[lamford]

---

Matchpoints Table Result NS +980.

The Rabbit's mind was wandering on this hand from Tuesday's duplicate at a North London Club, and he could not remember whether he had agreed a strong NT or weak with Molly the Mule, South. He was North and absent-mindedly "opened" 1NT, and was dismayed to see that MM had opened 4H as dealer. She was stubborn and ignored the teacher's advice never to have two aces for a pre-empt, and to have a seven-bagger in first seat. When RR "responded" 1NT, SB, West, called the TD.

OO arrived and responded. "This is an easy one, I think." "You can accept the 1NT bid, TT", he said to East, "but if the Toucan does not, ("I don't want to", TT intervened), then the call is cancelled. Then:

(a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call, the auction proceeds without further rectification.

(b) except as in (a), if the insufficient bid is corrected with a comparable call the auction proceeds without further rectification.

There are some other laws referred to there, but I do not want to confuse you, RR".

"Easily done, indeed." chipped in SB, "and I don't think RR needs any other laws. Pearls before swine you might say, although HH might think I was being offensive."

"So, I can bid 3NT without penalty?" asked RR. "No, you haven't quite grasped it have you," responded SB, doing OO's job for him. "Indeed", replied OO, ""if you bid 4NT then there is no further rectification, but I can't see that other calls will be comparable".

The Rabbit changed his 1NT to 4NT which was always RKCB as far as Molly was concerned. That was one of her two basic rules of bridge. "The king of clubs is always singleton and 4NT is always Blackwood." RR had no choice over 5S but to bid slam, and even Molly had no trouble wrapping up twelve tricks.

SB was not finished. "I don't think RR's 4NT "specified" the same denomination as his 1NT bid, and should not have been allowed." 1NT specifies no trump, but 4NT does not "specify" no trump although it names "no trump". In another thread on Bridgebase it was clear that "specify" meant what was shown by the bid, and 4NT does not show a balanced hand and therefore does not "specify" no trump. RR's 4NT should have silenced South and there was TD error in allowing South to call. Both sides should be treated as non-offending and we should get 60% each. Shall I enter that in the bridgemate?"

"I have not ruled yet," OO chastised, "but I can see your point." Let me go away and consult.

How do you rule?

[barmar]

4NT is allowed, but 5♠ should not have been. Since 4NT neither specified the same denomination as 1NT, nor was it a comparable call, 27B2 applies, so South should be barred. I think 4NT is makable, so perhaps it shoiuld be adjusted to 4NT=.

However, the TD also erred in not telling RR that his partner would be barred no matter what he bid, so perhaps the A+/A+ adjustment is correct because of director error.

[pran]

Law 27B1(a): 4NT is "the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call".

The auction and play continues without any further rectification or restriction.

After the play is completed the Director tries Law 27D and awards an adjusted score if he finds that the non-offending side has been damaged by the irregularity.

Any question about "comparable" call is irrelevant here.

[lamford]

pran, on 2017-October-19, 09:18, said:

Law 27B1(a): 4NT is "the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call".

The first two responses, by you and barmar, disagree as to whether 4NT "specifies the same denomination" as 1NT. Given the absence of agreement among such eminent authorities, I don't know how one can rule at all. If 4NT does specify the same denomination, no trump, then it is allowed, and the TD would not adjust as there was no assistance from the insufficient bid in that Molly would have interpreted an immediate 4NT as RKCB.

[barmar]

What would 4NT have meant if there hadn't been an IB first? Was MM correct that it's always Blackwood, or were RR and OO correct that it's natural?

If it's Blackwood, OO was wrong to tell RR that he could use it as a replacement with no further rectification or restriction. 6NT and 7NT would be allowed, because they're presumably natural (I assume 5NT would be Grand Slam Force).

Of 4NT is natural, the auction is allowed, and MM misbid in answering to Blackwood. Misbids are not an infraction, and getting to a making slam is just incredibly lucky and rub of the green.

[VixTD]

barmar, on 2017-October-19, 10:44, said:

What would 4NT have meant if there hadn't been an IB first? Was MM correct that it's always Blackwood, or were RR and OO correct that it's natural?

If it's Blackwood, OO was wrong to tell RR that he could use it as a replacement with no further rectification or restriction. 6NT and 7NT would be allowed, because they're presumably natural (I assume 5NT would be Grand Slam Force).

If 4NT is natural, the auction is allowed, and MM misbid in answering to Blackwood. Misbids are not an infraction, and getting to a making slam is just incredibly lucky and rub of the green.

I agree with most of this, except that I doubt that anyone plays 4NT as natural here, least of all Molly and the rabbit.

If 6NT is permitted as a penalty-free replacement call because it is the lowest sufficient bid that specifies the same denomination (law 27B1(a)), 7NT cannot also be permitted under the same clause. (There's precious little further bidding available after this correction in any case, but that's by the by.)

Assuming 4NT is Blackwood by agreement over an opening 4♥, a correction to 4NT would be permitted without penalty if "Blackwood" is one of the possible attributable meanings for 1NT. I expect this will be too much for many to stomach, but it wouldn't surprise me if some directors would permit this. Now Molly has genuinely answered to Blackwood, reached a lucky slam and gained a good result. They didn't reach it with assistance of the insufficient bid, so the score stands.

[barmar]

VixTD, on 2017-October-19, 11:32, said:

If 6NT is permitted as a penalty-free replacement call because it is the lowest sufficient bid that specifies the same denomination (law 27B1(a)), 7NT cannot also be permitted under the same clause. (There's precious little further bidding available after this correction in any case, but that's by the by.)

Yeah, I forgot that it says lowest.

Quote

Assuming 4NT is Blackwood by agreement over an opening 4♥, a correction to 4NT would be permitted without penalty if "Blackwood" is one of the possible attributable meanings for 1NT. I expect this will be too much for many to stomach, but it wouldn't surprise me if some directors would permit this. Now Molly has genuinely answered to Blackwood, reached a lucky slam and gained a good result. They didn't reach it with assistance of the insufficient bid, so the score stands.

I would question the sanity of anyone who considered Blackwood to be a meaning possibly attributable to 1NT. If they did that, I could only presume that they were bending over backwards to avoid penalizing the IBer, and perhaps would be better suited for work in Cirque du Soleil.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2017-October-19, 13:09, said:

Yeah, I forgot that it says lowest.

I would question the sanity of anyone who considered Blackwood to be a meaning possibly attributable to 1NT. If they did that, I could only presume that they were bending over backwards to avoid penalizing the IBer, and perhaps would be better suited for work in Cirque du Soleil.

I agree that 4NT is not a comparable call and agree it is not natural. The majority view is that 4NT does not specify no trump therefore will silence partner but OO had offered the opinion it did not. However 6NT was clearly a permitted change without rectification and that is cold. I would probably rule TD error here but I am still unsure.

[pran]

lamford, on 2017-October-19, 14:00, said:

I agree that 4NT is not a comparable call and agree it is not natural. The majority view is that 4NT does not specify no trump therefore will silence partner but OO had offered the opinion it did not. However 6NT was clearly a permitted change without rectification and that is cold. I would probably rule TD error here but I am still unsure.

There is no longer any condition in Law 27B1(a) that a call must be natural (as was a condition before 2017), 4NT it is clearly the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call (the denomination specified both in the insufficient bid and in the replacement bid being NT).

Any (alleged) fact that the meanings of the denominations are different is irrelevant for the use of Law 27B1(a).

[lamford]

pran, on 2017-October-19, 15:16, said:

There is no longer any condition in Law 27B1(a) that a call must be natural (as was a condition before 2017), 4NT it is clearly the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call (the denomination specified both in the insufficient bid and in the replacement bid being NT).

Any (alleged) fact that the meanings of the denominations are different is irrelevant for the use of Law 27B1(a).

A Blackwood bid does not specify any denomination. This is seemingly why the word "specify" ("show" would have been much better) is used rather than "is".

Oops Vampyr here.

[pran]

lamford, on 2017-October-19, 16:34, said:

A Blackwood bid does not specify any denomination. This is seemingly why the word "specify" ("show" would have been much better) is used rather than "is".

Oops Vampyr here.

HUH?
A Blackwood 4NT bid "specifies" four "odd tricks" and No Trump as the "denomination".

That the meaning of this bid is disconnected from its literal expression doesn't change this.

[Vampyr]

The use of the word "specify" seems like a cruel joke. Perhaps the DC reckoned that figuring out what that word is supposed to mean will distract us from just how bad the law is.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2017-October-20, 03:12, said:

The use of the word "specify" seems like a cruel joke. Perhaps the DC reckoned that figuring out what that word is supposed to mean will distract us from just how bad the law is.

Look up "Bid" in 2017 Laws - "Definitions"

[lamford]

pran, on 2017-October-20, 01:14, said:

HUH?
A Blackwood 4NT bid "specifies" four "odd tricks" and No Trump as the "denomination".

That the meaning of this bid is disconnected from its literal expression doesn't change this.

Pran's arguments are strong. Certainly the definitions strongly indicate that the denomination "specified" is the one that is named, regardless of whether it is natural. Therefore RR's 4NT is permitted and MM is allowed to call. However, we then have a contradiction, as Barmar points out, in Law 29:

Quote

If a call out of rotation is artificial, the provisions of Laws 30, 31 and 32 apply to the denomination(s) specified, rather than the denomination named.

I think what they mean there is the "denomination(s)" shown, and this is just a poor choice of word. There are many contradictions in the Laws, and the definitions make it reasonably clear that the denomination "specified" in a bid is the one "named", certainly for the purpose of 27B1(a). This accords with the principle that if the person misses a level, which is common, he can correct it to the right level. So 2NT-(Pass)-2D can be corrected to 3D regardless of the meanings of 2D and 3D. The interpretation of this word "specified" is vital for several of the laws, and otherwise we are going to have completely different rulings. It would be interesting to get the EBU interpretation of the law here, and also the WBFLC. What a mess!

[VixTD]

barmar, on 2017-October-19, 13:09, said:

I would question the sanity of anyone who considered Blackwood to be a meaning possibly attributable to 1NT. If they did that, I could only presume that they were bending over backwards to avoid penalizing the IBer, and perhaps would be better suited for work in Cirque du Soleil.

Yes, I don't think I would consider it an attributable meaning, but with all the enthusiasm for accommodating actions where offender "got the level wrong" I was wondering how far this could be pushed.

If the auction starts 2NT - (P) - 2♦, no one has a problem attributing the meaning of "transfer to hearts" to the insufficient bid. (Assume it wasn't a mispulled bidding card).

I asked recently about (1NT) - 1♣ and was told that it would not be considered wrong (in the EBU, at least) to attribute whatever meaning 2♣ has to the insufficient bid and allow a penalty-free correction to a Landy / Asptro / Collins 2♣.

Note that although 2♦ could be a transfer to hearts in another auction, 1♣ can never be an overcall of anything, so "got the level wrong" doesn't really ring true here. Then again, I related a case recently where a player made a lebensohl response to a natural 2NT overcall, and my partner once made a 2♦ relay response to an opponent's opening 2♣ bid, so who knows what is attributable.

Can one "get the level wrong" by two, or even three, levels?

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2017-October-20, 05:02, said:

Pran's arguments are strong. Certainly the definitions strongly indicate that the denomination "specified" is the one that is named, regardless of whether it is natural. Therefore RR's 4NT is permitted and MM is allowed to call. However, we then have a contradiction, as Barmar points out, in Law 29:

I think what they mean there is the "denomination(s)" shown, and this is just a poor choice of word. There are many contradictions in the Laws, and the definitions make it reasonably clear that the denomination "specified" in a bid is the one "named", certainly for the purpose of 27B1(a). This accords with the principle that if the person misses a level, which is common, he can correct it to the right level. So 2NT-(Pass)-2D can be corrected to 3D regardless of the meanings of 2D and 3D. The interpretation of this word "specified" is vital for several of the laws, and otherwise we are going to have completely different rulings. It would be interesting to get the EBU interpretation of the law here, and also the WBFLC. What a mess!

I don't like the lawmakers' use of the word "specify" either, although I don't dislike it as much as the word "defines" in law 23A2.

In the definitions, "specify" refers to the denomination named, as you will be required to fulfil your undertaking if the other players all pass. That your partnership has assigned a different meaning to the bid doesn't change this. In other cases, "specify" is used in the sense of "make specific" or "identify", so a transfer will identify the next higher suit (usually) as the one held by the bidder. Some bids (Stayman, Collins, Blackwood, relays, pass-or-correct bids) don't specify any suit.

I agree it's a bit of a mess.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2017-October-20, 05:02, said:

There are many contradictions in the Laws…

Yes. I have long thought that the lawmakers would do well to reorganize the laws, so that the first part of them describes correct procedure throughout the deal, the second describes general principles regarding rulings, the third irregularities and how to rectify them. I'm not wedded to this order, and there are laws that don't really fit, so we may need another part (of course, the current trend is to not have any "parts", just a list of laws by number, which I think is a mistake). But perhaps the next drafting subcommittee would do better to search out and resolve the contradictions. Or, ideally, do both.

[pran]

Please everybody: Do yourself a favor and be aware of which law you want to discuss: Law 27B1(a) or Law 27B1(b)

In law 27B1(a) the meaning or purpose of an insufficient bid is completely irrelevant for the ruling(s) (until the play is completed and Law 27D should be tried).

In Law 27B1(b) the meaning or purpose of an insufficient bid is the deciding element.

Also observe that if both Law 27B1(a) and Law 28B1(b) are applicable then Law 27B1(a) takes precedence.

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2017-October-20, 07:51, said:

Some bids (Stayman, Collins, Blackwood, relays, pass-or-correct bids) don't specify any suit.

I think all bids specify a suit or no trump. As per the definitions.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2017-October-23, 05:46, said:

I think all bids specify a suit or no trump. As per the definitions.

Obviously you're in the camp that thinks specify = name, not specify = show.