Comparable calls - who decides, and how much can the director help?
I'm sure this topic has come up before, but it never hurts to revisit it (having been prompted by another post).
There are times when whether or not a call is comparable affects what happens during the hand (e.g. lead restrictions).
Players often want to know if a call is comparable, and will ask the director.
My understanding is that it is the player's responsibility to decide (if they're going to treat it as comparable) at the time, and the director's to determine after the hand has finished whether or not it was (if asked).
Some of the rules and guidelines for determining comparability are quite complex, and most of us would, in some cases, have to look them up.
How much can / should we help? Can we give them the full lowdown on the rules, or are they expected to know? Do we just limit ourselves to "as long as no extra information is available from the withdrawn call"?
Comments
What we're not allowed to do, as directors, is suggest a bid. Since the non comparable status of the call may place restrictions on the bidders partner, this is something you should be trying to rule on once the bid is made.
It's always seemed slightly draconian to me to insist that players make a bid not knowing if it's comparable or not, although I suppose that's not so different to the UI laws, where a player is expected to judge logical alternatives. There's certainly a responsibility on the director's part to make sure the player understands their options under the LAW, which may include the full lowdown on the rules. I believe it's OK for a player to ask about a specific bid away from the table, so long as the advice is simply "is this comparable". I suppose this does expose TDs to making snap judgement rulings.
I think the trouble is that the decision about comparability may not be in the hands of the director. There may be a poll required or perhaps an appeal by one of the parties involved that later changes that decision. Should the director state that a bid is comparable and then on appeal the judgement is reversed, I can imagine issues.
Similarly, if we rule that a replacement call is not comparable and so the offender jumps to a final sub-par contract (missing game/slam, going off when there is a better option available or whatever) then appeals that their replacement call would be comparable, if that is upheld, then there is trouble (what would the final contract be, how would the cards be played etc).
Perhaps we should be explaining the rules (perhaps with an example - have 2 stock examples available so that there is always one we can give that is not directly relevant to the situation they find themselves in) then advise that they have to make the decision themselves and make the call at the table - we will then make an initial assessment as to whether that was comparable and that the bidding continues normally, or that it is not comparable and what the restrictions are. Plus explain that this decision is subject to appeal by any one of the 4 players involved.
I believe that we, as TDs, need to know, when a replacement call is made, whether it is a Comparable Call or not. To help me, I may have asked the player to chat with me away from the table. I will always suggest chatting away from the table if the player is in doubt after I have explained to the table what Law 23A says.
We need to avoid giving any bridge advice to the player (who will have left his cards face down on the table because we don't want to know anything about their hand). It is very useful to know why the player made the offending call, as there might be a meaning attributable to the offending call that we haven't thought of. We can discuss whether a call that the offender might make would be a Comparable Call, or if there might not be any Comparable Calls available anyway.
An effect of chatting away from the table could be that the offender will know whether his replacement call will be a Comparable Call or not, and it could be argued that the offender doesn't have that right. However, I think it is a far greater priority that the TD can rule correctly when the replacement call is made.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
I would have thought this is something that should be reviewed the next time the Laws are looked at. It feels like it is just inviting this sort of discussion:
Table so far: West has opened 1C, North passes, East 1H, South 1D. Director called.
(Away from the table)
TD: Why did you make the e.g. insufficient call of 1D?
Player: Oh I thought I was making a Michael's bid over the opponents (clearly a non-sensical argument but not something the TD can advise the player on)
TD: Ok, so all I can tell you is that a comparable call is one which has the same or similar meaning, is a subset, or has the same purpose (paraphrased). Or you can bid the same suit at the next available level.
Player: Right so if I make a call of 2NT (some sort of unusual NT), that would be a same or similar meaning scenario?
TD: Mmm well I can't tell you that. But if 2NT would have the same or similar meaning to your intentions regarding 1D, then that would be a comparable call.
Player: Ok I'm happy with that then...
(returns to table)
Player bids 2NT
TD: 2NT isn't a comparable call, therefore lead penalties, barred from bidding etc.
Player protests - why not?
TD: Well 1D appears to just be a normal overcall, clearly not Michael's
Player: Oh well I obviously meant 1H, why didn't you tell me?
The scenario needs refining :) I agree that, in principle, the TD should not be giving bridge suggestions to the player. But it leads to an anomaly where the TD and player can appear to agree on something, and then the TD appears to go completely against what they'd 'agreed'.
If 1 Diamond could be Michaels then 2NT would be comparable as it has a similar meaning attributable to the insufficient bid
The scenario was intended where a bid has been made by South that is non-sensical (i.e. they thought they were bidding the opponent's suit, i.e. hearts, such that the intention was Michael's, but here they made an insufficient bid of the wrong suit, if that makes any sense?!).
This conversation has developed in ways that make it hard to answer everything, but I do think the point needs to be made that the TD must make a determination at the time (often after discussing the situation away from the table with the player concerned), since the hand can't be completed without knowing whether or not the replacement call is comparable.
I think it's also worth noting that the law does not mention the intended meaning of the infracting call. I know many TDs interpret "attributable" as being the same as "intended" but I really don't think they mean the same thing.
I suppose that what is possibly attributable to a call depends a lot on what is said at the table.
Lets say that dealer opens with NT and the next hand overcalls 2C (intending this to be ASPTRO defence to 1NT), but then it is pointed out that it was an underbid because the opening call was 2NT and not 1NT. At the table it is likely that the offender will say, "sorry, I thought it was 1NT, I don't know how I missed that - lets call the director). Now we know that 2C was showing hearts and another.
However, if the offender kept quiet on the situation and just called the director, would we have said that Hearts and another was a call attributable to the 2C bid if we just saw 2NT - 2D?
Lets say that they play 3S over 2NT as showing 5S and 4H - if we know that the 2C call was intended to be ASPTRO, then 3S would be comparable as this is more specific as we now know which is the other suit.
However, being blind to intended meanings would we see 2NT - 2D* Corrected now to 3S to show S and H as being comparable?
If so, then any insufficient 2C could have just about any attributable meaning - 2C open, 2C overcall, Stayman response (as thought partner opened), a cue bid as thought that 1C was the opening call etc etc.
The intention of the law was to make it as broad as possible to have a non-barring replacement call, so in my opinion (not shared by everyone) a replacement call based on any reasonable possible interpretation of the call should be allowed.
We have an article about this on the website.
My interpretation of "attributable" is "that the player's partner may have thought is intended" (as opposed to what the player themself actually intended). For example, in a sequence like 1NT (2NT) 2D, there isn't a whole lot of information available as to whether 2D is a transfer to hearts (missing the overcall) or natural diamonds (getting the level wrong), and so if the bid is corrected, either a bid showing hearts or a bid showing diamonds are plausible intended meanings – either meaning is attributable to the call. This is despite the fact that the insufficient bidder presumably had something in mind at the time they made their insufficient bid.