Comparable call / UI?
Bidding is 1S (P) 2NT- Jacoby GF raise (3D) 3D - TD called insufficient bid. Insufficient bidder confirmed that he had not seen the 3D bid to his right. His 3D was systematically showing a shortage, singleton or void in D, and is ongoing. He did not think he had a call which had the same purpose.
Would 3S or 4S be comparable calls as being ongoing in a GF sequence they are subsets of the meaning of the withdrawn call? If they are comparable does his partner not have UI, the shortage in D, which has has to disregard in any future action?
PS The insufficient bid was not accepted.
Comments
I don't think 3S or 4S would be comparable here, they both contain a large number of hands which wouldn't bid 3D so they aren't the same or similar. You'd need a bit that shows a diamond shortage, same as 3D would. Some pairs would play double that way, I'm guessing from the description that's not the case here.
If a comparable call is made, law 16 on UI specifically doesn't apply, but law 72 on benefitting from an infraction still might. There's a difference of emphasis, there's no obligation to avoid calls which might be suggested by the UI, but the director might adjust the score if they think they've benefitted from the insufficient bid.
A stolen-bid double, as mentioned, would fit the bill and the other call that I think would be comparable would be 5D, whether exclusion or a splinter.