Re: 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 by the withdrawn call.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 The withdrawn call may give only little extra information, but we are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 information than the withdrawn call, destroying the "similarity."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 withdrawn call and  the replacement call is similar to the meaning of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 In this case the withdrawn call gives only little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