Re: In between Law 23

I can't read into 23A1 that the test for "same or similar meaning" is related to the number of times an option might be held.
That's not even similar to similar.

It still sounds to me that Volker is speaking of adding a weak spade hand. “Weak” is not similar to 15+

Law 23C applies after the substitution of a comparable call. I assume we go to 82C when a non-comparable call has been allowed and problems arise.

Certainly some official guidance is required as no longer “in the Director’s opinion” like the old 27B1(b).
I’d probably accept an 8 card suit instead of a 10 card suit.
Jan



-----Original Message----- 
From: Steve Willner 
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 10:40 AM 
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [BLML] In between Law 23 

On 2017-11-05 4:29 AM, Herman De Wael wrote:
> I think the meaning was 10 cards or more in spades.

That's how I read it as well.  I think the legal point is that a holding 
that is almost never dealt can be ignored for purposes of Law 23A. 
Certainly the players will be ignoring it in deciding their actions.  If 
it turns out to be important, L23C is still there.

There can be a practical question of where to draw the line on "almost 
never dealt."   Nine- and ten-card suits are clearly on the far side; no 
bidding system is designed to show them.  4, 5, and 6 card suits clearly 
on the near side; every bidding system has ways to show them.  It will 
take some experience and perhaps official guidance for other holdings.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

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