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

[Alain Gottcheiner]

gesta at tiscali.co.uk a écrit :
> 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: "Ed Reppert" <ereppert at rochester.rr.com>
> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 1:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [blml] What does "specified" mean in Law 29C?
>
>
>   
>> I have seen definitions of "natural" that apply to opening bids. I  
>> see no reason why those definitions should apply to a suit bid on the  
>> third round. Opener's first bid shows 5+ spades, his second 4+  
>> diamonds (unless he's manufacturing a bid for some reason), his  
>> third, well, if we require it to show 4+ hearts in order not to be  
>> artificial, then a natural suit bid on the third round in just about  
>> any auction is *almost always* going to be artificial. I don't buy it.
>>
>>     
> +=+ Would it not be the case that a bid is either artificial or not 
> artificial? I am not sure whether the laws (must read them again!) 
> use the term 'natural', whereas 'artificial' is defined. 
>                                     
It could be a good idea to state that :
1) inferences about the length held in some suit(s)  (because there are 
only 13 cards in any given hand, or because of the order in which the 
suits were bid) do not make the bid artificial nor conventional..
2) transmitting *less* information than would be done by a "classical" 
bid doesn't make the bid artificial (but might make it alertable) ; for 
example, those who systematically open 1D on 4D+5C and a minimum don't 
use an artficial 2C rebid just because it could be either longer suit.
3) however, a bid "linked to a suit" could be artificial, even if it 
doesn't say anything (more than is already known) about other suits. For 
example, if after opening a weak 2-bid you answer your singleton over 
the relay.

Other generic statements oriented towards jurisprudency could help, too.

One example about which I'm in doubt is in relay auctions, when you 
happen to hold the suit you bid.
1C*         1S**
1NT@     2D #

* strong
** some point range or number of controls
@ relay
# diamonds and a major, possibly longer in the major

In this case, if 2D was insufficient (they overcalled over 1NT), I'd 
treat the D suit as specified, and no other suit as specified, although 
one knows the player holds one major. However, UI could be strong.

Best regards

   Alain

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20071204/3d8ae7dd/attachment.htm