Re: In between Law 23

The new example does nothing to change my view that adding a suit or 
removing a suit or radically changing values fails the similarity test.
I’m not sure what values are involved with Herman’s single major suit 
overcall of 1NT.

Law 23 Comparable Call is a brand new law. I’m not aware that Regulating 
Authorities have been granted the right to allow bending the letter of the 
law as for the old 27B1(b).
Perhaps that will come though "similar" seems to cater for grey areas even 
if subsets remain rigid.

I find it hard to believe that Law 23 is intended as a bottomless pit of 
escape routes for offenders.

Naturally I will switch sides if the WBF Laws Committee clarifies that 
showing
weak hearts or spades or several possible game force hands
is similar to showing just hearts or spades (whatever the range).

East is the offender for not returning his cards to the bidding box as 
required by regulation (I acknowledge Herman’s local regulations may be 
different, we don’t leave the contract on the table). I'm not penalising 
South for looking up after counting, sorting and considering his hand to see 
1NT on the table in front of the dealer.
Jan



-----Original Message----- 
From: Herman De Wael
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 10:05 PM
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Subject: Re: [BLML] In between Law 23

No, Jan,

the lasw authorize the TD to determine what a comparable call is.
A comparable call is never completely the same.
The TD is allowed some leeway. That is what I'm using here (and
internationally, we have been told to be generous).

There is absolutely no discussion that acoording to the definition, this
is not a comparable call. And yet ...

Law 23C does not, indeed, speak of UI. But if the partner uses what
amounts to the UI part of the first call, then it is immediately clear
that a contract will be reached that could not have been reached without
that use. And so a ruling will happen.

This case is obviously a constructed one - no-one plays this kind of
system. But I made one which is not so impossible.

East is dealer, but he has left one bidding card on the table: the
contract of the previous board: 1NT.
South believes this to be an opening call, and he bids 2Di. The mistake
is realized, and the call not accepted. East now passes and South wants
to bid 2Di again.
Over a 1NT opening, 2Di shows a six-card major.
As an opening, 2Di shows a six-card major or several game-forcing hands.
According to the definition, this is not a comparable call.
But what does it cost to accept it anyway?

If North has a seven-card diamond suit and 3 points, he would not dare
to pass over the opening, fearing the 23+ hand. If he now passes in this
situation, he has used UI, but they are also arriving in a contract that
they could not have reached without the infraction, so a ruling will be
made anyway.

OK?

Herman.


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

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