Re: In between Law 23

I think you missed my point: I heartly agree that the replacement should
be called a comparable call if there is little extra information given
by the withdrawn call. But in case of C I have to stretch the law to
allow it.

If you use your own arguments on the case C) you will get:

"Suppose they open 1He and you have 18+.
If you simply bid 2C, you indicate either your value or your spades.
But if you first bid 1C, and then change it to 2C, you have indicated
your value but _without_ the possibility of having 10 spades and less
than 15 pt!

So by first underbidding, you have told your partner more than by
bidding the 2C straight away.

And of course this is very little extra information, which is why, as
TD, I'd allo it anyay."

Complete agreement. If there is little extra information the play should
continue. But which is the suitable law?
23A2 does not apply, since you have the little extra Information about
the spades. And if you try to use 23A1 you will have to decide that 18+
is similar to 15+. (If you think 15 and 18 are similar, replace the
numbers by 14 and 21).

The withdrawn call may give only little extra information, but we are
not allowed to use 23A1 because the replacing call gives much more
information than the withdrawn call, destroying the "similarity."

I think we all agree 23A1 should apply if the _combined_ meaning of the
withdrawn call and  the replacement call is similar to the meaning of
the replacement call. In this case the withdrawn call gives only little
extra information, which is the important part.

But I do not find this meaning in the wording of 23A1.

Volker






Am 03.11.2017 um 06:14 schrieb Herman De Wael:
> No Walther, you have not grasped the meaning.
> Let me take your example B, because it is the closest:
> 
> Volker Walther wrote:
>>
>> B)
>> 1C opening: 15+ pt, any distribution
>> 2C overcall 15+ pt, any distribution or 10+ spades
>>
> 
> Suppose they open 1He, and you have 15+.
> If you simply bid 2C, you indicate either your value or your spades.
> But if you first bid 1C, and then change it to 2C, you have indicated 
> your value but _without_ the possibility of the spades!
> 
> So by first underbidding, you have told your partner more than by 
> bidding the 2C straight away.
> 
> And of course this is very little extra information, which is why, as 
> TD, I'd allo it anyay - but that is the reason why a comparable call can 
> be more restricted, a subset of the original, cancelled call, but not a 
> more broader set.
> 
> OK?
> 
> Herman.
> 
> 
>> 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.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> 


-- 
Volker Walther
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml