From bridge at vwalther.de Fri Nov 3 02:19:42 2017 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 02:19:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 Message-ID: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de> Suppose we have three similar bidding-systems: A) 1C opening: 15+ pt, any distribution 2C overcall 18+ pt, any distribution B) 1C opening: 15+ pt, any distribution 2C overcall 15+ pt, any distribution or 10+ spades C) 1C opening: 15+ pt, any distribution 2C overcall 18+ pt, any distribution or 10+ spades The replacement of a withdrawn 1C opening by a 2C overcall is...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 But the wording in 23A1 is requesting a symmetry between withdrawn call and replacement.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 I do not see any necessity why all the meanings of the withdrawn call have to be found in the replacing call. IMHO a replacing call that has meaning similar to one, defining a subset of the possible meanings of the withdrawn call should be called a comparable call. My suggestion: "Law 23 A new definition A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call, if it: 1. has the same or similar meaning as _one_ attributable to the withdrawn call, or ...."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. -- Volker Walther From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Nov 3 06:14:21 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 06:14:21 +0100 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de> References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be> 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. > From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Nov 3 06:21:27 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 16:21:27 +1100 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de> References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de> Message-ID: If I was the Director, I would initially be generous in my application of the Law 23A1 criterion " ... or similar meaning ... ". This is because most players prefer to gain their results by playing cards, rather than having their results imposed by the Director. Of course I would stand ready to later apply Law 23C (Non-Offending Side Damaged), if required. Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 3 Nov 2017, at 12:19 PM, Volker Walther wrote: > > Suppose we have three similar bidding-systems: > > A) > 1C opening: 15+ pt, any distribution > 2C overcall 18+ pt, any distribution > > B) > 1C opening: 15+ pt, any distribution > 2C overcall 15+ pt, any distribution or 10+ spades > > 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. > -- > Volker Walther > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From bridge at vwalther.de Fri Nov 3 13:21:39 2017 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 13:21:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: <8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be> References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de> <8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be> Message-ID: <0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de> 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 > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Volker Walther From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Nov 4 10:53:50 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 10:53:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: <0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de> References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de> <8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be> <0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <8c0ec589-3b24-ab40-7d88-5766b2fe7a3d@skynet.be> You have failed one important part of the new law 23: A call is also a comparable call if it shows a subset of the original. So your case C is actually simpler than case B. 18+ is a subset of 15+, so it's comparable. No questions there. As to the addition of the 10+ spades bit, that is the same in case B and C, so my original answer applies to both. So we agree that these cases should be accepted, but there is nothing in case C that is not also in case B, except for one thing which is clearly in the laws! Herman. Volker Walther wrote: > 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 >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Sat Nov 4 17:20:28 2017 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 02:20:28 +1000 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: <0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de> References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de><8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be> <0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de> Message-ID: 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: blml at rtflb.org 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 > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Volker Walther _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Nov 5 10:29:11 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 10:29:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de> <8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be> <0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be> 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: blml at rtflb.org > 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 >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Sun Nov 5 21:15:56 2017 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 06:15:56 +1000 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: <5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be> References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de><8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be><0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de> <5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be> Message-ID: <11A1557DB52D47F8883CFEDA41603BF2@PeachPC> That helps with 15+ or 18+ with 10+ spades but Volker spoke of the spade holding being less than 15 points. 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: blml at rtflb.org > 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 >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171105/74361f0b/attachment.html From bridge at vwalther.de Sun Nov 5 23:29:45 2017 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 23:29:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: <8c0ec589-3b24-ab40-7d88-5766b2fe7a3d@skynet.be> References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de> <8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be> <0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de> <8c0ec589-3b24-ab40-7d88-5766b2fe7a3d@skynet.be> Message-ID: <0813773e-a69d-f473-c10d-b277903e2b47@vwalther.de> You are right: "18+ pt" is a subset of "15+ pt". a) But "18+ pt or 10 cards in spade" is not a subset of "15+ pt" because of the possibility of a weak spade length. b) and "18+ pt or 10 cards in spade" is not similar to "15+ pt", because of the difference between 18 and 15 points. IMHO a) prohibits appliance of 23A2 b) prohibits appliance of 23A1 Nevertheless "18+ pt or 10 cards in spade" is similar to "18+ pt", and this is a subset of "15+ pt". We all agree that Law 23 should apply here too, because the information from the withdrawn call ("If he does not have 10 cards in spade and less than 15 pt") is very little. I would suggest to combine 23A(1+2) and write something like: "A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a suitable replacement (or comparable call), if a significant majority of the possible meanings attributable to it is attributable to the withdrawn call as well." Volker Volker Am 04.11.2017 um 10:53 schrieb Herman De Wael: > You have failed one important part of the new law 23: > A call is also a comparable call if it shows a subset of the original. > So your case C is actually simpler than case B. > > 18+ is a subset of 15+, so it's comparable. > No questions there. > > As to the addition of the 10+ spades bit, that is the same in case B and > C, so my original answer applies to both. > > So we agree that these cases should be accepted, but there is nothing in > case C that is not also in case B, except for one thing which is clearly > in the laws! > > Herman. > > > > Volker Walther wrote: >> 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 >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Volker Walther From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Nov 6 01:40:16 2017 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 19:40:16 -0500 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: <5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be> References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de> <8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be> <0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de> <5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 2017-11-05 4:29 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > I think the meaning was 10 cards or more in spades. That's how I read it as well. I think the legal point is that a holding that is almost never dealt can be ignored for purposes of Law 23A. Certainly the players will be ignoring it in deciding their actions. If it turns out to be important, L23C is still there. There can be a practical question of where to draw the line on "almost never dealt." Nine- and ten-card suits are clearly on the far side; no bidding system is designed to show them. 4, 5, and 6 card suits clearly on the near side; every bidding system has ways to show them. It will take some experience and perhaps official guidance for other holdings. From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Mon Nov 6 04:48:08 2017 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 13:48:08 +1000 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de><8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be><0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de><5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be> Message-ID: I can't read into 23A1 that the test for "same or similar meaning" is related to the number of times an option might be held. That's not even similar to similar. It still sounds to me that Volker is speaking of adding a weak spade hand. ?Weak? is not similar to 15+ Law 23C applies after the substitution of a comparable call. I assume we go to 82C when a non-comparable call has been allowed and problems arise. Certainly some official guidance is required as no longer ?in the Director?s opinion? like the old 27B1(b). I?d probably accept an 8 card suit instead of a 10 card suit. Jan -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 10:40 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] In between Law 23 On 2017-11-05 4:29 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > I think the meaning was 10 cards or more in spades. That's how I read it as well. I think the legal point is that a holding that is almost never dealt can be ignored for purposes of Law 23A. Certainly the players will be ignoring it in deciding their actions. If it turns out to be important, L23C is still there. There can be a practical question of where to draw the line on "almost never dealt." Nine- and ten-card suits are clearly on the far side; no bidding system is designed to show them. 4, 5, and 6 card suits clearly on the near side; every bidding system has ways to show them. It will take some experience and perhaps official guidance for other holdings. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171106/13598536/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Nov 6 06:59:35 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 16:59:35 +1100 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de> <8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be> <0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de> <5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1A031E20-0794-4984-9C4D-A3B18E4F1821@gmail.com> Law 23A1: "A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call, if it has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call" Jan Peach: " ... Certainly some official guidance is required as no longer ?in the Director?s opinion? like the old 27B1(b). ... " Richard Hills In my opinion official guidance to define "similar meaning" is unnecessary, because of Law 81B2: "The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws." and also Law 81C2: "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder." Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 6 Nov 2017, at 2:48 PM, Jan Peach wrote: > > Certainly some official guidance is required as no longer ?in the Director?s opinion? like the old 27B1(b). From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Nov 6 08:56:05 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 08:56:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: <11A1557DB52D47F8883CFEDA41603BF2@PeachPC> References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de> <8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be> <0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de> <5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be> <11A1557DB52D47F8883CFEDA41603BF2@PeachPC> Message-ID: <70856eb6-f97f-9441-7499-af0f6aa0e7ec@skynet.be> 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: blml at rtflb.org >> 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 >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Mon Nov 6 10:30:34 2017 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 19:30:34 +1000 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: <1A031E20-0794-4984-9C4D-A3B18E4F1821@gmail.com> References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de><8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be><0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de><5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be> <1A031E20-0794-4984-9C4D-A3B18E4F1821@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6BC49F18315E4370B0299024FF832EC9@PeachPC> For sure the director has the final responsibility to interpret the laws. That doesn't mean we should not strive for consistency. Unsettling to get one ruling one day and a totally different ruling the next when applying basic laws. Jan -----Original Message----- From: Richard Hills Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 3:59 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] In between Law 23 Law 23A1: "A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call, if it has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call" Jan Peach: " ... Certainly some official guidance is required as no longer ?in the Director?s opinion? like the old 27B1(b). ... " Richard Hills In my opinion official guidance to define "similar meaning" is unnecessary, because of Law 81B2: "The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws." and also Law 81C2: "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder." Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 6 Nov 2017, at 2:48 PM, Jan Peach wrote: > > Certainly some official guidance is required as no longer ?in the Director?s opinion? like the old 27B1(b). _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171106/8f466dc1/attachment.html From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Mon Nov 6 11:02:05 2017 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 20:02:05 +1000 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: <70856eb6-f97f-9441-7499-af0f6aa0e7ec@skynet.be> References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de><8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be><0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de><5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be><11A1557DB52D47F8883CFEDA41603BF2@PeachPC> <70856eb6-f97f-9441-7499-af0f6aa0e7ec@skynet.be> Message-ID: 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: blml at rtflb.org >> 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 >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171106/39fa9565/attachment-0001.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Nov 6 12:39:08 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 12:39:08 +0100 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: <6BC49F18315E4370B0299024FF832EC9@PeachPC> References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de> <8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be> <0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de> <5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be> <1A031E20-0794-4984-9C4D-A3B18E4F1821@gmail.com> <6BC49F18315E4370B0299024FF832EC9@PeachPC> Message-ID: <45bcec6d-0b17-1a31-0051-c054a5af6d31@skynet.be> Which is precisely what this list is for. Jan Peach wrote: > > For sure the director has the final responsibility to interpret the laws. > That doesn't mean we should not strive for consistency. > Unsettling to get one ruling one day and a totally different ruling the > next when applying basic laws. > Jan > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Hills > Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 3:59 PM > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [BLML] In between Law 23 > > Law 23A1: > > "A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call, if it has > the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call" > > Jan Peach: > > " ... Certainly some official guidance is required as no longer ?in the > Director?s opinion? like the old 27B1(b). ... " > > Richard Hills > > In my opinion official guidance to define "similar meaning" is > unnecessary, because of > > Law 81B2: > > "The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary > regulations announced under authority given in these Laws." > > and also > > Law 81C2: > > "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying > irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers > normally include also the following to administer and interpret these > Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities > thereunder." > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > Sent from my iPad > >> On 6 Nov 2017, at 2:48 PM, Jan Peach wrote: >> >> Certainly some official guidance is required as no longer ?in the > Director?s opinion? like the old 27B1(b). > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Nov 6 13:05:15 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 13:05:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de> <8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be> <0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de> <5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be> <11A1557DB52D47F8883CFEDA41603BF2@PeachPC> <70856eb6-f97f-9441-7499-af0f6aa0e7ec@skynet.be> Message-ID: <7673b702-5261-d3a8-57bf-0eef041add65@skynet.be> No, Jan, the lasw authorize the TD to determine what a comparable call is. A comparable call is never completely the same. The TD is allowed some leeway. That is what I'm using here (and internationally, we have been told to be generous). There is absolutely no discussion that acoording to the definition, this is not a comparable call. And yet ... Law 23C does not, indeed, speak of UI. But if the partner uses what amounts to the UI part of the first call, then it is immediately clear that a contract will be reached that could not have been reached without that use. And so a ruling will happen. This case is obviously a constructed one - no-one plays this kind of system. But I made one which is not so impossible. East is dealer, but he has left one bidding card on the table: the contract of the previous board: 1NT. South believes this to be an opening call, and he bids 2Di. The mistake is realized, and the call not accepted. East now passes and South wants to bid 2Di again. Over a 1NT opening, 2Di shows a six-card major. As an opening, 2Di shows a six-card major or several game-forcing hands. According to the definition, this is not a comparable call. But what does it cost to accept it anyway? If North has a seven-card diamond suit and 3 points, he would not dare to pass over the opening, fearing the 23+ hand. If he now passes in this situation, he has used UI, but they are also arriving in a contract that they could not have reached without the infraction, so a ruling will be made anyway. OK? Herman. Jan Peach 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: blml at rtflb.org >>> 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 >>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > >> Virus-free. www.avg.com >> > >> >> >> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Tue Nov 7 00:41:11 2017 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 09:41:11 +1000 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: <7673b702-5261-d3a8-57bf-0eef041add65@skynet.be> References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de><8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be><0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de><5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be><11A1557DB52D47F8883CFEDA41603BF2@PeachPC><70856eb6-f97f-9441-7499-af0f6aa0e7ec@skynet.be> <7673b702-5261-d3a8-57bf-0eef041add65@skynet.be> Message-ID: The new example does nothing to change my view that adding a suit or removing a suit or radically changing values fails the similarity test. I?m not sure what values are involved with Herman?s single major suit overcall of 1NT. Law 23 Comparable Call is a brand new law. I?m not aware that Regulating Authorities have been granted the right to allow bending the letter of the law as for the old 27B1(b). Perhaps that will come though "similar" seems to cater for grey areas even if subsets remain rigid. I find it hard to believe that Law 23 is intended as a bottomless pit of escape routes for offenders. Naturally I will switch sides if the WBF Laws Committee clarifies that showing weak hearts or spades or several possible game force hands is similar to showing just hearts or spades (whatever the range). East is the offender for not returning his cards to the bidding box as required by regulation (I acknowledge Herman?s local regulations may be different, we don?t leave the contract on the table). I'm not penalising South for looking up after counting, sorting and considering his hand to see 1NT on the table in front of the dealer. Jan -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 10:05 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] In between Law 23 No, Jan, the lasw authorize the TD to determine what a comparable call is. A comparable call is never completely the same. The TD is allowed some leeway. That is what I'm using here (and internationally, we have been told to be generous). There is absolutely no discussion that acoording to the definition, this is not a comparable call. And yet ... Law 23C does not, indeed, speak of UI. But if the partner uses what amounts to the UI part of the first call, then it is immediately clear that a contract will be reached that could not have been reached without that use. And so a ruling will happen. This case is obviously a constructed one - no-one plays this kind of system. But I made one which is not so impossible. East is dealer, but he has left one bidding card on the table: the contract of the previous board: 1NT. South believes this to be an opening call, and he bids 2Di. The mistake is realized, and the call not accepted. East now passes and South wants to bid 2Di again. Over a 1NT opening, 2Di shows a six-card major. As an opening, 2Di shows a six-card major or several game-forcing hands. According to the definition, this is not a comparable call. But what does it cost to accept it anyway? If North has a seven-card diamond suit and 3 points, he would not dare to pass over the opening, fearing the 23+ hand. If he now passes in this situation, he has used UI, but they are also arriving in a contract that they could not have reached without the infraction, so a ruling will be made anyway. OK? Herman. Jan Peach 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: blml at rtflb.org >>> 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 >>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > >> Virus-free. www.avg.com >> > >> >> >> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Nov 7 03:28:22 2017 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:28:22 -0500 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de> <8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be> <0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de> <5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be> <11A1557DB52D47F8883CFEDA41603BF2@PeachPC> <70856eb6-f97f-9441-7499-af0f6aa0e7ec@skynet.be> <7673b702-5261-d3a8-57bf-0eef041add65@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6c3db35e-d1c9-7b9c-d64a-52864de84420@nhcc.net> 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. From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Tue Nov 7 05:09:17 2017 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 14:09:17 +1000 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: <6c3db35e-d1c9-7b9c-d64a-52864de84420@nhcc.net> References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de><8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be><0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de><5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be><11A1557DB52D47F8883CFEDA41603BF2@PeachPC><70856eb6-f97f-9441-7499-af0f6aa0e7ec@skynet.be><7673b702-5261-d3a8-57bf-0eef041add65@skynet.be> <6c3db35e-d1c9-7b9c-d64a-52864de84420@nhcc.net> Message-ID: 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. 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. 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: blml at rtflb.org 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 Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171107/4833c65d/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Nov 7 08:16:27 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 08:16:27 +0100 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de> <8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be> <0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de> <5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be> <11A1557DB52D47F8883CFEDA41603BF2@PeachPC> <70856eb6-f97f-9441-7499-af0f6aa0e7ec@skynet.be> <7673b702-5261-d3a8-57bf-0eef041add65@skynet.be> <6c3db35e-d1c9-7b9c-d64a-52864de84420@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <6ac6eb31-d8e5-5313-825f-88bfd0a42e29@skynet.be> 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: blml at rtflb.org > 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 > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From gordonr60 at gmail.com Tue Nov 7 08:21:17 2017 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 07:21:17 +0000 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de> <8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be> <0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de> <5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be> <11A1557DB52D47F8883CFEDA41603BF2@PeachPC> <70856eb6-f97f-9441-7499-af0f6aa0e7ec@skynet.be> Message-ID: Good points. Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief > On 6 Nov 2017, at 10:02, Jan Peach 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: blml at rtflb.org > >> 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 > >>> Blml at rtflb.org > >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >>> > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > > > > > > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Blml mailing list > > Blml at rtflb.org > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171107/4a067a2b/attachment-0001.html From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Tue Nov 7 11:02:21 2017 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 20:02:21 +1000 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: <6ac6eb31-d8e5-5313-825f-88bfd0a42e29@skynet.be> References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de><8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be><0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de><5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be><11A1557DB52D47F8883CFEDA41603BF2@PeachPC><70856eb6-f97f-9441-7499-af0f6aa0e7ec@skynet.be><7673b702-5261-d3a8-57bf-0eef041add65@skynet.be><6c3db35e-d1c9-7b9c-d64a-52864de84420@nhcc.net> <6ac6eb31-d8e5-5313-825f-88bfd0a42e29@skynet.be> Message-ID: -----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: blml at rtflb.org > 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 > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171107/453abefa/attachment.html From bridge at vwalther.de Tue Nov 7 14:19:42 2017 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 14:19:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: <6c3db35e-d1c9-7b9c-d64a-52864de84420@nhcc.net> References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de> <8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be> <0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de> <5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be> <11A1557DB52D47F8883CFEDA41603BF2@PeachPC> <70856eb6-f97f-9441-7499-af0f6aa0e7ec@skynet.be> <7673b702-5261-d3a8-57bf-0eef041add65@skynet.be> <6c3db35e-d1c9-7b9c-d64a-52864de84420@nhcc.net> Message-ID: The original question arose when I found the word "subset" in 23A2 and I took a mathematical look on law 23. (sorry this will be a bit theoretical) The idea behind law 23 is: "Let the game go on, if there is no harm done by the withdrawn bid" And the three parts of law 23 define situations when this is the case. Hermann named the important part: "There is little additional information coming from the withdrawn bid." And in case this little bit of information is causing damage to the non-offending side, we have 23C. Lets have a closer look to this: We have a set W of hands fitting to the withdrawn bid and the set R of the hands fitting to the replacement. Obviously there is no additional information if R is in W. (This case is 23A2) "R in W" is the same as "R/W is empty", and this is the mathematical equivalent to "there is no information coming coming from the withdrawn call". On the other hand W/R is the set of all hands, which are matching the withdrawn bid, but not the replacement. This set may be huge, without doing any harm. The information that the offending player does not have one of these hands is AI from the replacing call. No need to care about the size of W/R. "R in W" is an asymmetric relation between the two sets which is according the fact, that the information from the replacing call is allowed and the additional information from the withdrawn call is not. The words of 23A1 (similar meaning) describe the fact that the R?W. (With repect to a measurement we still have to define) This is a symmetric relation. The sets being "similar" requires R/W to be small, and the SAME for W/R. "R/W is small" is a little bit more tolerant than "R/W is empty". The knowledge, that offenders hand is in W is "additional information". It becomes more important if R/W is big. But do we really need W/R to be small? Like above, when we considered 23A2, the information, that the offending player has a hand according to the replacing call, is AI for his partner. It is not "additional information". It does not matter that the replacing call does exclude many of the possibilities included in the withdrawn call. No harm is done if there are lots of hands, which are suitable for for the withdrawn call, but not for the replacement. So the condition that the sets are similar is not necessary for our purposes. We only need R/W to be small. And at that point I thought it might be better to have a law 23A1 not requiring similarity between the replacement and the withdrawn call and the replacing one. We need less than similarity. The three systems A, B and C where only a constructed example to make it more easy to see the general problem. Volker Am 07.11.2017 um 03:28 schrieb Steve Willner: > 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 > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Volker Walther Am 07.11.2017 um 03:28 schrieb Steve Willner: > 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 > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Volker Walther From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Tue Nov 7 21:29:50 2017 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 06:29:50 +1000 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de><8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be><0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de><5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be><11A1557DB52D47F8883CFEDA41603BF2@PeachPC><70856eb6-f97f-9441-7499-af0f6aa0e7ec@skynet.be><7673b702-5261-d3a8-57bf-0eef041add65@skynet.be><6c3db35e-d1c9-7b9c-d64a-52864de84420@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <05625E3DF62448E3B1D9EE41FA8509FB@PeachPC> Volker, what you seem to be doing is changing the law and then defending your change. The law does not say, "Let the game go on, if there is no harm done by the withdrawn bid" (This could be a guideline in deciding whether a 2 or 3 point difference falls within being similar. Time will tell.) It allows a comparable call to be made. It very clearly describes the ways to make a comparable call. It allows subsets. Don?t you think that if supersets were to be allowed it could have said so? It does not say same, similar or a superset. It says same or similar. Does anyone seriously think that ?less than 10? is similar to ?15+?? That adding a 10+ suit or a suit of any sort isn?t a change to meaning? Why keep mentioning Law 23C? Again, it isn?t there to mop up after the director allows the substitution of a non-comparable call. It says so. Hoping he won?t be caught out by the rarity of the new holding (and have to use Director Error) isn?t the way I want to direct. I?m finding grassroots directors are having very little trouble with this law. They understand subsets and they know what ?same sort of meaning? means. I will be very disappointed if the powers that be clarify that adding a suit with radically different points comes within the realms of similar. Helping offenders to recover (particularly by adding a nonsensical option) will have reached a new low for the game. Jan -----Original Message----- From: Volker Walther Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 11:19 PM To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: Re: [BLML] In between Law 23 The original question arose when I found the word "subset" in 23A2 and I took a mathematical look on law 23. (sorry this will be a bit theoretical) The idea behind law 23 is: "Let the game go on, if there is no harm done by the withdrawn bid" And the three parts of law 23 define situations when this is the case. Hermann named the important part: "There is little additional information coming from the withdrawn bid." And in case this little bit of information is causing damage to the non-offending side, we have 23C. Lets have a closer look to this: We have a set W of hands fitting to the withdrawn bid and the set R of the hands fitting to the replacement. Obviously there is no additional information if R is in W. (This case is 23A2) "R in W" is the same as "R/W is empty", and this is the mathematical equivalent to "there is no information coming coming from the withdrawn call". On the other hand W/R is the set of all hands, which are matching the withdrawn bid, but not the replacement. This set may be huge, without doing any harm. The information that the offending player does not have one of these hands is AI from the replacing call. No need to care about the size of W/R. "R in W" is an asymmetric relation between the two sets which is according the fact, that the information from the replacing call is allowed and the additional information from the withdrawn call is not. The words of 23A1 (similar meaning) describe the fact that the R?W. (With repect to a measurement we still have to define) This is a symmetric relation. The sets being "similar" requires R/W to be small, and the SAME for W/R. "R/W is small" is a little bit more tolerant than "R/W is empty". The knowledge, that offenders hand is in W is "additional information". It becomes more important if R/W is big. But do we really need W/R to be small? Like above, when we considered 23A2, the information, that the offending player has a hand according to the replacing call, is AI for his partner. It is not "additional information". It does not matter that the replacing call does exclude many of the possibilities included in the withdrawn call. No harm is done if there are lots of hands, which are suitable for for the withdrawn call, but not for the replacement. So the condition that the sets are similar is not necessary for our purposes. We only need R/W to be small. And at that point I thought it might be better to have a law 23A1 not requiring similarity between the replacement and the withdrawn call and the replacing one. We need less than similarity. The three systems A, B and C where only a constructed example to make it more easy to see the general problem. Volker Am 07.11.2017 um 03:28 schrieb Steve Willner: > 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 > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- Volker Walther Am 07.11.2017 um 03:28 schrieb Steve Willner: > 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 > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Volker Walther _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171107/65adf3b2/attachment-0001.html From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Nov 7 22:13:11 2017 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 16:13:11 -0500 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: <05625E3DF62448E3B1D9EE41FA8509FB@PeachPC> References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de> <8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be> <0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de> <5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be> <11A1557DB52D47F8883CFEDA41603BF2@PeachPC> <70856eb6-f97f-9441-7499-af0f6aa0e7ec@skynet.be> <7673b702-5261-d3a8-57bf-0eef041add65@skynet.be> <6c3db35e-d1c9-7b9c-d64a-52864de84420@nhcc.net> <05625E3DF62448E3B1D9EE41FA8509FB@PeachPC> Message-ID: On 11/7/2017 3:29 PM, Jan Peach wrote: > Does anyone seriously think that ... adding a 10+ suit ... isn?t a > change to meaning? As posted here, many of us think adding an extremely rare hand type is not a change to meaning. (I expect everyone will agree that adding a common but different hand type is a change to meaning.) Where to draw the line is not clear, and I hope there will be official guidance. I also don't understand why you think L23C wouldn't apply if the rare hand type changes "the outcome of the board." From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Nov 8 06:02:47 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 06:02:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: <05625E3DF62448E3B1D9EE41FA8509FB@PeachPC> References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de> <8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be> <0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de> <5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be> <11A1557DB52D47F8883CFEDA41603BF2@PeachPC> <70856eb6-f97f-9441-7499-af0f6aa0e7ec@skynet.be> <7673b702-5261-d3a8-57bf-0eef041add65@skynet.be> <6c3db35e-d1c9-7b9c-d64a-52864de84420@nhcc.net> <05625E3DF62448E3B1D9EE41FA8509FB@PeachPC> Message-ID: <006ab823-a131-1695-c46a-9e2b1abe9e04@skynet.be> Jan Peach wrote: > > > Volker, what you seem to be doing is changing the law and then defending > your change. > Yes, and he's not alone in that. What you are doing is defending your position by using the same arguments over again; Arguments which have been admitted and cast aside. > The law does not say, "Let the game go on, if there is no harm done by > the withdrawn bid" > (This could be a guideline in deciding whether a 2 or 3 point difference > falls within being similar. Time will tell.) > > It allows a comparable call to be made. It very clearly describes the > ways to make a comparable call. > > It allows subsets. Don?t you think that if supersets were to be allowed > it could have said so? > Well 16-18 is a superset of 15-17. Yet you seem OK to accept that one. You seem to think that 15-17 and 16-18 are "similar". Well we believe that "15+" and "15+ or 10 cards in spades" are similar as well. In both cases there is an overlap. The overlap in the first case (18 points) is far greater than in the second one (10 spades). > It does not say same, similar or a superset. It says same or similar. > > Does anyone seriously think that ?less than 10? is similar to ?15+?? > That adding a 10+ suit or a suit of any sort isn?t a change to meaning? > It is, when that option is an infrequent one. > Why keep mentioning Law 23C? Again, it isn?t there to mop up after the > director allows the substitution of a non-comparable call. It says so. Where? I believe it is precisely there to mop up if the comparable call turns out to be not quite similar. > Hoping he won?t be caught out by the rarity of the new holding (and have > to use Director Error) isn?t the way I want to direct. > But the rarity is not present. The guy who changes to a bid that might show 10 spades does not have them, since he made the original call that did not include that option. What matters is that partner should not be able to make a different call based on the knowledge that the second option does not exist. But in the cases of infrequent secondary meanings partner's first response will always be based on the major meaning, while offenders second bid will (almost) always clarify that the minority option is not present. So there's really no harm done, and plays continues correctly. L23C, just like its predecessor of the same number, is not intended to even be used. It just serves as a stopgap against people who might believe there is something they could use. > I?m finding grassroots directors are having very little trouble with > this law. They understand subsets and they know what ?same sort of > meaning? means. > Indeed, and if we tell them that cases like this are to be treated as "similar", they will understand that one too. In the Flemish courses on the ne laws, we have told directors (many of them "grassroots" or worse) that they can be generous, and they understand that one as well. > I will be very disappointed if the powers that be clarify that adding a > suit with radically different points comes within the realms of similar. It's just like the 2Di case I gave. of course the secondary meaning will be radically different that the main one - that's the way Multi systems work. But that should not stop us from ruling comparable. Another example: With one partner I play that a 3Di opening shows either a pre-empt in hearts or a stron two-suiter hearts and another. If my oponing of 3Di (say out of turn) needs to be changed to an overcall of 3He (natural, weak), that should be considered similar and thus comparable. It would not be beneficial to start checking the point ranges here, either. I play this without any system card, so there's nothing to go on. Ig I were to have a system card, it would not give point ranges. But better pairs might put point ranges on their system card, and they would not be able to benefit from the leeway that we deserve. So better not ask for ranges and just accept the "pre-empt in hearts" as clarification, which would serve as explanation for both bids. > Helping offenders to recover (particularly by adding a nonsensical > option) will have reached a new low for the game. > That is your opinion. My opinion is that it is a new High for the game, because more hands wil be solved by playing bridge. In previous versions of the laws, I was not able to bid anything that would not silence my partner, thus forcing me to gamble and change to 4He. That's poker, not bridge. This new law is a good one. Herman. > Jan > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Volker Walther > Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 11:19 PM > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] In between Law 23 > > The original question arose when I found the word "subset" in 23A2 and > I took a mathematical look on law 23. > (sorry this will be a bit theoretical) > > The idea behind law 23 is: "Let the game go on, if there is no harm done > by the withdrawn bid" > > And the three parts of law 23 define situations when this is the case. > > Hermann named the important part: "There is little additional > information coming from the withdrawn bid." > > And in case this little bit of information is causing damage to the > non-offending side, we have 23C. > > Lets have a closer look to this: > We have a set W of hands fitting to the withdrawn bid and the set R of > the hands fitting to the replacement. > > Obviously there is no additional information if R is in W. (This case > is 23A2) > > "R in W" is the same as "R/W is empty", and this is the mathematical > equivalent to "there is no information coming coming from the withdrawn > call". > > On the other hand W/R is the set of all hands, which are matching the > withdrawn bid, but not the replacement. This set may be huge, without > doing any harm. The information that the offending player does not have > one of these hands is AI from the replacing call. No need to care about > the size of W/R. > > "R in W" is an asymmetric relation between the two sets which is > according the fact, that the information from the replacing call is > allowed and the additional information from the withdrawn call is not. > > The words of 23A1 (similar meaning) describe the fact that the R?W. > (With repect to a measurement we still have to define) > This is a symmetric relation. > > The sets being "similar" requires R/W to be small, and the SAME for W/R. > > "R/W is small" is a little bit more tolerant than "R/W is empty". > The knowledge, that offenders hand is in W is "additional information". > It becomes more important if R/W is big. > > But do we really need W/R to be small? Like above, when we considered > 23A2, the information, that the offending player has a hand according to > the replacing call, is AI for his partner. It is not "additional > information". It does not matter that the replacing call does exclude > many of the possibilities included in the withdrawn call. > > No harm is done if there are lots of hands, which are suitable for for > the withdrawn call, but not for the replacement. > > So the condition that the sets are similar is not necessary for our > purposes. We only need R/W to be small. > > And at that point I thought it might be better to have a law 23A1 not > requiring similarity between the replacement and the withdrawn call and > the replacing one. We need less than similarity. > > The three systems A, B and C where only a constructed example to make it > more easy to see the general problem. > > Volker > > > Am 07.11.2017 um 03:28 schrieb Steve Willner: >> 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 >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- > Volker Walther > Am 07.11.2017 um 03:28 schrieb Steve Willner: >> 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 >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > -- > Volker Walther > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Wed Nov 8 06:16:02 2017 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 15:16:02 +1000 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de><8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be><0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de><5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be><11A1557DB52D47F8883CFEDA41603BF2@PeachPC><70856eb6-f97f-9441-7499-af0f6aa0e7ec@skynet.be><7673b702-5261-d3a8-57bf-0eef041add65@skynet.be><6c3db35e-d1c9-7b9c-d64a-52864de84420@nhcc.net><05625E3DF62448E3B1D9EE41FA8509FB@PeachPC> Message-ID: I have no problem with adding the option of a 10 card spade suit with 15+ or 18+ points. Because such an addition is a subset of the 15+ hands with any distribution, I thought the discussion had to be about weak/weaker 10 card spade holdings. Bizarre that a system might have an overcall to show any distribution with 15+ or a 10 card spade holding with 15+. It was easy to fall into the belief that the 10 card spade holding was much weaker. Perhaps I got the bull by the horns but some interesting points have been raised nevertheless. Weak/weaker 10 card spade hands are no longer simply rare. They have become impossible holdings after the 15+ bid and do not fit my understanding of what similar means. (13+ 14+ might slip in as similar) Based on that, a comparable call has not been made, so 23C may not be applied. Law 23C only applies after the substitution of a comparable call. 23B would not apply either, after a non-comparable call. That notion sounds a bit complex as to how the director would present his ruling but I suggest 82C has taken over by then. I agree that if adding impossible point ranges or impossible holdings is clarified as being similar/comparable then Law 23C would apply. Jan -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 7:13 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] In between Law 23 On 11/7/2017 3:29 PM, Jan Peach wrote: > Does anyone seriously think that ... adding a 10+ suit ... isn?t a > change to meaning? As posted here, many of us think adding an extremely rare hand type is not a change to meaning. (I expect everyone will agree that adding a common but different hand type is a change to meaning.) Where to draw the line is not clear, and I hope there will be official guidance. I also don't understand why you think L23C wouldn't apply if the rare hand type changes "the outcome of the board." _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu Nov 9 02:50:46 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 12:50:46 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Insufficient Stayman Message-ID: <1D66C43F-B6EB-4900-B62A-B356799A764A@gmail.com> Dealer (North) opens 2NT, promising 21-22 hcp balanced. Responder (South) has severely limited vision (hence holds a disability pension), so believes that North has opened a 12-14 1NT, therefore responds 2C insufficient Stayman. Out of sympathy for South's disability West uses Law 27A to accept the insufficient 2C, and West then passes. Has West infracted the Law 72A "chief object is to obtain a higher score"? Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Nov 9 04:40:55 2017 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 22:40:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Insufficient Stayman In-Reply-To: <1D66C43F-B6EB-4900-B62A-B356799A764A@gmail.com> References: <1D66C43F-B6EB-4900-B62A-B356799A764A@gmail.com> Message-ID: Players are not supposed to waive rectification on their own; proper procedure is to ask the Director to waive the rectification. (In this case, the Director would probably have allowed South to correct his bid without any restrictions, even if South's correct response was no longer 3C Stayman, or if 3C had a different meaning such as Puppet Stayman.) On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Richard Hills wrote: > Dealer (North) opens 2NT, promising 21-22 hcp balanced. Responder (South) > has severely limited vision (hence holds a disability pension), so believes > that North has opened a 12-14 1NT, therefore responds 2C insufficient > Stayman. > > Out of sympathy for South's disability West uses Law 27A to accept the > insufficient 2C, and West then passes. Has West infracted the Law 72A > "chief object is to obtain a higher score"? > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > Sent from my iPad > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171109/f134a38c/attachment.html From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Nov 9 08:21:21 2017 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 18:21:21 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Insufficient Stayman In-Reply-To: References: <1D66C43F-B6EB-4900-B62A-B356799A764A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <007101d3592b$582434f0$086c9ed0$@optusnet.com.au> I think West can always accept the insufficient bid for whatever ulterior reason Cheers Tony (Sydney) From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of David Grabiner Sent: Thursday, 9 November 2017 2:41 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient Stayman Players are not supposed to waive rectification on their own; proper procedure is to ask the Director to waive the rectification. (In this case, the Director would probably have allowed South to correct his bid without any restrictions, even if South's correct response was no longer 3C Stayman, or if 3C had a different meaning such as Puppet Stayman.) On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Richard Hills wrote: Dealer (North) opens 2NT, promising 21-22 hcp balanced. Responder (South) has severely limited vision (hence holds a disability pension), so believes that North has opened a 12-14 1NT, therefore responds 2C insufficient Stayman. Out of sympathy for South's disability West uses Law 27A to accept the insufficient 2C, and West then passes. Has West infracted the Law 72A "chief object is to obtain a higher score"? Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171109/7c474393/attachment-0001.html From sven at svenpran.net Thu Nov 9 08:55:17 2017 From: sven at svenpran.net (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 08:55:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Insufficient Stayman In-Reply-To: <007101d3592b$582434f0$086c9ed0$@optusnet.com.au> References: <1D66C43F-B6EB-4900-B62A-B356799A764A@gmail.com> <007101d3592b$582434f0$086c9ed0$@optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <000e01d35930$15d306d0$41791470$@svenpran.net> Yes ? in the presence of the Director! Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Tony Musgrove Sendt: torsdag 9. november 2017 08.21 Til: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Emne: Re: [BLML] Insufficient Stayman I think West can always accept the insufficient bid for whatever ulterior reason Cheers Tony (Sydney) From: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] On Behalf Of David Grabiner Sent: Thursday, 9 November 2017 2:41 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient Stayman Players are not supposed to waive rectification on their own; proper procedure is to ask the Director to waive the rectification. (In this case, the Director would probably have allowed South to correct his bid without any restrictions, even if South's correct response was no longer 3C Stayman, or if 3C had a different meaning such as Puppet Stayman.) On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Richard Hills > wrote: Dealer (North) opens 2NT, promising 21-22 hcp balanced. Responder (South) has severely limited vision (hence holds a disability pension), so believes that North has opened a 12-14 1NT, therefore responds 2C insufficient Stayman. Out of sympathy for South's disability West uses Law 27A to accept the insufficient 2C, and West then passes. Has West infracted the Law 72A "chief object is to obtain a higher score"? Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171109/8b173d2a/attachment.html From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu Nov 9 09:08:56 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 19:08:56 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Insufficient Stayman In-Reply-To: References: <1D66C43F-B6EB-4900-B62A-B356799A764A@gmail.com> Message-ID: David Grabiner: Players are not supposed to waive rectification on their own; proper procedure is to ask the Director to waive the rectification. Richard Hills: Incorrect. Law 27A1 (acceptance of an in-rotation insufficient bid) or Laws 27A2 / 29A (acceptance of an out-of-rotation insufficient bid) are NOT waivers of rectification; rather they are in-principle legal options for the non-offending side. David Grabiner: (In this case, the Director would probably have allowed South to correct his bid without any restrictions, even if South's correct response was no longer 3C Stayman, or if 3C had a different meaning such as Puppet Stayman.) Richard Hills: With that point I agree. Technically Stayman is a relay, hence replacing insufficient Stayman with sufficient Stayman is a comparable call pursuant to Law 23A3. Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 9 Nov 2017, at 2:40 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > > Players are not supposed to waive rectification on their own; proper procedure is to ask the Director to waive the rectification. (In this case, the Director would probably have allowed South to correct his bid without any restrictions, even if South's correct response was no longer 3C Stayman, or if 3C had a different meaning such as Puppet Stayman.) From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Thu Nov 9 22:05:09 2017 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 07:05:09 +1000 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: <006ab823-a131-1695-c46a-9e2b1abe9e04@skynet.be> References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de><8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be><0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de><5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be><11A1557DB52D47F8883CFEDA41603BF2@PeachPC><70856eb6-f97f-9441-7499-af0f6aa0e7ec@skynet.be><7673b702-5261-d3a8-57bf-0eef041add65@skynet.be><6c3db35e-d1c9-7b9c-d64a-52864de84420@nhcc.net><05625E3DF62448E3B1D9EE41FA8509FB@PeachPC> <006ab823-a131-1695-c46a-9e2b1abe9e04@skynet.be> Message-ID: <9CBCFE9AA66C461C8F16708F92C067A5@PeachPC> I do not agree with much of what Herman has written however if my arguments have been ?cast aside? I understand the pointlessness of continuing the discussion. I?d still like to tackle just a few of his points in case silence infers agreement. Herman said: Another example: With one partner I play that a 3Di opening shows either a pre-empt in hearts or a stron two-suiter hearts and another. If my oponing of 3Di (say out of turn) needs to be changed to an overcall of 3He (natural, weak), that should be considered similar and thus comparable. It would not be beneficial to start checking the point ranges here, either. I play this without any system card, so there's nothing to go on. Ig I were to have a system card, it would not give point ranges. But better pairs might put point ranges on their system card, and they would not be able to benefit from the leeway that we deserve. So better not ask for ranges and just accept the "pre-empt in hearts" as clarification, which would serve as explanation for both bids. Jan: May I give a big Hurrah! to the better pairs who put disclosure above benefiting from leeway? I don?t follow why the leeway is deserved. The new bid might be a subset (subject to points shown) but not similar. Herman said: Well 16-18 is a superset of 15-17. Yet you seem OK to accept that one. Jan: That the super set 15, 16, 17, 18 is similar to 15-17 does not mean all supersets or overlapping sets are similar. His point does not make the superset ?15+ any distribution OR much weaker than 15 with 10 spades? similar to ?15+?. Herman said: In the Flemish courses on the ne laws, we have told directors (many of them "grassroots" or worse) that they can be generous, and they understand that one as well. Jan: I thought the approval to give "mildly liberal interpretations" came at a time when application of the old 27B was giving some bother. That it specifically referred to the old 27B. We now have a rewritten Law 27B and a brand new Law 23. More precise laws. Is there authority to tack "generous" interpretations onto these laws? (I understand older minutes remain current but the law has changed.) Why not to other laws if the unmentioned Law 23 is to be included? Are we to be ?generous? to all offenders? Perhaps there will be official clarification that options that cannot be held are OK. I hope not. I see a rarely held hand being no problem, if it is similar. Quote from WBFLC minutes 2008: Law 27B ? Mr. Endicott?s statement on interpretation was adopted and agreed viz:? The Committee has noted an increasing inclination among a number of Regulating Authorities to allow artificial correction of some insufficient bids even in cases where the set of possible hands is not a strict subset of the set of hands consistent with the insufficient bid. The Committee favours this approach and recommends to Regulating Authorities that, insofar as they wish, mildly liberal interpretations of Law 27B be permitted with play then being allowed to continue. At the end of the hand Law 27D may then be applied if the Director judges that the outcome could well have been different without assistance gained through the insufficient bid (and in consequence the non-offending side has been damaged). It was also agreed that where it says in Laws 27B1(a) and 27B1(b) that ?the auction proceeds without further rectification? this is interpreted as meaning that the auction and play continue without further rectification. Unquote Herman said: But the rarity is not present. The guy who changes to a bid that might show 10 spades does not have them, since he made the original call that did not include that option. What matters is that partner should not be able to make a different call based on the knowledge that the second option does not exist. Jan: Why? The residual information is not UI when a comparable call is made. Herman: L23C, just like its predecessor of the same number, is not intended to even be used. Jan: Law 23C considers what the result would have been after an auction untainted by the infraction. Surely it is intended for regular use even if there are few adjustments. Cheers Jan -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 3:02 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] In between Law 23 Jan Peach wrote: > > > Volker, what you seem to be doing is changing the law and then defending > your change. > Yes, and he's not alone in that. What you are doing is defending your position by using the same arguments over again; Arguments which have been admitted and cast aside. > The law does not say, "Let the game go on, if there is no harm done by > the withdrawn bid" > (This could be a guideline in deciding whether a 2 or 3 point difference > falls within being similar. Time will tell.) > > It allows a comparable call to be made. It very clearly describes the > ways to make a comparable call. > > It allows subsets. Don?t you think that if supersets were to be allowed > it could have said so? > Well 16-18 is a superset of 15-17. Yet you seem OK to accept that one. You seem to think that 15-17 and 16-18 are "similar". Well we believe that "15+" and "15+ or 10 cards in spades" are similar as well. In both cases there is an overlap. The overlap in the first case (18 points) is far greater than in the second one (10 spades). > It does not say same, similar or a superset. It says same or similar. > > Does anyone seriously think that ?less than 10? is similar to ?15+?? > That adding a 10+ suit or a suit of any sort isn?t a change to meaning? > It is, when that option is an infrequent one. > Why keep mentioning Law 23C? Again, it isn?t there to mop up after the > director allows the substitution of a non-comparable call. It says so. Where? I believe it is precisely there to mop up if the comparable call turns out to be not quite similar. > Hoping he won?t be caught out by the rarity of the new holding (and have > to use Director Error) isn?t the way I want to direct. > But the rarity is not present. The guy who changes to a bid that might show 10 spades does not have them, since he made the original call that did not include that option. What matters is that partner should not be able to make a different call based on the knowledge that the second option does not exist. But in the cases of infrequent secondary meanings partner's first response will always be based on the major meaning, while offenders second bid will (almost) always clarify that the minority option is not present. So there's really no harm done, and plays continues correctly. L23C, just like its predecessor of the same number, is not intended to even be used. It just serves as a stopgap against people who might believe there is something they could use. > I?m finding grassroots directors are having very little trouble with > this law. They understand subsets and they know what ?same sort of > meaning? means. > Indeed, and if we tell them that cases like this are to be treated as "similar", they will understand that one too. In the Flemish courses on the ne laws, we have told directors (many of them "grassroots" or worse) that they can be generous, and they understand that one as well. > I will be very disappointed if the powers that be clarify that adding a > suit with radically different points comes within the realms of similar. It's just like the 2Di case I gave. of course the secondary meaning will be radically different that the main one - that's the way Multi systems work. But that should not stop us from ruling comparable. Another example: With one partner I play that a 3Di opening shows either a pre-empt in hearts or a stron two-suiter hearts and another. If my oponing of 3Di (say out of turn) needs to be changed to an overcall of 3He (natural, weak), that should be considered similar and thus comparable. It would not be beneficial to start checking the point ranges here, either. I play this without any system card, so there's nothing to go on. Ig I were to have a system card, it would not give point ranges. But better pairs might put point ranges on their system card, and they would not be able to benefit from the leeway that we deserve. So better not ask for ranges and just accept the "pre-empt in hearts" as clarification, which would serve as explanation for both bids. > Helping offenders to recover (particularly by adding a nonsensical > option) will have reached a new low for the game. > That is your opinion. My opinion is that it is a new High for the game, because more hands wil be solved by playing bridge. In previous versions of the laws, I was not able to bid anything that would not silence my partner, thus forcing me to gamble and change to 4He. That's poker, not bridge. This new law is a good one. Herman. > Jan > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Volker Walther > Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 11:19 PM > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] In between Law 23 > > The original question arose when I found the word "subset" in 23A2 and > I took a mathematical look on law 23. > (sorry this will be a bit theoretical) > > The idea behind law 23 is: "Let the game go on, if there is no harm done > by the withdrawn bid" > > And the three parts of law 23 define situations when this is the case. > > Hermann named the important part: "There is little additional > information coming from the withdrawn bid." > > And in case this little bit of information is causing damage to the > non-offending side, we have 23C. > > Lets have a closer look to this: > We have a set W of hands fitting to the withdrawn bid and the set R of > the hands fitting to the replacement. > > Obviously there is no additional information if R is in W. (This case > is 23A2) > > "R in W" is the same as "R/W is empty", and this is the mathematical > equivalent to "there is no information coming coming from the withdrawn > call". > > On the other hand W/R is the set of all hands, which are matching the > withdrawn bid, but not the replacement. This set may be huge, without > doing any harm. The information that the offending player does not have > one of these hands is AI from the replacing call. No need to care about > the size of W/R. > > "R in W" is an asymmetric relation between the two sets which is > according the fact, that the information from the replacing call is > allowed and the additional information from the withdrawn call is not. > > The words of 23A1 (similar meaning) describe the fact that the R?W. > (With repect to a measurement we still have to define) > This is a symmetric relation. > > The sets being "similar" requires R/W to be small, and the SAME for W/R. > > "R/W is small" is a little bit more tolerant than "R/W is empty". > The knowledge, that offenders hand is in W is "additional information". > It becomes more important if R/W is big. > > But do we really need W/R to be small? Like above, when we considered > 23A2, the information, that the offending player has a hand according to > the replacing call, is AI for his partner. It is not "additional > information". It does not matter that the replacing call does exclude > many of the possibilities included in the withdrawn call. > > No harm is done if there are lots of hands, which are suitable for for > the withdrawn call, but not for the replacement. > > So the condition that the sets are similar is not necessary for our > purposes. We only need R/W to be small. > > And at that point I thought it might be better to have a law 23A1 not > requiring similarity between the replacement and the withdrawn call and > the replacing one. We need less than similarity. > > The three systems A, B and C where only a constructed example to make it > more easy to see the general problem. > > Volker > > > Am 07.11.2017 um 03:28 schrieb Steve Willner: >> 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 >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- > Volker Walther > Am 07.11.2017 um 03:28 schrieb Steve Willner: >> 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 >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > -- > Volker Walther > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171109/6db3f393/attachment-0001.html From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Nov 9 23:04:45 2017 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 17:04:45 -0500 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: <9CBCFE9AA66C461C8F16708F92C067A5@PeachPC> References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de> <8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be> <0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de> <5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be> <11A1557DB52D47F8883CFEDA41603BF2@PeachPC> <70856eb6-f97f-9441-7499-af0f6aa0e7ec@skynet.be> <7673b702-5261-d3a8-57bf-0eef041add65@skynet.be> <6c3db35e-d1c9-7b9c-d64a-52864de84420@nhcc.net> <05625E3DF62448E3B1D9EE41FA8509FB@PeachPC> <006ab823-a131-1695-c46a-9e2b1abe9e04@skynet.be> <9CBCFE9AA66C461C8F16708F92C067A5@PeachPC> Message-ID: On 2017-11-09 4:05 PM, Jan Peach wrote: > ...does not make the superset ?15+ any distribution OR much weaker than 15 > with 10 spades? similar to ?15+?. If you think an extremely rare possibility -- one that neither an opponent nor partner will ever allow for -- makes two bids dissimilar, then we just disagree. My opinions are often minority views, but I don't think this one will be. If the much weaker version could contain as few as six spades, a reasonably common hand type, then I'd agree the meanings are dissimilar. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Nov 10 00:44:37 2017 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 10:44:37 +1100 Subject: [BLML] Insufficient Stayman In-Reply-To: <000e01d35930$15d306d0$41791470$@svenpran.net> References: <1D66C43F-B6EB-4900-B62A-B356799A764A@gmail.com> <007101d3592b$582434f0$086c9ed0$@optusnet.com.au> <000e01d35930$15d306d0$41791470$@svenpran.net> Message-ID: <271D030C-C84D-48F4-831E-2982BFB46EE5@gmail.com> Sven Pran: Yes ? [Law 27A1 may only be used] in the presence of the Director! Richard Hills: Incorrect. Law 9 says a player "may" (failure to do it is not wrong) draw attention to an irregularity. And Law 27A1 says acceptance of an insufficient bid means that it is "treated as legal". Hence when my RHO perpetrates an insufficient bid I routinely accept it without wasting the Director's time. Only when Law 27B (Insufficient Bid not Accepted) applies do I summon the Director, so as to protect my RHO's rights under Laws 10 and 11. Best wishes, Richard Hills Sent from my iPad > On 9 Nov 2017, at 6:55 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > > Yes ? in the presence of the Director! From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Nov 10 17:43:46 2017 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 11:43:46 -0500 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de> <8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be> <0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de> <5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be> <11A1557DB52D47F8883CFEDA41603BF2@PeachPC> <70856eb6-f97f-9441-7499-af0f6aa0e7ec@skynet.be> <7673b702-5261-d3a8-57bf-0eef041add65@skynet.be> <6c3db35e-d1c9-7b9c-d64a-52864de84420@nhcc.net> <05625E3DF62448E3B1D9EE41FA8509FB@PeachPC> <006ab823-a131-1695-c46a-9e2b1abe9e04@skynet.be> <9CBCFE9AA66C461C8F16708F92C067A5@PeachPC> Message-ID: On 2017-11-09 5:04 PM, I wrote: > If you think an extremely rare possibility -- one that neither an > opponent nor partner will ever allow for -- makes two bids dissimilar, > then we just disagree. A better way of explaining this occurred to me later. Let A = 15+ any shape and B = weak with 10+ spades. Obviously the _hand types_ A and B are very different. However, if you have a call in your system meaning "A or B" and another call meaning "A", those _calls_ are similar because hand type B is for practical purposes nonexistent. That is, B is very close to an empty set. If you don't buy this, I can't think of anything else to say. On a related subject: it appears to me that adjusted scores under L23C can be weighted, and the weights can include actions that might have been indicated by a withdrawn call. Do others agree? This is an important difference from a UI adjustment. From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Fri Nov 10 21:48:33 2017 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 06:48:33 +1000 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de><8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be><0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de><5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be><11A1557DB52D47F8883CFEDA41603BF2@PeachPC><70856eb6-f97f-9441-7499-af0f6aa0e7ec@skynet.be><7673b702-5261-d3a8-57bf-0eef041add65@skynet.be><6c3db35e-d1c9-7b9c-d64a-52864de84420@nhcc.net><05625E3DF62448E3B1D9EE41FA8509FB@PeachPC><006ab823-a131-1695-c46a-9e2b1abe9e04@skynet.be><9CBCFE9AA66C461C8F16708F92C067A5@PeachPC> Message-ID: <3255269160F14E9C8C78FCC03DCABDBC@PeachPC> I have never said that the rarity of the new option matters. "Rarity" is not relevant to be "similar". Rare hands are fine, if they are similar. I am saying that the new option - cannot be held - because of the point range. To be clear, I think 13+ and 14+ look similar enough perhaps even 12+ but getting a bit grey lower than that. Jxxxxxxxxx x x x is a powerful hand but it's not even close to 15+. If there is a WBFLC clarification that "similar" includes added options that obviously could not be held or are ridiculous possibilities then, fine. All I am saying is that ?weak? is not similar to ?strong? and that "much weaker than 15" is not similar to "15+" and that therefore the new option fails the test to be similar. Jan -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 8:04 AM To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: Re: [BLML] In between Law 23 On 2017-11-09 4:05 PM, Jan Peach wrote: > ...does not make the superset ?15+ any distribution OR much weaker than 15 > with 10 spades? similar to ?15+?. If you think an extremely rare possibility -- one that neither an opponent nor partner will ever allow for -- makes two bids dissimilar, then we just disagree. My opinions are often minority views, but I don't think this one will be. If the much weaker version could contain as few as six spades, a reasonably common hand type, then I'd agree the meanings are dissimilar. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171110/70dd4773/attachment.html From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Fri Nov 10 22:23:39 2017 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 07:23:39 +1000 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de><8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be><0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de><5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be><11A1557DB52D47F8883CFEDA41603BF2@PeachPC><70856eb6-f97f-9441-7499-af0f6aa0e7ec@skynet.be><7673b702-5261-d3a8-57bf-0eef041add65@skynet.be><6c3db35e-d1c9-7b9c-d64a-52864de84420@nhcc.net><05625E3DF62448E3B1D9EE41FA8509FB@PeachPC><006ab823-a131-1695-c46a-9e2b1abe9e04@skynet.be><9CBCFE9AA66C461C8F16708F92C067A5@PeachPC> Message-ID: <86A45386F30845978A61C7C91FD08BFA@PeachPC> Steve: Let A = 15+ any shape and B = weak with 10+ spades. Obviously the _hand types_ A and B are very different. Jan: That is exactly my argument. A and B are very different. Therefore, they cannot be similar. -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 2:43 AM To: blml at rtflb.org Subject: Re: [BLML] In between Law 23 On 2017-11-09 5:04 PM, I wrote: > If you think an extremely rare possibility -- one that neither an > opponent nor partner will ever allow for -- makes two bids dissimilar, > then we just disagree. A better way of explaining this occurred to me later. Let A = 15+ any shape and B = weak with 10+ spades. Obviously the _hand types_ A and B are very different. However, if you have a call in your system meaning "A or B" and another call meaning "A", those _calls_ are similar because hand type B is for practical purposes nonexistent. That is, B is very close to an empty set. If you don't buy this, I can't think of anything else to say. On a related subject: it appears to me that adjusted scores under L23C can be weighted, and the weights can include actions that might have been indicated by a withdrawn call. Do others agree? This is an important difference from a UI adjustment. _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Fri Nov 10 22:57:50 2017 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 07:57:50 +1000 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: <9CBCFE9AA66C461C8F16708F92C067A5@PeachPC> References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de><8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be><0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de><5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be><11A1557DB52D47F8883CFEDA41603BF2@PeachPC><70856eb6-f97f-9441-7499-af0f6aa0e7ec@skynet.be><7673b702-5261-d3a8-57bf-0eef041add65@skynet.be><6c3db35e-d1c9-7b9c-d64a-52864de84420@nhcc.net><05625E3DF62448E3B1D9EE41FA8509FB@PeachPC><006ab823-a131-1695-c46a-9e2b1abe9e04@skynet.be> <9CBCFE9AA66C461C8F16708F92C067A5@PeachPC> Message-ID: <62D8DE408E6647C880A7C2A091D7DCE5@PeachPC> I said; Why? The residual information is not UI when a comparable call is made. Jan: Not semantically correct. The law says that Law 16C2 does not apply ? which is how I have quoted it in previous posts. I think we get to the same place if the information is used. That use is not the problem. We go back to the untainted auction if necessary. Who knows, the residual information may turn up in the normal auction or the normal auction might get to a better contract. From: Jan Peach Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 7:05 AM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] In between Law 23 I do not agree with much of what Herman has written however if my arguments have been ?cast aside? I understand the pointlessness of continuing the discussion. I?d still like to tackle just a few of his points in case silence infers agreement. Herman said: Another example: With one partner I play that a 3Di opening shows either a pre-empt in hearts or a stron two-suiter hearts and another. If my oponing of 3Di (say out of turn) needs to be changed to an overcall of 3He (natural, weak), that should be considered similar and thus comparable. It would not be beneficial to start checking the point ranges here, either. I play this without any system card, so there's nothing to go on. Ig I were to have a system card, it would not give point ranges. But better pairs might put point ranges on their system card, and they would not be able to benefit from the leeway that we deserve. So better not ask for ranges and just accept the "pre-empt in hearts" as clarification, which would serve as explanation for both bids. Jan: May I give a big Hurrah! to the better pairs who put disclosure above benefiting from leeway? I don?t follow why the leeway is deserved. The new bid might be a subset (subject to points shown) but not similar. Herman said: Well 16-18 is a superset of 15-17. Yet you seem OK to accept that one. Jan: That the super set 15, 16, 17, 18 is similar to 15-17 does not mean all supersets or overlapping sets are similar. His point does not make the superset ?15+ any distribution OR much weaker than 15 with 10 spades? similar to ?15+?. Herman said: In the Flemish courses on the ne laws, we have told directors (many of them "grassroots" or worse) that they can be generous, and they understand that one as well. Jan: I thought the approval to give "mildly liberal interpretations" came at a time when application of the old 27B was giving some bother. That it specifically referred to the old 27B. We now have a rewritten Law 27B and a brand new Law 23. More precise laws. Is there authority to tack "generous" interpretations onto these laws? (I understand older minutes remain current but the law has changed.) Why not to other laws if the unmentioned Law 23 is to be included? Are we to be ?generous? to all offenders? Perhaps there will be official clarification that options that cannot be held are OK. I hope not. I see a rarely held hand being no problem, if it is similar. Quote from WBFLC minutes 2008: Law 27B ? Mr. Endicott?s statement on interpretation was adopted and agreed viz:? The Committee has noted an increasing inclination among a number of Regulating Authorities to allow artificial correction of some insufficient bids even in cases where the set of possible hands is not a strict subset of the set of hands consistent with the insufficient bid. The Committee favours this approach and recommends to Regulating Authorities that, insofar as they wish, mildly liberal interpretations of Law 27B be permitted with play then being allowed to continue. At the end of the hand Law 27D may then be applied if the Director judges that the outcome could well have been different without assistance gained through the insufficient bid (and in consequence the non-offending side has been damaged). It was also agreed that where it says in Laws 27B1(a) and 27B1(b) that ?the auction proceeds without further rectification? this is interpreted as meaning that the auction and play continue without further rectification. Unquote Herman said: But the rarity is not present. The guy who changes to a bid that might show 10 spades does not have them, since he made the original call that did not include that option. What matters is that partner should not be able to make a different call based on the knowledge that the second option does not exist. Jan: Why? The residual information is not UI when a comparable call is made. Herman: L23C, just like its predecessor of the same number, is not intended to even be used. Jan: Law 23C considers what the result would have been after an auction untainted by the infraction. Surely it is intended for regular use even if there are few adjustments. Cheers Jan -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 3:02 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] In between Law 23 Jan Peach wrote: > > > Volker, what you seem to be doing is changing the law and then defending > your change. > Yes, and he's not alone in that. What you are doing is defending your position by using the same arguments over again; Arguments which have been admitted and cast aside. > The law does not say, "Let the game go on, if there is no harm done by > the withdrawn bid" > (This could be a guideline in deciding whether a 2 or 3 point difference > falls within being similar. Time will tell.) > > It allows a comparable call to be made. It very clearly describes the > ways to make a comparable call. > > It allows subsets. Don?t you think that if supersets were to be allowed > it could have said so? > Well 16-18 is a superset of 15-17. Yet you seem OK to accept that one. You seem to think that 15-17 and 16-18 are "similar". Well we believe that "15+" and "15+ or 10 cards in spades" are similar as well. In both cases there is an overlap. The overlap in the first case (18 points) is far greater than in the second one (10 spades). > It does not say same, similar or a superset. It says same or similar. > > Does anyone seriously think that ?less than 10? is similar to ?15+?? > That adding a 10+ suit or a suit of any sort isn?t a change to meaning? > It is, when that option is an infrequent one. > Why keep mentioning Law 23C? Again, it isn?t there to mop up after the > director allows the substitution of a non-comparable call. It says so. Where? I believe it is precisely there to mop up if the comparable call turns out to be not quite similar. > Hoping he won?t be caught out by the rarity of the new holding (and have > to use Director Error) isn?t the way I want to direct. > But the rarity is not present. The guy who changes to a bid that might show 10 spades does not have them, since he made the original call that did not include that option. What matters is that partner should not be able to make a different call based on the knowledge that the second option does not exist. But in the cases of infrequent secondary meanings partner's first response will always be based on the major meaning, while offenders second bid will (almost) always clarify that the minority option is not present. So there's really no harm done, and plays continues correctly. L23C, just like its predecessor of the same number, is not intended to even be used. It just serves as a stopgap against people who might believe there is something they could use. > I?m finding grassroots directors are having very little trouble with > this law. They understand subsets and they know what ?same sort of > meaning? means. > Indeed, and if we tell them that cases like this are to be treated as "similar", they will understand that one too. In the Flemish courses on the ne laws, we have told directors (many of them "grassroots" or worse) that they can be generous, and they understand that one as well. > I will be very disappointed if the powers that be clarify that adding a > suit with radically different points comes within the realms of similar. It's just like the 2Di case I gave. of course the secondary meaning will be radically different that the main one - that's the way Multi systems work. But that should not stop us from ruling comparable. Another example: With one partner I play that a 3Di opening shows either a pre-empt in hearts or a stron two-suiter hearts and another. If my oponing of 3Di (say out of turn) needs to be changed to an overcall of 3He (natural, weak), that should be considered similar and thus comparable. It would not be beneficial to start checking the point ranges here, either. I play this without any system card, so there's nothing to go on. Ig I were to have a system card, it would not give point ranges. But better pairs might put point ranges on their system card, and they would not be able to benefit from the leeway that we deserve. So better not ask for ranges and just accept the "pre-empt in hearts" as clarification, which would serve as explanation for both bids. > Helping offenders to recover (particularly by adding a nonsensical > option) will have reached a new low for the game. > That is your opinion. My opinion is that it is a new High for the game, because more hands wil be solved by playing bridge. In previous versions of the laws, I was not able to bid anything that would not silence my partner, thus forcing me to gamble and change to 4He. That's poker, not bridge. This new law is a good one. Herman. > Jan > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Volker Walther > Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2017 11:19 PM > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] In between Law 23 > > The original question arose when I found the word "subset" in 23A2 and > I took a mathematical look on law 23. > (sorry this will be a bit theoretical) > > The idea behind law 23 is: "Let the game go on, if there is no harm done > by the withdrawn bid" > > And the three parts of law 23 define situations when this is the case. > > Hermann named the important part: "There is little additional > information coming from the withdrawn bid." > > And in case this little bit of information is causing damage to the > non-offending side, we have 23C. > > Lets have a closer look to this: > We have a set W of hands fitting to the withdrawn bid and the set R of > the hands fitting to the replacement. > > Obviously there is no additional information if R is in W. (This case > is 23A2) > > "R in W" is the same as "R/W is empty", and this is the mathematical > equivalent to "there is no information coming coming from the withdrawn > call". > > On the other hand W/R is the set of all hands, which are matching the > withdrawn bid, but not the replacement. This set may be huge, without > doing any harm. The information that the offending player does not have > one of these hands is AI from the replacing call. No need to care about > the size of W/R. > > "R in W" is an asymmetric relation between the two sets which is > according the fact, that the information from the replacing call is > allowed and the additional information from the withdrawn call is not. > > The words of 23A1 (similar meaning) describe the fact that the R?W. > (With repect to a measurement we still have to define) > This is a symmetric relation. > > The sets being "similar" requires R/W to be small, and the SAME for W/R. > > "R/W is small" is a little bit more tolerant than "R/W is empty". > The knowledge, that offenders hand is in W is "additional information". > It becomes more important if R/W is big. > > But do we really need W/R to be small? Like above, when we considered > 23A2, the information, that the offending player has a hand according to > the replacing call, is AI for his partner. It is not "additional > information". It does not matter that the replacing call does exclude > many of the possibilities included in the withdrawn call. > > No harm is done if there are lots of hands, which are suitable for for > the withdrawn call, but not for the replacement. > > So the condition that the sets are similar is not necessary for our > purposes. We only need R/W to be small. > > And at that point I thought it might be better to have a law 23A1 not > requiring similarity between the replacement and the withdrawn call and > the replacing one. We need less than similarity. > > The three systems A, B and C where only a constructed example to make it > more easy to see the general problem. > > Volker > > > Am 07.11.2017 um 03:28 schrieb Steve Willner: >> 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 >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- > Volker Walther > Am 07.11.2017 um 03:28 schrieb Steve Willner: >> 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 >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > -- > Volker Walther > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20171110/fa92c9ef/attachment-0001.html From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Nov 11 01:23:32 2017 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 19:23:32 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Insufficient Stayman In-Reply-To: <1D66C43F-B6EB-4900-B62A-B356799A764A@gmail.com> References: <1D66C43F-B6EB-4900-B62A-B356799A764A@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 20:50:46 -0500, Richard Hills wrote: > Dealer (North) opens 2NT, promising 21-22 hcp balanced. Responder (South) has severely limited vision (hence holds a disability pension), so believes that North has opened a 12-14 1NT, therefore responds 2C insufficient Stayman. > > Out of sympathy for South's disability West uses Law 27A to accept the insufficient 2C, and West then passes. Has West infracted the Law 72A "chief object is to obtain a higher score"? Yes, of course. But L81C5 acknowledges their right to do that, for (good) cause. Here, we would prefer a substitution bid of 3C. It's more than awkward if they are able to stop in 2H hearts because the 2C bid was accepted. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > Sent from my iPad > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Sat Nov 11 07:57:13 2017 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 07:57:13 +0100 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: <86A45386F30845978A61C7C91FD08BFA@PeachPC> References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de> <8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be> <0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de> <5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be> <11A1557DB52D47F8883CFEDA41603BF2@PeachPC> <70856eb6-f97f-9441-7499-af0f6aa0e7ec@skynet.be> <7673b702-5261-d3a8-57bf-0eef041add65@skynet.be> <6c3db35e-d1c9-7b9c-d64a-52864de84420@nhcc.net> <05625E3DF62448E3B1D9EE41FA8509FB@PeachPC> <006ab823-a131-1695-c46a-9e2b1abe9e04@skynet.be> <9CBCFE9AA66C461C8F16708F92C067A5@PeachPC> <86A45386F30845978A61C7C91FD08BFA@PeachPC> Message-ID: <1593ace2-f8f2-9a1b-c8bc-a5e00ff6041b@skynet.be> Jan Peach wrote: > > Steve: > Let A = 15+ any shape and B = weak with 10+ spades. Obviously the _hand > types_ A and B are very different. > > Jan: > That is exactly my argument. > A and B are very different. > Therefore, they cannot be similar. > But it is not A and B that we are talking about!! It is "A" and "A or B". If B is a very uncommon occurence, then these two CAN be similar. OK? Herman. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Willner > Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 2:43 AM > To: blml at rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [BLML] In between Law 23 > > On 2017-11-09 5:04 PM, I wrote: >> If you think an extremely rare possibility -- one that neither an >> opponent nor partner will ever allow for -- makes two bids dissimilar, >> then we just disagree. > > A better way of explaining this occurred to me later. > > Let A = 15+ any shape and B = weak with 10+ spades. Obviously the _hand > types_ A and B are very different. However, if you have a call in your > system meaning "A or B" and another call meaning "A", those _calls_ are > similar because hand type B is for practical purposes nonexistent. That > is, B is very close to an empty set. > > If you don't buy this, I can't think of anything else to say. > > On a related subject: it appears to me that adjusted scores under L23C > can be weighted, and the weights can include actions that might have > been indicated by a withdrawn call. Do others agree? This is an > important difference from a UI adjustment. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > http://www.avg.com > > From gordonr60 at gmail.com Sat Nov 11 10:42:24 2017 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 11:42:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de> <8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be> <0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de> <5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be> <11A1557DB52D47F8883CFEDA41603BF2@PeachPC> <70856eb6-f97f-9441-7499-af0f6aa0e7ec@skynet.be> <7673b702-5261-d3a8-57bf-0eef041add65@skynet.be> <6c3db35e-d1c9-7b9c-d64a-52864de84420@nhcc.net> <05625E3DF62448E3B1D9EE41FA8509FB@PeachPC> <006ab823-a131-1695-c46a-9e2b1abe9e04@skynet.be> <9CBCFE9AA66C461C8F16708F92C067A5@PeachPC> Message-ID: <48BD14C1-8875-4664-95DA-EC9347BD13B0@gmail.com> Hi Steve, I think your point about weighted scores is correct and has been established in earlier discussions. Sent from my iPhone so may be rather brief > On 10 Nov 2017, at 18:43, Steve Willner wrote: > >> On 2017-11-09 5:04 PM, I wrote: >> If you think an extremely rare possibility -- one that neither an >> opponent nor partner will ever allow for -- makes two bids dissimilar, >> then we just disagree. > > A better way of explaining this occurred to me later. > > Let A = 15+ any shape and B = weak with 10+ spades. Obviously the _hand > types_ A and B are very different. However, if you have a call in your > system meaning "A or B" and another call meaning "A", those _calls_ are > similar because hand type B is for practical purposes nonexistent. That > is, B is very close to an empty set. > > If you don't buy this, I can't think of anything else to say. > > On a related subject: it appears to me that adjusted scores under L23C > can be weighted, and the weights can include actions that might have > been indicated by a withdrawn call. Do others agree? This is an > important difference from a UI adjustment. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Nov 12 01:36:05 2017 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 19:36:05 -0500 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: <3255269160F14E9C8C78FCC03DCABDBC@PeachPC> References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de> <8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be> <0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de> <5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be> <11A1557DB52D47F8883CFEDA41603BF2@PeachPC> <70856eb6-f97f-9441-7499-af0f6aa0e7ec@skynet.be> <7673b702-5261-d3a8-57bf-0eef041add65@skynet.be> <6c3db35e-d1c9-7b9c-d64a-52864de84420@nhcc.net> <05625E3DF62448E3B1D9EE41FA8509FB@PeachPC> <006ab823-a131-1695-c46a-9e2b1abe9e04@skynet.be> <9CBCFE9AA66C461C8F16708F92C067A5@PeachPC> <3255269160F14E9C8C78FCC03DCABDBC@PeachPC> Message-ID: <30cdfe93-2144-89d3-8d6f-6ecee9ea431f@nhcc.net> 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.? From janpeach8 at bigpond.com Sun Nov 12 21:50:53 2017 From: janpeach8 at bigpond.com (Jan Peach) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:50:53 +1000 Subject: [BLML] In between Law 23 In-Reply-To: <30cdfe93-2144-89d3-8d6f-6ecee9ea431f@nhcc.net> References: <284409a4-af98-3ff1-06a7-472c199d2165@vwalther.de><8c73b1f0-820a-e75f-a95b-d6ec53ac3c7f@skynet.be><0e002d13-3cc3-c0dd-ad50-39a00a579703@vwalther.de><5d0bf527-1b8f-ee96-6357-f1edd4f6340b@skynet.be><11A1557DB52D47F8883CFEDA41603BF2@PeachPC><70856eb6-f97f-9441-7499-af0f6aa0e7ec@skynet.be><7673b702-5261-d3a8-57bf-0eef041add65@skynet.be><6c3db35e-d1c9-7b9c-d64a-52864de84420@nhcc.net><05625E3DF62448E3B1D9EE41FA8509FB@PeachPC><006ab823-a131-1695-c46a-9e2b1abe9e04@skynet.be><9CBCFE9AA66C461C8F16708F92C067A5@PeachPC><3255269160F14E9C8C78FCC03DCABDBC@PeachPC> <30cdfe93-2144-89d3-8d6f-6ecee9ea431f@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <881225B9FC24468AAC03257D310C4C93@PeachPC> 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: blml at rtflb.org 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 Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml