[barmar]

Last year we had several threads where there were disagreements due to different interpretations of what it means for a call to "specify a denomination". In the commentary that WBF just published, this phrase seems to be clarified. In the discussion of Law 27B Insufficient Bid Not Accepted, it says:

Quote

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.
...
In respect to Law 27B1(a), for partner not to be barred, the replacement call needs to specify the same type of feature in that same denomination.

So it's not the denomination that was named in the bid, it's the denomination whose holding is being described. E.g. a transfer bid specifies the next suit, a Bergen raise or Jacoby 2NT specifies opener's suit. A splinter raise specifies two suits: length in partner's suit, shortness in the suit bid.

[weejonnie]

There was also discussion as to whether the TD should advise a player (if asked) if his intended call would be treated as a comparable call (or showing the same denomination(s) at the lowest possible level.)

This has now been answered in the affirmative. (At least for IBs, the assumption is that it will also apply for COOTS)

[BudH]

Unfortunately, one of the most common and simple questions we had after the 2017 laws became available for inspection was not answered in the recent commentary on the new laws:

1♠ opening on dealer's left not accepted.

then

1♥ - (1♠) - ?

Is 1♠ comparable? You check the convention (system) card and find their range for the overcall is:

(1) 5-17 HCP
(2) 7-17 HCP
(3) 9-17 HCP

I was hoping this frequent question would have be answered, probably by saying (3) is comparable and (1) is not, and (2) would likely have very little information given to us (meaning it's Director judgement, and because we are supposed to be liberal, we'd often allow it with a 7 HCP minimum overcall range).

[gordontd]

BudH, on 2019-January-27, 09:16, said:

Unfortunately, one of the most common and simple questions we had after the 2017 laws became available for inspection was not answered in the recent commentary on the new laws:

1♠ opening on dealer's left not accepted.

then

1♥ - (1♠) - ?

Is 1♠ comparable? You check the convention (system) card and find their range for the overcall is:

(1) 5-17 HCP
(2) 7-17 HCP
(3) 9-17 HCP

I was hoping this frequent question would have be answered, probably by saying (3) is comparable and (1) is not, and (2) would likely have very little information given to us (meaning it's Director judgement, and because we are supposed to be liberal, we'd often allow it with a 7 HCP minimum overcall range).

I too was hoping it would be answered, and I hope I may have an opportunity soon to ask it of those who were involved in its creation. I have in the past opined that in the most common style of overcalling, a one-level overcall should not be considered comparable to an opening bid but a two-level overcall should. I do think it's worth trying to find out something about the pair's overcalling style before deciding though: if they are very solid citizens you might allow a one-level overcall and if they are particularly adventurous you might well not allow a two-level one.

[pescetom]

BudH, on 2019-January-27, 09:16, said:

Unfortunately, one of the most common and simple questions we had after the 2017 laws became available for inspection was not answered in the recent commentary on the new laws:

1♠ opening on dealer's left not accepted.

then

1♥ - (1♠) - ?

Is 1♠ comparable? You check the convention (system) card and find their range for the overcall is:

(1) 5-17 HCP
(2) 7-17 HCP
(3) 9-17 HCP

I was hoping this frequent question would have be answered, probably by saying (3) is comparable and (1) is not, and (2) would likely have very little information given to us (meaning it's Director judgement, and because we are supposed to be liberal, we'd often allow it with a 7 HCP minimum overcall range).

FWIW, the guideline given to TDs in Italy is "more than half the minimum strength". So (2) and (3) would be comparable.

The recent WBF Commentary neatly bysteps this issue however.

[barmar]

What does the strength range have to do with the interpretation of "specify a denomination"?

Budh, you already posted a message in the thread about the commentary asking about how strength ranges are interpreted in comparable calls. There's no need to hijack this thread for the same issue.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2019-January-28, 02:43, said:

What does the strength range have to do with the interpretation of "specify a denomination"?

Budh, you already posted a message in the thread about the commentary asking about how strength ranges are interpreted in comparable calls. There's no need to hijack this thread for the same issue.

I certainly think that everybody already knew what “specify a denomination” means, and if they did not, your OP explained it and there’s not a lot more to add