[BudH]

After an insufficient bid is not accepted, to prevent partner from being required to pass for the rest of the auction, offender can either:

Law 27B1(a): “make the cheapest bid which specifies the same denomination(s)”,

OR

Law 27B1(b): “make a comparable call” (Law 23).

Law 27B1 is worded such that if a bid meets both criteria, you rule it under Law 27B1(a).

What is the difference, if any, IN PRACTICE, of ruling under Law 27B1(a) instead of Law 27B1(b)?

[pran]

BudH, on 2017-October-29, 08:57, said:

After an insufficient bid is not accepted, to prevent partner from being required to pass for the rest of the auction, offender can either:

Law 27B1(a): “make the cheapest bid which specifies the same denomination(s)”,

OR

Law 27B1(b): “make a comparable call” (Law 23).

Law 27B1 is worded such that if a bid meets both criteria, you rule it under Law 27B1(a).

What is the difference, if any, IN PRACTICE, of ruling under Law 27B1(a) instead of Law 27B1(b)?

(a) requires simpler immediate judgement by the Director who only need to be concerned about the actual denomination names used (like before 2017)
(see the wording used in "definitions" where "specified denomination" is part of the definition of bid)*.

Except for that there is no real difference, either law includes a "safety catch" in Law 27D.

*(If "specifies" in Law 27B1(a) contrary to the definition of "bid" shall refer to the meaning rather than the naming of a denomination then Law 27B1(a) is superfluous and had better been completely deleted.

[BudH]

pran, on 2017-October-29, 10:36, said:

(a) requires simpler immediate judgement by the Director who only need to be concerned about the actual denomination names used (like before 2017)
(see the wording used in "definitions" where "specified denomination" is part of the definition of bid)*.

Except for that there is no real difference, either law includes a "safety catch" in Law 27D.

*(If "specifies" in Law 27B1(a) contrary to the definition of "bid" shall refer to the meaning rather than the naming of a denomination then Law 27B1(a) is superfluous and had better been completely deleted.

I don’t think for a second that the word “specifies” in the definition of “bid” is to be linked to how the word “specifies” is used in Law 27B1(a).

The laws just don’t make logical sense otherwise.

It seems so logical for the intended MEANING of the insufficient bid to be what matters (for example, Michaels cue bids showing majors or unusual 2NT or 4NT bids showing minors), to think the word “specifies” being in the definition of “bid” and also in Law 27B1(a) somehow talks you out of the logical meaning above seems illogical (or “Secretary Bird”-ish).

Unfortunately, with the months of opportunities to catch this conflict in language, it’s a shame to have given anyone who thinks in legal-ese to think in those terms on the intended meaning.

Strange that I say this, because most of my life I would have been one to identify that type of language discrepancy and would have been deemed the “legal eagle” or “Secretary Bird”.”

[barmar]

Argh, this is now at least the third or fourth thread where we're debating the intent of the word "specifies".

I think the only way we'll be able to put a stop to this is for someone to contact the WBFLC and find out how we're supposed to interpret it. I've just sent email to Adam Wildavsky.

[pran]

BudH, on 2017-October-29, 11:50, said:

I don’t think for a second that the word “specifies” in the definition of “bid” is to be linked to how the word “specifies” is used in Law 27B1(a).

The laws just don’t make logical sense otherwise.

It seems so logical for the intended MEANING of the insufficient bid to be what matters (for example, Michaels cue bids showing majors or unusual 2NT or 4NT bids showing minors), to think the word “specifies” being in the definition of “bid” and also in Law 27B1(a) somehow talks you out of the logical meaning above seems illogical (or “Secretary Bird”-ish).

Unfortunately, with the months of opportunities to catch this conflict in language, it’s a shame to have given anyone who thinks in legal-ese to think in those terms on the intended meaning.

Strange that I say this, because most of my life I would have been one to identify that type of language discrepancy and would have been deemed the “legal eagle” or “Secretary Bird”.”

I suspect that you are correct, but then have just one question:

Is there any reason at all to keep Law 27B1(a) ?

I cannot imagine a single situation where Law 27B1(a) is applicable ("specifies" understood as "means") that Law 27B1(b) is not also applicable. So why not completely delete Law 27B1(a)?

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-October-29, 12:44, said:

I cannot imagine a single situation where Law 27B1(a) is applicable ("specifies" understood as "means") that Law 27B1(b) is not also applicable. So why not completely delete Law 27B1(a)?

Haven't I already addressed that in two other threads?

27B1b is only applicable if the replacement shows about the same amount of strength as the original. 27B1a can be applied regardless of strength shown.

Maybe this is only a theoretical difference, if there are no systems where a sufficient bid shows different strength than a lower bid, which is why I couldn't come up with an actual example.

[jhenrikj]

The classic example is North opens 1♥, east passes, south opens 1♥.

Now South can change 1♥ to 2♥ and the bidding continues, the information from the withdrawn 1♥ is AI to north. He should not be told why south bid 1♥ but he is allowed to guess that perhaps south intended to open 1♥so north does not have to treat 2♥ as a single raise.

[pran]

I consulted the Norwegian LC and discovered that their translation of the laws include the definition of bid as if it were written:

bid: an undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks (tricks in excess of six) in a named denomination.

IMHO the whole cause of confusion stems from the unfortunate use of the verb [specify, specifies, specified] both in the definition of bid and in Law 27.
(Before 2017 this was no problem, now it is.)

[barmar]

pran, on 2017-October-29, 12:44, said:

I cannot imagine a single situation where Law 27B1(a) is applicable ("specifies" understood as "means") that Law 27B1(b) is not also applicable. So why not completely delete Law 27B1(a)?

We had an example tonight, I think.

Auction was 1♠ (2♠) 1NT

Replacing 1NT with 2NT would specify the same denomination, but would not be a comparable call. 1NT shows something like 6-10 HCP (I don't think the pair in question plays 2/1 Game Forcing or forcing 1NT), 2NT shows 11-12.

I was the 2♠ bidder, and my partner chose to accept the 1NT call because he didn't want to allow her to replace it with a pass, since then we would have to bid on the 3 level, and he suspected we had no fit (he was right).

This example also applies whether "specifies" means "shows" or "names".