Re: In between Law 23

I can’t follow that there is apparent agreement that the calls are not similar (both original and new scenarios), yet the change is still being permitted.

Law 23C only applies after the substitution of a comparable call, not after the substitution of non-comparable calls. All that is left is Director Error and hoping it won’t happen doesn’t sound fair to the non-offenders.

I thought Law 23C is for when, after a comparable replacement, the offending side perfectly legally uses residual information from the withdrawn call and the opponents are damaged because that information would not have been available in an auction with no infraction, or, perhaps, an auction is kept lower by the comparable call and a bad contract is avoided. 

There is nothing in the dictionary definition of “similar” to suggest that the number of times a hand is likely to be dealt is relevant. 

And, just to be clear because of the snip, I do not find the two bids in Herman’s new scenario similar.
Jan



-----Original Message----- 
From: Steve Willner 
Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 12:28 PM 
To: [email protected] 
Subject: Re: [BLML] In between Law 23 

On 2017-11-06 6:41 PM, Jan Peach wrote:
> showing weak hearts or spades or several possible game force hands is
> similar to showing just hearts or spades (whatever the range).

That wasn't the original question as most of us understood it.  I don't 
think anyone would rule those as similar, and I explicitly mentioned 
that in an earlier message.

The original question as understood was "possible game force" versus 
"possible game force or a hand type that will be dealt twice a decade if 
you play a lot."  Those two meanings seem similar to me, and we have 
L23C if ruling out the rare hand type becomes important.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

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