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

[Collins Williams]

On Dec 4, 2007 7:47 AM, Alain Gottcheiner <agot at ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>
>  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.

It strikes me that "forcing" and "artificial" might be synonyms in some sense:
If a bid (not sure about X XX or P) is by agreement forcing then it is
by definition
not an offer to play in the strain-level combination it specifies.


  Collins

>
>  Best regards
>
>     Alain
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>