Re: In between Law 23

You are right: "18+ pt" is a subset of "15+ pt".

a) But "18+ pt or 10 cards in spade" is not a subset of "15+ pt" because
of the possibility of a weak spade length.

b) and "18+ pt or 10 cards in spade" is not similar  to "15+ pt",
because of the difference between 18 and 15 points.

IMHO
a) prohibits appliance of 23A2
b) prohibits appliance of 23A1

Nevertheless "18+ pt or 10 cards in spade" is similar to "18+ pt", and
this is a subset of "15+ pt".

We all agree that Law 23 should apply here too, because the information
from the withdrawn call ("If he does not have 10 cards in spade and less
than 15 pt") is very little.


I would suggest to combine 23A(1+2) and write something like:

"A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a suitable replacement (or
comparable call), if a significant majority of the possible meanings
attributable to it is attributable to the withdrawn call as well."

Volker







Volker






Am 04.11.2017 um 10:53 schrieb Herman De Wael:
> You have failed one important part of the new law 23:
> A call is also a comparable call if it shows a subset of the original.
> So your case C is actually simpler than case B.
> 
> 18+ is a subset of 15+, so it's comparable.
> No questions there.
> 
> As to the addition of the 10+ spades bit, that is the same in case B and 
> C, so my original answer applies to both.
> 
> So we agree that these cases should be accepted, but there is nothing in 
> case C that is not also in case B, except for one thing which is clearly 
> in the laws!
> 
> Herman.
> 
> 
> 
> Volker Walther wrote:
>> 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 by the withdrawn call.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
>>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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