[Vampyr]

RMB1, on 2017-October-27, 16:53, said:

I think this is the wrong approach. We look at the auction and decide that 2NT could be strong balanced or could be a specific two-suiter. 27B1(a) allows 3NT and 27B1(b) allows a bid which shows a specific two-suiter, as a comparable call (Law 23A2).

How does this work? What if 2NT (in some similar auction) means something else in the offender's methods?

[RMB1]

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

How does this work? What if 2NT (in some similar auction) means something else in the offender's methods?

Then that 'something else' is a also a possible attributable meaning and a call which shows the 'something else' is a comparable call.

How will the non-offending side have been damaged? The offender could have made the replacement call without first making the insufficient 2NT bid and offender's partner would know nothing different about offender's hand.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2017-October-28, 03:23, said:

I would keep my gauntlets on, because I do not think that you can fasten them by yourself!

How do you throw down the gauntlet if you keep them on?

I admit that I what you keep your gauntlets in when not wearing them, I just guessed it might be a sheath.

OK, I just checked the dictionary, I see why our British friends are having a laugh at this.

[WellSpyder]

RMB1, on 2017-October-27, 16:53, said:

I think this is the wrong approach. We look at the auction and decide that 2NT could be strong balanced or could be a specific two-suiter. 27B1(a) allows 3NT and 27B1(b) allows a bid which shows a specific two-suiter, as a comparable call (Law 23A2).

Are you allowing 3N under 27B1(a) because it names the same denomination as the IB, or because it might(!) show the same denomination as the IB?

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2017-October-27, 16:53, said:

27B1(a) allows 3NT and 27B1(b) allows a bid which shows a specific two-suiter, as a comparable call (Law 23A2).

So you are in the group that thinks that the denomination specified is the one that is named for the purposes of 27B1(a)? If so, I concur, but many do not.

[pran]

lamford, on 2017-October-30, 06:53, said:

So you are in the group that thinks that the denomination specified is the one that is named for the purposes of 27B1(a)? If so, I concur, but many do not.

As I have already written in a separate thread:

I consulted the Norwegian LC and discovered that their translation of the laws includes 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.)

[VixTD]

BudH, on 2017-October-27, 18:55, said:

Also, application of this law would not make logical sense if you are guessing at the possible meanings of the insufficient bid instead of determining which denomination or denominations the offender was attempting to show.

Another example: (2♣)-2♣ insufficient. Are you going to simply guess at some possible meaning or meanings for the insufficient 2♣ bid? Is it intended as strong and artificial? A Precision 2♣ opening? A natural overcall of a 1-level opening suit bid? Intended to be a Michaels majors showing cuebid over a 1♣ opening?

Or will you simply take offender away from the table and have him tell you himself, allowing you as Director to determine if there are any possible replacement calls having similar meaning or which will allow offender's partner to bid at his next turn?

We are not interested in what the offender was trying to show, and guessing at the possible meaning is exactly what we do under the new laws.

[barmar]

I wrote to Adam Wildavsky, he said the LC has been working on a commentary regarding the word "specifies" in 27B1a, so hopefully we'll have a definitive answer to this debate soon.

Until then, I think we should stop wasting time in these threads.

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2017-October-27, 09:06, said:

Shouldn't you have used "barrel of monkeys" in a thread dedicated to the Cheating Chimp? And what was the origin of that phrase?

More fun than a barrel/cage/box of monkeys.