[blackshoe]

There is an implication in that document that if the comparable call (27B1{b}) is at a higher level than the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination (27B1{a}), the former law cannot be applied. It's in this example:

Quote

eg 1NT – (3♥) – 2♥ replaced by 3♠ or 4♦; we would allow an insufficient Jacoby transfer bid to be replaced by a sufficient natural 3♠ bid or even a South African Texas 4♦ transfer bid (though only if a natural 3♠ is not available, as that would be a lower sufficient bid), since all specify spades.

I don't understand this implication. it seems to me it's saying that 27B1{b} applies only if 27B1{a} cannot apply, but I don't read it that way. Comments?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2018-January-29, 14:21, said:

There is an implication in that document that if the comparable call (27B1{b}) is at a higher level than the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination (27B1{a}), the former law cannot be applied. It's in this example:

Quote

eg 1NT – (3♥) – 2♥ replaced by 3♠ or 4♦; we would allow an insufficient Jacoby transfer bid to be replaced by a sufficient natural 3♠ bid or even a South African Texas 4♦ transfer bid (though only if a natural 3♠ is not available, as that would be a lower sufficient bid), since all specify spades.

I don't understand this implication. it seems to me it's saying that 27B1{b} applies only if 27B1{a} cannot apply, but I don't read it that way. Comments?

I think that it means in this example, if after 1NT-(3♥) if the pair play that 3♠ is natural, as do most pairs, then they cannot now bid 4♦ as a transfer to spades

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2018-January-29, 15:28, said:

I think that it means in this example, if after 1NT-(3♥) if the pair play that 3♠ is natural, as do most pairs, then they cannot now bid 4♦ as a transfer to spades

If you mean they can't replace their insufficient 2♥ with 4♦ instead of replacing it with 3♠, that's how I read it. But I don't think the law says that.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2018-January-29, 16:30, said:

If you mean they can't replace their insufficient 2♥ with 4♦ instead of replacing it with 3♠, that's how I read it. But I don't think the law says that.

That document covers both comparable calls after insufficient bids and comparable calls after BOOTs. I agree with you that after a BOOT, the requirement to make the lowest sufficient comparable call (to avoid silencing partner) does not apply. One can choose between any comparable calls.

[blackshoe]

I was only looking at Law 27A1. So was Gordon's paper, at least for the example I cited.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2018-January-29, 19:02, said:

I was only looking at Law 27A1. So was Gordon's paper, at least for the example I cited.

Therein lies the problem. You need to look at Law 27B1, which Gordon's paper quotes in full for the example you cited. Assuming that the above is a typo, I do agree that the paper seems wrong in that a comparable call does not need to be the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination. I must confess I previously had thought it did; perhaps the EBU can clarify whether the paper is wrong, or the law is wrongly worded. In the example quoted, 1NT-(3H)-2H, the interpretation of the majority of TDs is that spades is "specified" by the IB, and therefore the player can substitute either 3S or 4D, if the latter is a transfer to spades.

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2018-January-30, 05:01, said:

Therein lies the problem. You need to look at Law 27B1, which Gordon's paper quotes in full for the example you cited. Assuming that the above is a typo, I do agree that the paper seems wrong in that a comparable call does not need to be the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination. I must confess I previously had thought it did; perhaps the EBU can clarify whether the paper is wrong, or the law is wrongly worded. In the example quoted, 1NT-(3H)-2H, the interpretation of the majority of TDs is that spades is "specified" by the IB, and therefore the player can substitute either 3S or 4D, if the latter is a transfer to spades.

If they have sufficient bids of 3♠ and 4♦ available that show spades, they can only correct (without further rectification) an insufficient transfer to 3♠ under law 27B1(a) ("the lowest legal bid which specifies the same denomination"), but if 4♦ is deemed to be a comparable call that could be allowed under law 27B1(b).

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2018-January-30, 05:01, said:

Therein lies the problem. You need to look at Law 27B1, which Gordon's paper quotes in full for the example you cited. Assuming that the above is a typo, I do agree that the paper seems wrong in that a comparable call does not need to be the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination. I must confess I previously had thought it did; perhaps the EBU can clarify whether the paper is wrong, or the law is wrongly worded. In the example quoted, 1NT-(3H)-2H, the interpretation of the majority of TDs is that spades is "specified" by the IB, and therefore the player can substitute either 3S or 4D, if the latter is a transfer to spades.

Yes, a typo. 27B1.