[pescetom]

 VixTD, on 2019-November-07, 07:23, said:

Pescetom is right to look for possible meanings of 1♥ other than the obvious (trying to open or overcall in hearts), but law 23 refers to the meanings attributable to 1♥, not the intended meaning of 1♥. I find it difficult to attribute the meaning of "Michaels cue-bid" to 1♥, just as I struggle to attribute "Stayman, asking for majors" to 1♣. Calls at the one level can never have these meanings.

I share your perplexity about the relevance of intended meaning, but then strictly speaking there is no logical or legal meaning attributable to an insufficient call either. This is one of the many paradoxes of this law. But the WBF 2017 Laws Commentary gives the explicit example of 2NT – Pass – 2♣ (acting as if it was a 1NT opening; asking for majors, not accepted) and says that in this case a sufficient call asking for the majors is comparable - so it seems that the WBF does want us to consider "insufficient" conventional calls as attributable meanings. I don't see that 1NT – Pass – 1♣ (asking for majors, not accepted) is significantly different. The Commentary also says that the TD might need to ask the offender (away from table) what he meant to do when making the insufficient bid - presumably because this determines or helps determine the meaning attributable, and alternative methods are deemed impractical or superfluous.

[blackshoe]

 pescetom, on 2019-November-07, 08:09, said:

I share your perplexity about the relevance of intended meaning, but then strictly speaking there is no logical or legal meaning attributable to an insufficient call either. This is one of the many paradoxes of this law. But the WBF 2017 Laws Commentary gives the explicit example of 2NT – Pass – 2♣ (acting as if it was a 1NT opening; asking for majors, not accepted) and says that in this case a sufficient call asking for the majors is comparable - so it seems that the WBF does want us to consider "insufficient" conventional calls as attributable meanings. I don't see that 1NT – Pass – 1♣ (asking for majors, not accepted) is significantly different. The Commentary also says that the TD might need to ask the offender what he meant to do when making the insufficient bid - presumably because this determines or helps determine the meaning attributable, and alternative methods are deemed impractical or superfluous.

Interesting. In my methods 1NT-2!C is made with at least one four card major, while 2NT-3!C is made with at least one three card major. A minor difference perhaps, but there are many hands that would bid 2!C over 1NT that would not bid 3!C over 2NT. I guess “looking for a major suit fit” is enough similarity to make the bids comparable in spite of the differences between them.

[pescetom]

 blackshoe, on 2019-November-07, 08:36, said:

Interesting. In my methods 1NT-2!C is made with at least one four card major, while 2NT-3!C is made with at least one three card major. A minor difference perhaps, but there are many hands that would bid 2!C over 1NT that would not bid 3!C over 2NT. I guess “looking for a major suit fit” is enough similarity to make the bids comparable in spite of the differences between them.

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

[barmar]

 VixTD, on 2019-November-07, 07:23, said:

Pescetom is right to look for possible meanings of 1♥ other than the obvious (trying to open or overcall in hearts), but law 23 refers to the meanings attributable to 1♥, not the intended meaning of 1♥. I find it difficult to attribute the meaning of "Michaels cue-bid" to 1♥, just as I struggle to attribute "Stayman, asking for majors" to 1♣. Calls at the one level can never have these meanings.

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.

[VixTD]

 pescetom, on 2019-November-07, 08:09, said:

I share your perplexity about the relevance of intended meaning, but then strictly speaking there is no logical or legal meaning attributable to an insufficient call either. This is one of the many paradoxes of this law. But the WBF 2017 Laws Commentary gives the explicit example of 2NT – Pass – 2♣ (acting as if it was a 1NT opening; asking for majors, not accepted) and says that in this case a sufficient call asking for the majors is comparable - so it seems that the WBF does want us to consider "insufficient" conventional calls as attributable meanings. I don't see that 1NT – Pass – 1♣ (asking for majors, not accepted) is significantly different. The Commentary also says that the TD might need to ask the offender (away from table) what he meant to do when making the insufficient bid - presumably because this determines or helps determine the meaning attributable, and alternative methods are deemed impractical or superfluous.

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.

[axman]

 pescetom, on 2019-November-07, 10:00, said:

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

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]

 barmar, on 2019-November-07, 11:54, said:

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]

 axman, on 2019-November-08, 07:35, said:

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.

 axman, on 2019-November-08, 07:35, said:

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]

 VixTD, on 2019-November-08, 07:33, said:

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]

 axman, on 2019-November-08, 07:35, said:

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]

 pescetom, on 2019-November-08, 09:07, said:

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]

 barmar, on 2019-November-08, 10:46, said:

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

[axman]

 pescetom, on 2019-November-08, 08:46, said:

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]

 axman, on 2019-November-08, 14:02, said:

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

Law 23A2 said:

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]

 sanst, on 2019-November-09, 04:30, said:

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]

 pran, on 2019-November-09, 05:58, said:

.

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]

 sanst, on 2019-November-09, 07:28, said:

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]

 axman, on 2019-November-08, 14:02, said:

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, on 2019-November-09, 02:14, said:

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]

 sanst, on 2019-November-09, 04:30, said:

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

AFAIK no one here has the power to do that.