-21, 19:21

View Postpran, 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,
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#46 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 16,584
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2017-October-21, 21:03

View Postpran, 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".

#47 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,397
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2017-October-21, 22:17

View PostVampyr, 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.
0

#48 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,985
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2017-October-23, 08:12

View PostVampyr, 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.


View Postpran, 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.
'When I write a Law,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less.'
0

#49 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,985
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2017-October-23, 08:16

View Postbarmar, 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.
'When I write a Law,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less.'
2

#50 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 16,584
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2017-October-23, 08:54

View Postlamford, 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.

#51 User is offline   weejonnie 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 478
  • Joined: 2012-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North-east England
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, Pedantary, Trolling,

Posted 2017-October-24, 02:40

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.”
The hardest director decisions inevitably are caused by the first failure to call at the appropriate time.
"Funny hand: both sides can make 4 hearts - VM"
After 85 years of bridge, the laws will finally define when dummy ceases to be dummy - at the end of play.
After a claim, play is now suspended, not ended. So dummy remains dummy, after a law 69 or during a law 70 ruling.
0

#52 User is offline   WellSpyder 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,570
  • Joined: 2009-November-30
  • Location:Oxfordshire, England

Posted 2017-October-24, 03:11

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.
0

#53 User is offline   weejonnie 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 478
  • Joined: 2012-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North-east England
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, Pedantary, Trolling,

Posted 2017-October-24, 04:25

View PostWellSpyder, 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.
The hardest director decisions inevitably are caused by the first failure to call at the appropriate time.
"Funny hand: both sides can make 4 hearts - VM"
After 85 years of bridge, the laws will finally define when dummy ceases to be dummy - at the end of play.
After a claim, play is now suspended, not ended. So dummy remains dummy, after a law 69 or during a law 70 ruling.
0

#54 User is offline   WellSpyder 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,570
  • Joined: 2009-November-30
  • Location:Oxfordshire, England

Posted 2017-October-24, 05:06

View Postweejonnie, 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.)
0

#55 User is online   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,679
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2017-October-24, 05:21

View PostWellSpyder, 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.
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
0

#56 User is offline   WellSpyder 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,570
  • Joined: 2009-November-30
  • Location:Oxfordshire, England

Posted 2017-October-24, 05:27

View Postgordontd, 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.
1

#57 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,985
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2017-October-24, 05:29

View Postgordontd, 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
'When I write a Law,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less.'
0

#58 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,397
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2017-October-24, 05:58

View PostWellSpyder, 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.
0

#59 User is offline   WellSpyder 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,570
  • Joined: 2009-November-30
  • Location:Oxfordshire, England

Posted 2017-October-24, 07:28

View Postpran, 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.
0

#60 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 16,584
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2017-October-24, 08:51

View PostWellSpyder, 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.

Share this topic:


  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users