Re: In between Law 23

-----Original Message----- 
From: Herman De Wael 
Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 5:16 PM 
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [BLML] 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 withdrawn call and the opponents are damaged because that information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.
-------------------------------

Jan:
I don’t agree. 
A 16-18 NT is comparable to a 15-17 NT.
These are similar ranges, same sort of balanced hands. 
Close, near, approximate, akin, analogous, related. (I googled)

Partner is allowed to know that 15-17 is held not 16-18. He is allowed to use that residual information.
We don’t have to judge whether it was used, merely that a better result was obtained than had there been an auction without the infraction.

The better result may not even flow from residual information.  

Is this wrong?
___________________________________

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.

---------------------------
Jan:
There already is leeway in 23A1.
It’s called “similar”.

_________________________________

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

____________________

Jan:
I don’t agree. Whether a meaning is added or dropped, "frequency" is not a synonym of "similar".

At least a dropped meaning has some chance of leaving a subset behind.

I think the new Law 23 is well written and I think we can use it just the way it is ....
....with some guidance at to what the limits are to “similar” for consistency.

_________________________________



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

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