[gordontd]

The auction starts:

1♥ - (2♣) - 1♠

Would you allow the 1♠ bid to be replaced with a negative double under the new WBF guidance to use a liberal interpretation of L27B1b? Would it have fulfilled the stricter requirements of a literal interpretation?

[peachy]

If their negative double promises spades, then I would allow it. The only difference in the meaning of these two calls is that a response of 1S could be made with 5+ HCP unlimited up and any spade length from four cards up while neg double on the two level usually has at least a good 7+ HCP unlimited and typically 4-card spades.

If their negative double promises both unbid suits, then the meaning is not the same (two suits instead of one), or the Dbl could be made with only three spades in goodish hands that have no other calls available in this auction, then the meaning is not the same (does not always promise spades), and I would not allow it.

[FrancesHinden]

If the negative double promises four spade and says nothing about diamonds (i.e not the very old-fashioned approach of promising both unbid suits) then I would allow it under the 'liberal' interpretation.

This is more interesting under the 'literal' interpretation, and I've have to find out more about their system. I'm looking for hands that would not respond 1S to 1H, but would make a negative double of 2C.

- Some people with a 4324 distribution (ish) and game forcing values like to respond 2C to 1H, either as a game forcing relay or as a natural 2/1 FG. If that's their style, then the 1S response to 1H denies that hand, but a negative double doesn't.

- Some people playing forcing NT respond 1NT to 1H with 4-3 in the majors and invitational values, but would double 2C on the same hand (rather than e.g. cueing 3C).

- Some people play a 3NT response to 1H as any 4333 with 12-15 points. Without a club stop this hand may want to double a 2C opening instead.

- I bet some people would double 2C on KQx Kx Qxxx Jxxx (I wouldn't)

All this goes to show how impossible it is to make a sensible ruling under the literal interpretation. But we knew that already.

[jeremy69]

I don't think I would allow the replacement. A negative double here does not usually guarantee 4S and there are also inferences about values i.e sufficiently different not to allow even in the absurd world of "liberal" interpretation.

[bluejak]

Where is here? Most players I play with and against in England show four spades with a negative double.

Do you not think it would be more sensible to find out how this pair plays it rather than make assumptions based on how a particular area of country plays it?

As for the strength, if the negative double shows 8+ and the original bid shows 5+ then that is fine: we can allow the replacement based on strength.

[jallerton]

Law 27B1b said:

if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director’s opinion has the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without further rectification, but see D following.

Quote

[footnote:  * the meaning of (information available from) a call is the knowledge of what it shows and what it excludes. ] 

The wording of this Law is very clear and leaves very little scope for "liberal interpretation". The guidance currently on the EBU website explains the meaning of Law 27B1b quite well:

Quote

Confused? Well, Max Bavin has come up with a useful question that TDs should ask, which might help to make it easier to decide. Would all hands making the replacement call also have made the original call in correct circumstances? If the answer is yes, then the change is allowed.

[FrancesHinden]

jeremy69, on Oct 10 2009, 11:43 PM, said:

I don't think I would allow the replacement. A negative double here does not usually guarantee 4S and there are also inferences about values i.e sufficiently different not to allow even in the absurd world of "liberal" interpretation.

The values part is probably irrelevant, unless you think that the take-out double has a wider range than a 1S bid - most people would say it's narrower, so that part of the definition is 'more precise' in any case.

To my mind it comes down to how often the doubler would not have four spades, which is really a function of their detailed systemic agreements. For example, what would 2NT mean? If it shows a 4-card heart raise, it means that responder may have to double with a natural 2NT bid.

[jeremy69]

Quote

Where is here? Most players I play with and against in England show four spades with a negative double.

Here is England but then you knew that. In my experience the higher you go the less it guarantees 4 of the OM. You hold
♠ AQx
♥ xx
♦ KQxx
♣ xxxx

Are you going to bid 2D or x? (or something else).
I agree that if the double is a card carrying promise of 4S and so is the double at the one level thereis much more reason to allow it.

[gordontd]

In the end it turned out to be a hypothetical question.

I told the insufficient-bidder's LHO that she had the option to accept the insufficient bid, and that if she didn't then the three options of L27 would apply. The insufficient-bidder seemed a bit uncertain, so I took her away from the table, where she told me that she didn't have a suitable hand to bid 2♠ and couldn't make a negative double because her husband doesn't play those. It seemed as though she was going to be left with barring her partner whatever she did... but then LHO came to her rescue by accepting the insufficient 1♠

So I still haven't had a single L27B1b correction to a negative double - I've had very few L27B1b rulings at all, and those I have had have either been ace-asking auctions or a negative response to a strong club.

[lamford]

jallerton, on Oct 11 2009, 05:48 AM, said:

The wording of this Law is very clear and leaves very little scope for "liberal interpretation". The guidance currently on the EBU website explains the meaning of Law 27B1b quite well:

Quote

Confused?

Yes, I am confused as well. I - and seemingly others on here - are aware of subsequent advice from the WBFLC to interpret "the same meaning" as "nearly the same meaning". But I confess that I no longer have that release. I think there was a thread on the old site - perhaps someone has a link.

[bluejak]

Look here.

[duschek]

lamford, on Oct 14 2009, 06:26 PM, said:

jallerton, on Oct 11 2009, 05:48 AM, said:

The wording of this Law is very clear and leaves very little scope for "liberal interpretation".  The guidance currently on the EBU website explains the meaning of Law 27B1b quite well:

Quote

Confused?

Yes, I am confused as well. I - and seemingly others on here - are aware of subsequent advice from the WBFLC to interpret "the same meaning" as "nearly the same meaning". But I confess that I no longer have that release. I think there was a thread on the old site - perhaps someone has a link.

See WBF-LC Meeting Minutes from Beijing, bottom of page 2.

Apparently, the WBF-LC have worked out that the wording of the Law does not at all behave as intended, but they have no solution to the problem.

[lamford]

Thanks duschek (and bluejak - good to see those threads archived, but a bit time-consuming to go through them all without the original heading - sorry to seem ungrateful).

I think I saw an EBU release stemming from those minutes where examples were given where the corrected bid would be made by a hand which would not make the disallowed bid and these were permitted. I recall one example (maybe not from that release) being something like 1D - (1S) - 1H with double being a permitted substituted bid. Someone who responds 1H to 1D with xxxxx KQxx Jx xx would need their head examined.

jallerton's (and jeremy's by inference) seeming view that this liberal interpretation of the law is in clear contravention of its wording has considerable logic.

[bluejak]

duschek, on Oct 15 2009, 09:58 PM, said:

Apparently, the WBF-LC have worked out that the wording of the Law does not at all behave as intended, but they have no solution to the problem.

They may not have ...........

[gordontd]

http://www.ebu.co.uk/publications/Minutes%...09/19%20may.pdf

Appendix A