Re: In between Law 23

Jan Peach wrote:
>
> 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 withdrawn call and the opponents are damaged because that information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.
>

Indeed. A typical example would be an overcall of 1NT that shows 16-18, 
coming as a replacement for an apparent opening of 1NT that hows 15-17.
Now, if either player takes the 15 into or the 18 out of account, a 
contract could be reacher that ...
Here too, the calls are not equal, and by a fully literal interpretation 
of L23, would not be comparable.

Yet, internationally, Directors are in agreement that cases like this 
have to be called comparable. And that is a good thing.
If this weren't the case then :
a) can you ever have a comparable call? if not, the new laws are worse 
than the old ones;
b) there would be no need for L23C, since the calls being absolutely 
equal, there can never be anything else.

SO yes, some leeway is needed.

And the frequency of the dropped meaning is certainly of importance in 
deciding whether or not to allow the change.

Herman.

> 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.
>

Well, if the secondary meaning comes up more than the original one, 
surely we shall not accept the change? Which we might do if the 
secondary meaning is as rare as a 10-card suit?

Herman.

> 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
>
> <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