[blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C?

[gesta at tiscali.co.uk]

Grattan Endicott<gesta at tiscali.co.uk
[following address discontinued:
grandeval at vejez.fsnet.co.uk]
**************************
"Faith, that's as well said
as if I had said it myself."
     ['Polite Conversation']

+++++++++++++++++++++++
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Grabiner" <grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C?


> "Jerry Fusselman" <jfusselman at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> [Law 29C]
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> [Jerry]
>>
>> What does "specified" mean in Law 29C?
>>
>> Maybe an example helps---consider this auction with no competition:
>>
>> 1S (5+ spades)  -  1N (forcing)
>> 2D (3+ diamonds) - 2N (11--13)
>> 3H ("5341 shape or better, game forcing")
>>
>> But the bid was 2H instead---insufficient.  The first question is
>> whether 3H would have been artificial or not.  Who can tell for sure
>> under the new laws?  Not me, but I'll assume it is, because it
>> guarantees four diamonds and a singleton or void in clubs.  Also, in
>> case it matters, it is game forcing.
>
> In this particular case, I would say that the call is not conventional,
> because the suit implications are part of general bridge knowledge.
> A player who bids three suits in the face of partner's attempt to
> play NT must be short in the fourth suit; with 5332, he would either
> pass or raise NT.  The fourth diamond is also an inference; with six
> spades, he would have bid 3S or bid 2S the second round, and
> with four hearts and only three diamonds, he would have bid 2H,
> not 2D, on the second round.
>
>> Here is my main question:  Which denominations are in effect
>> for laws 30, 31, and 32?  Hearts, even though hearts was named?
>> Diamonds, because now we are assured there are at least four
>> diamonds?  Clubs, because the call promises a singleton or void
>> in clubs?  Spades, because the alert happened to include the word
>> spades?
>
> Hearts are the relevant denomination, because this bid's primary
> message was about hearts, and the holdings in the other suits are
> secondary inferences.
>
> This applies even to clearly natural calls: 1C-1H-2D is a bid
> everyone agrees is natural, but it also carries information about four
> suits; it shows at least four diamonds, longer clubs than diamonds,
> and denies four cards in either major.  If it is out of turn, the penalty
> applies only to diamonds, even though the 1C opening could have
> been three cards (two in some styles) without the 2D bid and is now
> known to be five.
>
+=+ As an aside, you will recall that I had asked myself this
question:
  "How is 'conveys information' to be interpreted in the definition
of 'artificial call'.?   [Here the matter to be determined is whether
the meaning is confined to positive information about the caller's
hand, or does it extend to include presumptive information (that
in some partnerships may be denied subsequently in the later
auction) such as an inference that the caller is interested in a
particular suit or suits?   The definition is open ended and I have
failed this far to identify what in the 2007 Laws might exclude
such presumptive information. Is it not information on which
partner may eventually rely in the absence of contrary indications?
Is it not true that every bid is technically an offer to contract for
the number of tricks specified in the denomination named, with
information about the hand deriving secondarily from inference
or from partnership understanding?]
      Initially I was thinking about the discussion I had read as
to whether 2C Stayman conveys information or not, ergo is it
by definition 'artificial'.
                                             ~ Grattan ~  +=+