Insufficient Bids
I had a well considered post ready to go but deleted it by mistake. Here goes again ;)
29C refers to 30, 31 and 32 where it no longer really applies. They now refer to comparable bids rather than denominations.
On the other hand, I presume that 29C could refer to 27B1a, both for the original call and the replacement. Otherwise the '(s)' is meaningless.
As far as I can see this makes 27B1a very similar to 27B1b.
[It looks as if the reference to 26B makes them different but 26B includes a reference to comparable calls that cancels the difference.]
Could the whole thing be made simpler and clearer by deleting 27B1a and 29C?
Alan
29C refers to 30, 31 and 32 where it no longer really applies. They now refer to comparable bids rather than denominations.
On the other hand, I presume that 29C could refer to 27B1a, both for the original call and the replacement. Otherwise the '(s)' is meaningless.
As far as I can see this makes 27B1a very similar to 27B1b.
[It looks as if the reference to 26B makes them different but 26B includes a reference to comparable calls that cancels the difference.]
Could the whole thing be made simpler and clearer by deleting 27B1a and 29C?
Alan
Alan
Comments
On first reading, I can't see any reason not to delete 29C.
For 27B1a, though, the "lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s)" may not be a comparable call, yet is still acceptable without restriction on partner. Whether this is "right" is another question, but it makes 27B1a necessary.
I can't think of an obvious example.
Perhaps it's because I'm used to relatively simple systems.
Alan
Alan
N E S W1D P 1H 2C1SWithout the 2C, 1S shows 12-15 points.
With the 2C, 2S shows 15+ => not comparable.
Thanks.
So the reference to 16C in 27B1a means that partner can take 2S to show 12-15.
With the proviso of 27D of course!
Alan
That was one of my questions. The wording is obviously wrong.
It can't apply to 30-31-32.
Does it apply to 27?
Alan
1S would be quite a bit wider than 12-15, more like 12-18.
Another way of looking at it is that 29C is meaningless as it seems to be referring to 23C.
The structure of the Laws is incredibly convoluted.
23B and 23C really belong to 27 and 30-31-32, parts of which they duplicate
Alan
Clearly no-one would number the laws in this way if they were starting from scratch, but the WBFLC took the decision prior to the 2007 laws not to renumber the whole lot and to keep the same numbers as far as possible, because of the scale of re-education that would be needed for TDs.
I think it's quite likely that at some point Law 27 might be simplified to be based entirely on comparable calls and to refer to L23C instead of 27D.
Not in my system. After 1D - P - 1H - P, 1S shows 12-15 and is non forcing. 2S would show 16+
Is it not forcing to game? Seems like a recipe for over-bidding!
I know a few who play that a reverse at the two-level is just F1R, whereas a reverse to the three level is GF. Then again, in a competitive auction many actions vary in meaning.
I've known people do that, but not for the last 25 years :)
Actually I might have misunderstood you:
1D-1S
2H is usually played as a one-round force
1D-2C
2H is usually played as game-forcing
1H-2D
3C is usually played as game-forcing (a "high-reverse")
1D-1S
3H (which is what I thought you meant) is nowadays usually played as a splinter bid.
We're on the same page, Gordon. Apologies for not being clearer.
No - just a 1RF.
But then I did learn bridge 40 years ago.
Also, I wondering if I'm getting confused. Most people I know who play Benji play a jump rebid (techincally a reverse) as only a 1RF.
A jump rebid is not a reverse.
I'm not sure a debate about how particular posters play a call is very useful. What matters when applying the Law is the partnership agreement, not whether we think it's good, or standard, or old-fashioned or whatever.
Anyway, here are some more examples where the "lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination" would not satisfy the "comparable call" rule even playing fairly simple methods:
Nice simple one: 1H (2S) 2H corrected to 3H. There are hands that would bid 3H here that wouldn't have bid 2H if second seat passed.
2S (weak) opening, 1NT 'opening' as an overcall
Playing weak NT the opening would be 12-14 but it's usual to play the overcall as about 15-18, so it's not 'comparable' but it's legal (with later constraints)
Similarly 3S opening, 2NT overcall corrected to 3NT. 3NT is not a comparable call (it's a much wider range than 2NT over a weak 2) but is still allowed without constraining fourth hand.
A pair play 1C - P - 2NT as natural invitational,
3C - P - 2NT (thinking partner opened 1C); 3NT in response to 3S would not be a comparable call but it is permitted.
(It may not matter much as opener is generally not going to bid again after the 3NT bid but perhaps after intervention it becomes relevant)
Everything I can find defines a reverse as "a second bid in a new suit at the two level by opener in a higher ranking suit than opener's first bid suit." or similar. Which makes the jump rebid here a reverse.
Is there an alternative (correct?) definition?
Wikipedia offers a number of (flawed) definitions: I would suggest 'a non-jump suit rebid which by-passes a rebid of the suit bid by the same player'
I always think of a reverse bid as a change of suit where partner cannot show preference back to the original suit below the three level.
Alan