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 The replacement of a withdrawn 1C opening by a 2C overcall is...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 But the wording in 23A1 is requesting a symmetry  between withdrawn call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 I do not see any necessity why all the meanings of the withdrawn call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 of the possible meanings of the withdrawn call should be called a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 A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call, if it: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 withdrawn call, or ...."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