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

[Jerry Fusselman]

On Dec 3, 2007 5:08 PM, David Grabiner <grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> "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.

OK, but I am talking about whether or not 3H is artificial under the
*new* laws.  Conventional is not even defined in the new laws, and
determining whether or not a bid is conventional is irrelevant to
applying Law 29C.  Several posters, including Nigel and Grattan, have
said that the definition of artificial in the new laws "hardly
matters", but I think it clearly matters in Law 29C.

[Nigel]

In the short term, however, I agree with Jerry that the law book has
redefined "Artificial" in a counter-intuitive way. But I don't think
we should object to that, per se.

[Grattan]

[...] Equally true, inclusion of 'artificial
call' in the Definitions could give it a meaning for bridge law that is
not necessarily what it would have if given its dictionary meaning. So,
unusually and inadvertently as it may be, we may have been creative.
It hardly matters since any Regulating Authority can use its Law 40B
power to regulate the use of Stayman. [...]

[Jerry]

Nevertheless, David, your analysis is helpful to me.

> 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.

This makes me red faced.  Now I see that our 2NT bid should always
alerted!  The description "11--13" is inadequate.  It is a slight
variant of the Gittleman 2NT, and in the future I will alert it with
"11--13, asking for more information, not necessarily balanced."
After 2NT, Opener can show eight different categories of hands (3C
puppets 3D).

I suppose the fourth diamond could be an inference if 2NT was natural,
as you explain, but in our case it is not an inference.  Our agreement
is exactly the sentence:  "5341 shape or better, game forcing."  I
have not figured out whether or not it is alertable in the ACBL, so we
alert it.  ("Better" here only means that he might have a void in
clubs.)

>
> > 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.
>

But it is not yet clear to me that "primary message" is a concept that
is relevant to the definition of artificial in the new laws.

Furthermore, the word used in the new definition of artificial is
"information", and secondary inferences are information by definition.

This is the definition in the new laws:  "Artificial call — is a bid,
double, or redouble that conveys
information (not being information taken for granted by players
generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or
last named; or a pass which promises more than a specified amount of
strength or if it promises or denies values other than in the last suit
named."

Is it too late to fix it?

Jerry Fusselman