Re: In between Law 23
Richard Hills <[email protected]> Fri, 3 Nov 2017 16:21:27 +1100
| Newsgroups | gmane.games.bridge.laws |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
If I was the Director, I would initially be generous in my application of the Law 23A1 criterion " ... or similar meaning ... ". This is because most players prefer to gain their results by playing cards, rather than having their results imposed by the Director. Of course I would stand ready to later apply Law 23C (Non-Offending Side Damaged), if required. Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 3 Nov 2017, at 12:19 PM, Volker Walther <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 The replacement of a withdrawn 1C opening by a 2C overcall is...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 But the wording in 23A1 is requesting a symmetry between withdrawn call 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 I do not see any necessity why all the meanings of the withdrawn call 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 of the possible meanings of the withdrawn call should be called a 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 A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call, if it: 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 withdrawn call, or ...."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 _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml