Law 27B1a: Does NT count as a denomination?
The law refers to "same denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call". This means that it's the suits referred to by the meaning of the bid, rather than the denomination named in the bid (I have always thought) .
The commentary to the laws states that "For a call to specify a denomination, it should carry or impart information regarding the holding in that particular denomination. This can mean guaranteed length in a certain suit, or alternatively a control in a certain suit, or even shortage in a certain suit. "
This strongly suggests (but does not specifically state) that a denomination specified must be a suit. In other words it cannot be a NT (since you can't have a holding in NT).
So if the bidding goes:
W: 2S, N:1NT - Insufficient bid - not accepted.
Would replacing the 1NT with 2NT meet the criteria of 27B1a? Note the law does not say "same denomination(s) as that **named or **specified by the withdrawn call"
I have always thought the answer is "No". but something I have seen recently suggests otherwise.
Comments
"Denomination" is in the definitions section of the Law Book.
Also this exact situation was covered in my Club director training course IB Discussion 4. The 1NT is changed to 2NT but the director should consider Law 27D. The 1NT was 12-14 and the 2NT was 16-18 but was thought (by the offender) to be better than silencing partner throughout the auction.
But "denominations specified" is not.
That's why I'm asking the question. Under the 2007 laws, 2NT would be allowed as it states "same denomination". Since the change, I'm wondering if the example no longer works with 2017.
Yes my booklet for club director training was adjusted for the 2017 Laws and took into account comparable calls and insufficient bids.
Agreed there are not many system bids that specify NTs but making an insufficient bid in NT does specify NT. According to the definitions section NT is a denomination.
It is definitely possible to have an artificial call that specifies NT (e.g. I play 1!h, (X), XX as "comparable in meaning to a natural 2NT call" – 2NT would be artificial for me in that situation, but the meaning of the XX for me is very similar to what a hypothetical natural 2NT would show). Of course, this is the sort of call that is fairly unlikely to ever need to be withdrawn (it would mean something else if made by opener rather than responder, and it is hard to make a direct-seat redouble out of rotation).
More interesting to me is calls that explicitly ask about notrump (e.g. some pairs play fourth suit forcing as explicitly and only about notrump, even though many pairs play a more general version of the convention). The call is showing a desire to play notrump, whilst also (typically) showing concern about the suit bid – as such, is the call specifying notrump or not?
There are also some bidding sequences that give an explicit choice of contract, e.g. in one of my partnerships, at matchpoints (2H), X, (P), 2NT!, (P), 3C!, (P), 3H! (where all bids by our side are artificial) explicitly shows both a) four spades and b) a belief that 3NT is making – partner chooses between 3NT and 4S depending on which they think would be better-scoring. The 3H bid would normally be taken as specifying spades (given that it shows an explicit spade length), but in a sense, it also specifies notrump – in fact, it is more confident about 3NT making (which doesn't depend on partner's spade holding) than 4S making (which does – partner might sometimes have had to double on only three spades). It would be plausible to play the same sequence as showing exactly three spades instead (probably we should be doing that!), which would make it even more of an interesting question as to whether it's specifying NT, spades, or both.