Re: In between Law 23

Steve, please stop putting up your straw man that I do not understand that 
your argument is that the number of hands held will remain the same. The 
number of hands that could be held remains the same because the added much 
weaker option cannot be held, not because it describes a rarely seen hand.

My point was that rarity is not relevant if the meaning remains similar.

The test is “similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call”.
“I might have bananas” does not become similar in meaning to “I do not have 
bananas” just because everyone knows I have apples only.

If the WBFLC clarifies that “similar” includes options that cannot be held 
by the offender then fine and dandy.

Jan


-----Original Message----- 
From: Steve Willner
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 10:36 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [BLML] In between Law 23

On 2017-11-10 3:48 PM, Jan Peach wrote:
> I have never said that the rarity of the new option matters.

Yes, we know that.  Everyone except you is saying rarity matters.

Let's try making the long-spade type B = 14 spades, i.e., the empty set.
  Now would you agree that "A" and "A or B" are "similar"?  What about
13 spades?  12?  Etc.?
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml 

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