Re: In between Law 23

I'm not sure I understand. The definition of comparable is not met but you are allowing the call anyway?
How would Law 23C help if you knew the replacement call was not comparable? It's only for comparable calls.

Law 23C carefully avoids using the words unauthorised information. Law 23B says for Law 29B cases that Law 16C2 does not apply.  

The test is same or similar meaning not similar frequency for being dealt.
Strong to weak is not a small difference.
Jan



-----Original Message----- 
From: Herman De Wael 
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 5:56 PM 
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [BLML] In between Law 23 



Jan Peach wrote:
>
> That helps with 15+ or 18+ with 10+ spades but Volker spoke of the spade
> holding being less than 15 points.

yes, so?
a 10-card suit is still a very uncommon occurence, in relation to a 15+ 
hand.
And it is this frequency which leads me to accept the replacement, even 
if the definition of "comparable" is not met.

You will never find bids which have exactly the same meaning.
Small differences have to be accepted as well. There is still L23C 
(iirc) which allows the TD to rule afterwards.  And I woul advise the 
players that I would certainly apply L23C if the partner acted upon the 
extra information.

> The problem seems to be that partner knows the offender does not have
> the spade holding.
> I hesitate to suggest what the spade range might be for this system but
> a simple "less than 15" includes J1098765432.
> 12-14, 6-10, 5-11, 0-6
> Jan
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Herman De Wael
> Sent: Sunday, November 5, 2017 7:29 PM
> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [BLML] In between Law 23
>
> I think the meaning was 10 cards or more in spades.
> Just to show something really unlikely.
> Which would create only a small change in the meaning.
>
> I agree with you that if it had meant 10 points, with spades, the
> meaning would be grossly different, and not comparable.
>
> OK?
>
> Herman.
>
> Jan Peach wrote:
>>
>> In what way is 10+ with spades similar to 15+ any shape?
>> I don't see B or C as comparable but would like to be directed to any
>> official guidance
>> that suggests otherwise.
>> They create a very different picture of the hands that the offender could
>> hold - if - we didn't know that the 10+ with spades looked impossible.
>> Jan
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Volker Walther
>> Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 10:21 PM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [BLML] 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
>>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> Virus-free. www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

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