changing a call

[axman]

A 3-card suit is not a subset of a 4-card suit, I agree; one could argue that the bid has the same or similar meaning all the same. But Law 23 says that if the replacement call has the same purpose (such as a relay or asking bid) then it is comparable, and the Commentary courageously adds "then it doesn’t even matter whether the strength or suits referred to are the same; the call is comparable by definition." So that's that then? As both calls look for a major suit fit, the call should be automatically comparable. Not quite. The Commentary still feels the need to consider possible differences in what "looking for a major suit fit" means in this example, specifically it says "A sufficient call asking for the majors, even when asking for 4- or 5 cards while 2♣ asked for 4 cards, is a comparable call (Law 23A3)."

 

My conclusion is to hope for a rapid revision of the laws and carry a coin in the meantime :huh:

 

 

A 3-card suit is not a subset of a 4-card suit, I agree;

 

I am curious. You find all of the three card suits and line them up as a set. Will you please show me a four card suit that is a subset?

[VixTD]

The problem is that pairs generally don't have agreements as the meanings of illegal calls. So this is interpreted as the meaning of the call had it been legal, which means you have to assume a different auction leading up to it. That's what leads us to ask what auction the offending player thought they were bidding in.

I agree that this is often a useful thing to do, but it's important to remember that the intended meaning is not the only attributable meaning of a call, and even that the intended meaning doesn't have to be an attributable meaning, if what the offender intended was so bizarre that no one else would think that could possibly be what they were thinking about.

[pescetom]

A 3-card suit is not a subset of a 4-card suit, I agree;

 

I am curious.

Are you questioning my statement or agreeing with it?

It seems evident to me.

 

 

You find all of the three card suits and line them up as a set. Will you please show me a four card suit that is a subset?

Could you please explain more clearly?

[pescetom]

I can see that the WBFLC might attribute the meaning of "Stayman, asking about major-suit holdings" to a 2♣ bid, even if it's in response to a 2NT opening bid, because that's what 2♣ commonly means in response to a 1NT opening bid. Responder has obviously got something muddled, and the level of the opening bid, or how high he needs to bid in clubs to supersede that bid are two of the things he could have muddled in his mind.

 

A player cannot intentionally bid 1♣ in response to anything, and will never bid 1♣ to ask partner about their major-suit holdings, so I struggle to attribute such a meaning to 1♣. A player who responds 2♣ to 2NT does not have to be thinking that clubs outrank no trumps, or that two is a higher number than three, which are very difficult mind-sets for an experienced bridge player to get into. They just have to be thinking: "I'll bid Stayman" and reach absentmindedly for the 2♣ card without connecting it with the information that partner has bid no trumps at the two level, a much easier mistake to make.

 

I agree with everything else you've said, including that asking offender away from the table what the intended meaning was can reveal an attributable meaning that you wouldn't have thought of yourself.

 

I'm happy you agree with everything else, so let's agree to differ on this one. I see it more as a question of individual psychology and learning traits, there are some people who will automatically think "2♣" for Stayman and "5♠" for 2 with Q, there are others who will think "clubs" for Stayman and "fourth possible reply" for 2 with Q. The former are more likely to get a Kickback wrong or bid 2♣ over 2NT, the latter are quite capable of bidding 1♣ over 1NT.

[blackshoe]

A 3-card suit is not a subset of a 4-card suit, I agree;

 

I am curious. You find all of the three card suits and line them up as a set. Will you please show me a four card suit that is a subset?

Pescetom referred to Law 23A3. That law is not about subsets, that would be Law 23A2. 23A3 says "has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the withdrawn call." Subsets are irrelevant to Law 23A3.

[barmar]

I'm happy you agree with everything else, so let's agree to differ on this one. I see it more as a question of individual psychology and learning traits, there are some people who will automatically think "2♣" for Stayman and "5♠" for 2 with Q, there are others who will think "clubs" for Stayman and "fourth possible reply" for 2 with Q. The former are more likely to get a Kickback wrong or bid 2♣ over 2NT, the latter are quite capable of bidding 1♣ over 1NT.

I'm with VixTD on this one. The vast majority of the time, Stayman is 2♣, so it's easy to not notice that the opening was a level higher and fall into that habit. I doubt many people really have the simpler association "Stayman is clubs" and mistakenly bid 1♣, unless it's a slip of the fingers -- if they did, we would see lots more 1♣ Stayman bids than we actually do (I don't think I've ever seen this happen).

 

If someone bids an insufficient 1♣ bid, it's virtually always because they didn't notice that someone else had already opened.

[pescetom]

I'm with VixTD on this one. The vast majority of the time, Stayman is 2♣, so it's easy to not notice that the opening was a level higher and fall into that habit. I doubt many people really have the simpler association "Stayman is clubs" and mistakenly bid 1♣, unless it's a slip of the fingers -- if they did, we would see lots more 1♣ Stayman bids than we actually do (I don't think I've ever seen this happen).

 

If someone bids an insufficient 1♣ bid, it's virtually always because they didn't notice that someone else had already opened.

 

I've seen my current partner do it, which is why I am so convinced. He was delighted to have an opportunity to test our latest version of Stayman and had 1♣ on the table in an instant. Opponents cheerfully accepted a correction to 2♣ and Director never knew what he had missed :ph34r:

[axman]

Are you questioning my statement or agreeing with it?

It seems evident to me.

 

 

 

Could you please explain more clearly?

A 4 card suit can be described as a 3 card suit with a fourth card. By my reckoning there are four 3 card combinations that can be formed starting from a 4 card suit. Thus there exist formulations of three cards that are a subset of a 4 card suit.

 

You asserted 'A 3-card suit is not a subset of a 4-card suit…' and seeing that difference from the above it is difficult to visualize the point of reasoning based upon such a premise.

[pran]

A 4 card suit can be described as a 3 card suit with a fourth card. By my reckoning there are four 3 card combinations that can be formed starting from a 4 card suit. Thus there exist formulations of three cards that are a subset of a 4 card suit.

 

You asserted 'A 3-card suit is not a subset of a 4-card suit…' and seeing that difference from the above it is difficult to visualize the point of reasoning based upon such a premise.

Sorry, but this seems rubbish to me. The term "subset" appears in

A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call, if it:

.....

2. defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call

.....,

which refers to the meanings attributable to a call, not to the suits involved as such.

 

In plain text this means that the possible meanings for the withdrawn call (had it been legal) must include at least every possible meaning for the replacing call.

 

Alternatively: The replacing call must not introduce (or add) any meaning that was not already included within the possible meanings of the withdrawn call.

[sanst]

Let’s please get rid of Law 23A and B ASAP. However well intended these are, it’s impossible to apply these if taken literally. Every TD has to use his own interpretation, resulting in endless and useless discussions. It’s our job to let the play continue as equitably as possible, not to decide how many angels can sit on a pin.

In the case of a IB, you should decide whether it was a mispull, if not give the LHO the chance to accept the IB and, if it’s not accepted, let the culprit make a legal call, including a double or redouble. Afterwards, if the opponents claim to have been damaged, you can give an AS if necessary.

Now you have to take the player away from the table, find out how she or he plans to continue, decide whether it’s a comparable call or not - which is (almost) impossible - go back to the table, give the LHO the opportunity to accept the IB and tell the table that the player has or hasn’t a call that allows the partner not to pass. Usually you have to explain all that more than once, since it’s hard to follow for most not so experienced players. It’s time consuming and in the end you still have to decide whether an AS is necessary.

[pran]

Let’s please get rid of Law 23A and B ASAP. However well intended these are, it’s impossible to apply these if taken literally. Every TD has to use his own interpretation, resulting in endless and useless discussions. It’s our job to let the play continue as equitably as possible, not to decide how many angels can sit on a pin.

In the case of a IB, you should decide whether it was a mispull, if not give the LHO the chance to accept the IB and, if it’s not accepted, let the culprit make a legal call, including a double or redouble. Afterwards, if the opponents claim to have been damaged, you can give an AS if necessary.

Now you have to take the player away from the table, find out how she or he plans to continue, decide whether it’s a comparable call or not - which is (almost) impossible - go back to the table, give the LHO the opportunity to accept the IB and tell the table that the player has or hasn’t a call that allows the partner not to pass. Usually you have to explain all that more than once, since it’s hard to follow for most not so experienced players. It’s time consuming and in the end you still have to decide whether an AS is necessary.

WBFLC has stated that their main target is to allow boards being played out for fair results as far as possible rather than have to award artificial adjusted scores.

 

In the old days of bridge a non-offending side could simply demand a re-deal whenever an irregularity occurred, this is obviously not satisfactory in modern duplicate bridge so now we have several laws on how to rectify various kinds of irregularities.

 

Law 23 is one such law and I disagree that it is so difficult to apply, but it certainly takes a competent director to understand and apply it correctly.

 

This is no different from other laws in the book, and that is why we have commentaries to the laws for anybody to study and training courses for those who want to become a director.

 

 

One example of this principle:

A 2 Diamonds bid showing either one of: Weak hand with at least 6 hearts, weak hand with at least 6 spades or at least 20 HCP

may be replaced by

a 2 Spades bid showing a weak hand with at last 6 spades.

 

But a 1 Clubs bid showing at least 16 HCP may not be replaced by the 2 Diamonods bid described above.

[sanst]

.

 

Law 23 is one such law and I disagree that it is so difficult to apply, but it certainly takes a competent director to understand and apply it correctly.

 

So everyone who has a problem with this law, including all those partaking in this discussion, is incompetent? Thanks

 

My point is not just the impossibility of applying this law, but also the time consuming aspect thereof. The revoke laws were changed a long time ago because of this. It took to much time to establish what would have happened without the revoke and deciding upon an AS when such a common irregularity occurred, especially for not so experienced directors, that the WBFLC came with the transfer of tricks. IBs and COOTs are also quite common and a simple, for all directors usable solution is necessary.

[pran]

So everyone who has a problem with this law, including all those partaking in this discussion, is incompetent? Thanks

Those are your words, not mine.

I had problems with Law 23 myself until I studied the relevant commentaries and participated in courses on the new laws.

 

And it might amuse you that the introduction of the 2007 laws was actually delayed half a year while WBFLC rectified an error they had made in Law 27B1(b) (what is now 2017 Law 23A2).

They had accidentally written exactly the opposite of what was intended. I know, because I was one of the translators who alerted WBFLC of the fact.

 

So even the best can fail.

[pescetom]

A 4 card suit can be described as a 3 card suit with a fourth card. By my reckoning there are four 3 card combinations that can be formed starting from a 4 card suit. Thus there exist formulations of three cards that are a subset of a 4 card suit.

 

You asserted 'A 3-card suit is not a subset of a 4-card suit…' and seeing that difference from the above it is difficult to visualize the point of reasoning based upon such a premise.

 

 

Sorry, but this seems rubbish to me. The term "subset" appears in

 

which refers to the meanings attributable to a call, not to the suits involved as such.

 

In plain text this means that the possible meanings for the withdrawn call (had it been legal) must include at least every possible meaning for the replacing call.

 

Alternatively: The replacing call must not introduce (or add) any meaning that was not already included within the possible meanings of the withdrawn call.

 

What pran said.

 

The meaning "holding 3-card suit" of 3♣ is not included within the possible meanings of 2♣ if they all include "holding 4-card suit". No suit of exactly 3 cards has 4 cards, and even if the meaning was 3 or more cards then we still mean some hands of exactly 3 cards.

[blackshoe]

Let’s please get rid of Law 23A and B ASAP.

AFAIK no one here has the power to do that.

[axman]

Sorry, but this seems rubbish to me. The term "subset" appears in

 

which refers to the meanings attributable to a call, not to the suits involved as such.

 

In plain text this means that the possible meanings for the withdrawn call (had it been legal) must include at least every possible meaning for the replacing call.

 

Alternatively: The replacing call must not introduce (or add) any meaning that was not already included within the possible meanings of the withdrawn call.

Indeed. That is my point as well. Allow me to elaborate in this way.

 

 

For the purpose of reasoning, contemplate A, B,C all comparable calls. Further A is not equivalent to either B nor C; B is not equivalent to either A nor C; C is not equivalent to either A nor B.

 

Repeating. A, B, C being comparable are equivalent because by law they substitute without gain. And as you point out that reasoning is rubbish, and as I point out that is what the law is: substitute the three bullet points of L23 for A,B,C. QED

 

As for your antecedent regarding 23A2:

 

The author made an assertion as to what constituted a subset. I do not know if he was asserting how to untangle L23, but what I was doing was responding to his use of subset.

 

I think I can see my way to making sense of 'possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call defining a set' but not 'a call defining a subset of possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call '

 

To that end, I once had the epiphany of using Google to find such a usage. Six hours later I had the epiphany to never try it again. I guess I can't figure out how a call defines a subset of meanings. Now Richard Hills is a meticulous guy who meticulously proofed WBF2017. Perhaps he knows the meaning of the L23 language.

[pran]

Indeed. That is my point as well. Allow me to elaborate in this way.

 

 

For the purpose of reasoning, contemplate A, B,C all comparable calls. Further A is not equivalent to either B nor C; B is not equivalent to either A nor C; C is not equivalent to either A nor B.

 

Repeating. A, B, C being comparable are equivalent because by law they substitute without gain. And as you point out that reasoning is rubbish, and as I point out that is what the law is: substitute the three bullet points of L23 for A,B,C. QED

 

As for your antecedent regarding 23A2:

 

The author made an assertion as to what constituted a subset. I do not know if he was asserting how to untangle L23, but what I was doing was responding to his use of subset.

 

I think I can see my way to making sense of 'possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call defining a set' but not 'a call defining a subset of possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call '

 

To that end, I once had the epiphany of using Google to find such a usage. Six hours later I had the epiphany to never try it again. I guess I can't figure out how a call defines a subset of meanings. Now Richard Hills is a meticulous guy who meticulously proofed WBF2017. Perhaps he knows the meaning of the L23 language.

Sometimes I wonder if people just do not want to understand logic?

 

(Regardless of context!) A cannot be a subset of B if also B is a subset of A unless A and B are equivalent.

 

Law 23A2 specifies one among three alternative possibilities that a call X can be a legal replacement for another call Y: The possible meanings for call X must constitute a subset of the possible meanings for call Y.

 

In plain text this means that the set of possible meanings for call X must not include any meaning not also included in the set of meanings for call Y, i.e. call X must not "add" any possible meaning to the withdrawn call Y.

 

Can this really be so difficult to understand once it is spelled out, or do you have to be a mathematician to understand it?

[pescetom]

Those are your words, not mine.

I had problems with Law 23 myself until I studied the relevant commentaries and participated in courses on the new laws.

 

And it might amuse you that the introduction of the 2007 laws was actually delayed half a year while WBFLC rectified an error they had made in Law 27B1(b) (what is now 2017 Law 23A2).

They had accidentally written exactly the opposite of what was intended. I know, because I was one of the translators who alerted WBFLC of the fact.

 

So even the best can fail.

Recent discussions on BW have highlighted that even WBFLC members themselves can have difficulty convincing other experienced directors about comparable calls, and rarely is there consensus.

 

As I pointed out earlier, even the WBF Commentary is not without contradiction and ambiguity.

 

I'm just a beginner but I have had a course on applying this law and I still am not happy with it - would much prefer Sanst's proposal.

[sanst]

Can this really be so difficult to understand once it is spelled out, or do you have to be a mathematician to understand it?

The subset is not difficult to understand. But the real problems arise from to things:

- what was the intended meaning of the IB, about which players can be rather vague

- how to apply the condition “the same or a similar meaning”.

In the commentary there is the example of 2NT - 2♣, where the IB can be replaced by 3♣, even if the 2♣ is classic Stayman and 3♣ puppet Stayman.

[pran]

The subset is not difficult to understand. But the real problems arise from to things:

- what was the intended meaning of the IB, about which players can be rather vague

- how to apply the condition “the same or a similar meaning”.

In the commentary there is the example of 2NT - 2♣, where the IB can be replaced by 3♣, even if the 2♣ is classic Stayman and 3♣ puppet Stayman.

The intended meaning of the IB is a matter of TD judgement based on a convincing assertion. (A vague description will hardly be convincing.)

 

and

has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the withdrawn call.

will (usually) apply to your last example.

 

I have a feeling that further answers from me on this subject will only be a waste of (my) time, so this shall be my last.

[pescetom]

The intended meaning of the IB is a matter of TD judgement based on a convincing assertion. (A vague description will hardly be convincing.)

It's difficult to make a convincing assertion based on the case in question, this is the point. Even the commentary falls into contradiction on exactly this example. If a TD lets the players know that this is a judgement issue and is unable to produce clearly comprehensible criteria then the players are bound to loose faith in the Law and the usefulness of calling the TD.

 

I have a feeling that further answers from me on this subject will only be a waste of (my) time, so this shall be my last.

With all due respect, I have often read that from people who realise their position is not sustainable.

[akwoo]

It's difficult to make a convincing assertion based on the case in question, this is the point. Even the commentary falls into contradiction on exactly this example. If a TD lets the players know that this is a judgement issue and is unable to produce clearly comprehensible criteria then the players are bound to loose faith in the Law and the usefulness of calling the TD.

 

I disagree. I believe this is a cultural difference based on differing national histories.

 

When one gives officials more discretion in how to apply rules, the upside is that they have more ability to apply the rules sensibly when situations don't precisely fit the rules. The downside is that the official might abuse their discretion to apply the rules in a biased manner.

 

In the US, our history tells us that potential benefits of the upside are usually bigger than the potential disadvantages of the downside. In our culture, we believe that taking the risk of corruption in order to allow for potentially better decision making is worth it.

 

In a place with more history of petty corruption, this may not be (or at least may not be believed to be) the case.

[blackshoe]

With all due respect, I have often read that from people who realise their position is not sustainable.

Sometimes it's a matter of who gets tired of repeating himself first.

[VixTD]

Sometimes I wonder if people just do not want to understand logic?

 

Law 23A2 specifies one among three alternative possibilities that a call X can be a legal replacement for another call Y: The possible meanings for call X must constitute a subset of the possible meanings for call Y.

 

Can this really be so difficult to understand once it is spelled out, or do you have to be a mathematician to understand it?

It would be easy to understand if that were what the law said, but it doesn't, it says "...is comparable if it defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call".

 

I'm not the only one who struggles with the wording "defines a subset of".

[VixTD]

Let’s please get rid of Law 23A and B ASAP. However well intended these are, it’s impossible to apply these if taken literally. Every TD has to use his own interpretation, resulting in endless and useless discussions. It’s our job to let the play continue as equitably as possible, not to decide how many angels can sit on a pin.

In the case of a IB, you should decide whether it was a mispull, if not give the LHO the chance to accept the IB and, if it’s not accepted, let the culprit make a legal call, including a double or redouble. Afterwards, if the opponents claim to have been damaged, you can give an AS if necessary.

Now you have to take the player away from the table, find out how she or he plans to continue, decide whether it’s a comparable call or not - which is (almost) impossible - go back to the table, give the LHO the opportunity to accept the IB and tell the table that the player has or hasn’t a call that allows the partner not to pass. Usually you have to explain all that more than once, since it’s hard to follow for most not so experienced players. It’s time consuming and in the end you still have to decide whether an AS is necessary.

 

WBFLC has stated that their main target is to allow boards being played out for fair results as far as possible rather than have to award artificial adjusted scores.

 

In the old days of bridge a non-offending side could simply demand a re-deal whenever an irregularity occurred, this is obviously not satisfactory in modern duplicate bridge so now we have several laws on how to rectify various kinds of irregularities.

 

Law 23 is one such law and I disagree that it is so difficult to apply, but it certainly takes a competent director to understand and apply it correctly.

 

This is no different from other laws in the book, and that is why we have commentaries to the laws for anybody to study and training courses for those who want to become a director.

This is fine for those directors such as you and me who want to go on training courses and study commentaries, but what about the majority of club and regional directors who don't? I train club directors in the UK, and they find understanding and applying law 23 the hardest part of the job. I have said (only half-jokingly) that the 2017 version of law 23 should be regarded as the equivalent of a heavy-goods vehicle - only TDs with a special licence should be allowed to drive it. Less qualified TDs should just apply the 1997 laws on insufficient bids; they'd do much less damage that way.