[barmar]

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.

What's obviously meant is what it would have specified had it been sufficient (either because the preceding bids were at a lower level or if they'd bid the same denomination at a sufficient level).

[pran]

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.

The understanding of Law 27B1(a) has never been questioned among qualified directors until the creation of "comparable" calls (in the 2017 Law 23). At the same time a restriction in Law 27B1(a) that it applied only to non-artificial calls was removed.

I find it surprising that WBFLC failed to introduce a clause similar to

Law 29C said:

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.

if the intention was to have a similar understanding of Law 27B1(a) in the new laws.

And if such a change in the understanding of Law 27B1(a) was really intended then why not just delete the entire Law 27B1(a)? Any situation covered by this law would then also be completely covered by the new Law 27B1(b).

[WellSpyder]

barmar, on 2017-October-24, 08:52, said:

What's obviously meant is what it would have specified had it been sufficient (either because the preceding bids were at a lower level or if they'd bid the same denomination at a sufficient level).

And if the "either" and "or" parts of your parenthetical explanation give different answers as to what would have been specified then we are back to trying to read the mind of the insufficient bidder, are we (with their help, of course)?

[WellSpyder]

pran, on 2017-October-24, 09:00, said:

At the same time a restriction in Law 27B1(a) that it applied only to non-artificial calls was removed.

I guess that is exactly why this is now more difficult, isn't it? When we had the condition that the IB and the same denomination made sufficient were incontrovertibly not artificial, then there was no difference between the denomination shown and the denomination named anyway, so it wouldn't have mattered how we interpreted "specified".

[barmar]

WellSpyder, on 2017-October-24, 09:12, said:

And if the "either" and "or" parts of your parenthetical explanation give different answers as to what would have been specified then we are back to trying to read the mind of the insufficient bidder, are we (with their help, of course)?

As has been mentioned several times before (maybe in a different thread), we don't need to do this. We don't have to determine which case actually occurred, just whether the replacement specifies the same denomination as, or is comparable with, one of them. The IBer's partner doesn't know which situation occurred, either, so little UI is passed from the initial IB.

The point of this whole thing is to try to get as close as possible to what would have happened without the IB. We just don't want the IBer replacing it with something completely different from what was originally intended. For instance, if the replacement call would put them at a level higher than they were comfortable, so they replace it with a Pass, it bars partner; if he actually had enough strength to force to game, they'll miss it as a result. Conversely, if this ends up being the only way they could stop at a low level and make their contract, the TD can adjust because it damaged the opponents.

[WellSpyder]

barmar, on 2017-October-24, 09:28, said:

As has been mentioned several times before (maybe in a different thread), we don't need to do this. We don't have to determine which case actually occurred, just whether the replacement specifies the same denomination as, or is comparable with, one of them. The IBer's partner doesn't know which situation occurred, either, so little UI is passed from the initial IB.

Oh! I understood - and, indeed, I thought I championed - this approach with regard to 27B1(b). But I hadn't realised that a similar approach was being suggested for 27B1(a). So "specified" doesn't really mean "shown" or "named", but actually means "might have been intended to be shown"?

[pran]

WellSpyder, on 2017-October-24, 09:15, said:

I guess that is exactly why this is now more difficult, isn't it? When we had the condition that the IB and the same denomination made sufficient were incontrovertibly not artificial, then there was no difference between the denomination shown and the denomination named anyway, so it wouldn't have mattered how we interpreted "specified".

Except for the difficulty in defining whether a call is artificial or not.
Law 27B1(a) is now a simple law to use because it no longer bothers about the meaning of a call, only about the actual words used in that call.

Remember that back in the thirties artificial calls were a rarity (except for 4NT).

[gordontd]

WellSpyder, on 2017-October-24, 09:46, said:

Oh! I understood - and, indeed, I thought I championed - this approach with regard to 27B1(b). But I hadn't realised that a similar approach was being suggested for 27B1(a). So "specified" doesn't really mean "shown" or "named", but actually means "might have been intended to be shown"?

No, I don't think so: I think 27B1a is quite different from 23A1 arrived at via 27B1b.

It's probably also worth saying that "same or similar" in 23A1 does not apply to 23A2 or 23A3

[WellSpyder]

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

It has always been a simple and easily understood law with no real reason for being discontinued.

pran, on 2017-October-24, 14:53, said:

Law 27B1(a) is now a simple law to use because it no longer bothers about the meaning of a call, only about the actual words used in that call.

I agree that that would make it simple. But you do realise that this interpretation puts you at odds with most of the other authorities who have commented, don't you? I don't think it is fair to describe something as easily understood just because you think it is easy for you to understand, when your easy reading of it is completely at odds with the reading of other intelligent TDs.

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.

+1

[pran]

WellSpyder, on 2017-October-25, 03:28, said:

I agree that that would make it simple. But you do realise that this interpretation puts you at odds with most of the other authorities who have commented, don't you? I don't think it is fair to describe something as easily understood just because you think it is easy for you to understand, when your easy reading of it is completely at odds with the reading of other intelligent TDs.

I shall be most interested in learning how the understanding of "other intelligent TDs" can leave Law 27B1(a) relevant and not made completely superfluous by Law 27B1(b)?

A specific example anyone?

[VixTD]

pran, on 2017-October-24, 09:00, said:

The understanding of Law 27B1(a) has never been questioned among qualified directors until the creation of "comparable" calls (in the 2017 Law 23).

This isn't true. I started directing at my university club in 1986 (no one else wanted to take on the role of TD) and I found myself having to decide whether an insufficient bid and its replacement were both "incontrovertibly not conventional" (if I remember the 1976 laws correctly). I was so confused about how I was supposed to divine the meaning of an insufficient bid that I wrote to the chairman of the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee for advice. Grattan Endicott kindly replied, and from what I remember his advice was to consider something similar to what are now described as "attributable" meanings; i.e. think what offender might have meant without indulging in flights of fancy.

We departed from this briefly in the 2007 laws when we took offender away to ask their intention (this was never written into the laws, it was just advice for interpreting it), and we're now back to possible attributable meanings.

[pran]

Can anybody present a situation where Law 27B1(a) is applicable with the understanding that it is the denomination (or denominations) indicated (not literally specified) that is important, and where Law 27B1(b) cannot be applied?

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2017-October-25, 07:00, said:

This isn't true. I started directing at my university club in 1986 (no one else wanted to take on the role of TD) and I found myself having to decide whether an insufficient bid and its replacement were both "incontrovertibly not conventional" (if I remember the 1976 laws correctly). I was so confused about how I was supposed to divine the meaning of an insufficient bid that I wrote to the chairman of the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee for advice. Grattan Endicott kindly replied, and from what I remember his advice was to consider something similar to what are now described as "attributable" meanings; i.e. think what offender might have meant without indulging in flights of fancy.

We departed from this briefly in the 2007 laws when we took offender away to ask their intention (this was never written into the laws, it was just advice for interpreting it), and we're now back to possible attributable meanings.

In 1997 27B1a said:
If both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted are incontrovertibly not conventional and if the bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination, the auction proceeds as though the irregularity had not occurred (Law 16C2 does not apply to this situation, but see (b) following).

In 2007 it was:
1. (a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination and in the Director’s opinion both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16D does not apply but see D following.

In 2017 it says
1. (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. Laws 26B and 16C do not apply but see D following.

So, it is interesting that the changes have been to relax the requirement to not be artificial. "Convention" was defined in the 1997 laws, and that definition was dropped in 2007 and "artificial" was defined there, with similar meaning. There are two possibilities now, probably equally likely.

a) The Lawmakers intend to allow a "miss" by a level (or more) to be corrected by a call in the same denomination regardless of whether the bid was conventional or artificial. A bid can therefore always be corrected to the minimum level regardless of meaning.

b) The Lawmakers also require the suits shown by both bids to be the same in 27B1a for a minimum correction to be allowed. In one example, therefore, 1H-(2D)-1NT, the TD would tell the player that he can change this to 2NT if both 1NT and 2NT "showed" no trump. He would also be able to change 1NT to a comparable call if there was one in his methods. If the pair were using the Kaplan interchange, then he would only be able to change it to 2NT if that "showed" spades, regardless of whether he had just missed by a level. He could still make a comparable call, of course.

Unless we know which of a) or b) is to be applied, we cannot rule on any insufficient bid. The principle of being more relaxed about errors leading to insufficient bids suggests to me that a) should be applied.

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-October-25, 07:42, said:

Can anybody present a situation where Law 27B1(a) is applicable with the understanding that it is the denomination (or denominations) indicated (not literally specified) that is important, and where Law 27B1(b) cannot be applied?

27B1(a) only deals with the denomination specified, not hand strength. So if the IB shows hearts and 6-10 HCP, and the replacement shows hearts and 11+ HCP, they would not be comparable, so 27B1(b) cannot be applied. But 27B1(a) still fits.

Why is this allowed? Perhaps because in many cases this is likely to result in the offending side getting too high, so the opponents won't be damaged.

[pran]

pran, on 2017-October-25, 07:42, said:

Can anybody present a situation where Law 27B1(a) is applicable with the understanding that it is the denomination (or denominations) indicated (not literally specified) that is important, and where Law 27B1(b) cannot be applied?

barmar, on 2017-October-25, 08:23, said:

27B1(a) only deals with the denomination specified, not hand strength. So if the IB shows hearts and 6-10 HCP, and the replacement shows hearts and 11+ HCP, they would not be comparable, so 27B1(b) cannot be applied. But 27B1(a) still fits.

Why is this allowed? Perhaps because in many cases this is likely to result in the offending side getting too high, so the opponents won't be damaged.

Then please present a real auction (not only the two bids in question) with your example, i.e. the named denomination in both bids shall be the same and different from hearts.

[barmar]

I was thinking of something like 1♣ (2♦) 1♠ corrected to 2♠. It's not exactly like my example because they're not mutually exclusive, but overlaps, and 2♠ (5+♠, 11+ points) is more specific than 1♠ (4+♠, 6+ points).

But maybe in a different system there would be calls like this that have mutually exclusive point ranges.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2017-October-25, 08:23, said:

Why is this allowed? Perhaps because in many cases this is likely to result in the offending side getting too high, so the opponents won't be damaged.

Rubbish. If the auction goes 1H-(2S)-2H changed to 3H then the offending side are not going to get as high as if the auction had gone 1H-(2S)-3H, as even RR can see that 3H is a stretch. And you would allow that change despite the fact it gives much more information to the offenders than the auction 1NT-(2S)-2C corrected to 3C. The suit specified in 1NT-(2S)-2C (missing by a level) is clearly clubs, as it is in 1NT-(2S)-3C. In the old days the TD could decide that 1NT-(2S)-2C was not incontrovertibly natural, as it would have been Stayman in a different auction, but that has now been removed.

[Vampyr]

Typical for the WBFLC to use a word whose meaning is highly subject to interpretation.

[pran]

barmar, on 2017-October-25, 09:11, said:

I was thinking of something like 1♣ (2♦) 1♠ corrected to 2♠. It's not exactly like my example because they're not mutually exclusive, but overlaps, and 2♠ (5+♠, 11+ points) is more specific than 1♠ (4+♠, 6+ points).

But maybe in a different system there would be calls like this that have mutually exclusive point ranges.

This example fails on two accounts: Neither the IB nor the replacement bid "shows" a denomination different from the named one, and the replacement bid "shows" a subset of what the IB "shows".

Both Laws [27b1(a) and 27B1(b)] are applicable.

You should be able to do better than this.

Remember I asked for a real auction with an insufficient bid and a replacement bid where neither of them named the denomination "showed", and for which Law 27B1(a) is applicable but not Law 27B1(b).

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2017-October-24, 14:53, said:

Remember that back in the thirties artificial calls were a rarity (except for 4NT).

And takeout doubles.