Re: In between Law 23

Good points. 

Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief

> On 6 Nov 2017, at 10:02, Jan Peach <[email protected]> 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