In between Law 23

Suppose we have three similar bidding-systems:

A)
1C opening: 15+ pt, any distribution
2C overcall 18+ pt, any distribution

B)
1C opening: 15+ pt, any distribution
2C overcall 15+ pt, any distribution or 10+ spades

C)
1C opening: 15+ pt, any distribution
2C overcall 18+ pt, any distribution or 10+ spades

The replacement of a withdrawn 1C opening by a 2C overcall is...
A) CC according to 23A2
B) CC according to 23A1
C) no CC?

This looks strange to me. All the difference between the meaning of 2C
in B respectively in C is completely contained in the authorized
information, given by the 2C bid.

This is a matter of symmetry.
Since the replacement bid becomes a part of the legal auction, all the
information gained from it is AI anyway. Regarding this, it is
reasonable to have the asymmetric situation of 23A2: a more precise
replacement bid is a comparable call, since the additional information
is AI.

But the wording in 23A1 is requesting a symmetry  between withdrawn call
and replacement. Their meanings have to be similar in both directions.
I do not see any necessity why all the meanings of the withdrawn call
have to be found in the replacing call.	

IMHO a replacing call that has meaning similar to one, defining a subset
of the possible meanings of the withdrawn call should be called a
comparable call.

My suggestion:
"Law 23 A new definition
A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call, if it:
1.  has the same or similar meaning as _one_ attributable to the
withdrawn call, or ...."

But being no native speaker it is possible the I missed the point of 23A1.
-- 
Volker Walther
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml