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

[Eric Landau]

On Dec 6, 2007, at 4:56 PM, Ed Reppert wrote:

> On Dec 6, 2007, at 10:49 AM, Collins Williams wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Any forcing call is, by the definition of "forcing" not an offer to
> play in the denomination named or last named.

But most of the time it is; the definition refers only to  
"denomination", not contract.  If it goes 1C-P-1H, the 1H bidder is  
patently offering hearts as a potential trump suit, albeit not  
offering 1H as a final contract.

> Not all forcing bids are artificial, though, so "forcing" and
> "artificial" are not synonyms.

That seems obvious from the fact that "natural and forcing" is  
routinely (and appropriately) used to describe one's agreement about  
such bids.

> A call cannot be both artificial and not artificial. Can it be  
> neither?
>
> A call cannot be both natural and not natural. Can it be neither?

No and no.  X <-> ~~X is an axiom of any system of logic.

> Can a call be both natural and artificial?

Not in my lexicon, but YMMV.  "Natural" is not defined in T(new)FLB,  
and is used only once, in L75B, where it appears in an example rather  
than a definitive statement of law.  So I suppose it can mean  
whatever you want it to.  But in common English, they are used as  
complements (objects are generally viewed as one or the other but not  
both), and ISTM most bridge players use them that way.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
ehaa at starpower.net