Comparable Call
N passes out of turn not accepted. Bid reverts to S who is told he can make any bid, but if N cannot make a comparable call to Pass in response, then S must pass at his next turn. You explain the concept and even give the example of say a 1H opening and 2H response or 1NT as being comparable but not a change of suit call, say 1S. All nod their heads. S now opens 2D, alerted and N bids 2H, alerted. You find out that 2H is forced whatever the holding. Not a comparable call you announce (or is it?), and it is likely N/S are now going to play in a silly contract. Obviously S has not understood your explanation and thus the implications of his opening bid.
Any observations?
Comments
South has unautborised information and should make his normal opening bid - he should not make an alternative opening bid to avoid comparable call issues.
North should be told that there is no comparable call and he must guess the final contract.
If EW have their wits about them, North is about to declare a 2H contract.
There is no requirement for North to make a nearly comparable call, or his systemic call, if partner is going to have to pass.
Yes, South will play in 2H, agreed. So, to be clear, N doesn't have to make his normal response if S is forced to pass, and can guess a final contract., but S, has to make his normal opening bid, knowing that partner hasn't a comparable call available, and therefore will be forced to pass.
Just for my own learning, should NS play in 2H and this happens to be the only contract on the night that makes (lets say 2D hear is Benji and everyone ends in 3NT going off), so gain a top... would we need to look at adjusting he score as the offending side have benefitted, as North know that his partner would be barred from bidding?
Perhaps North has 7 small hearts and no points, so decides to pass early, then knows that partner cannot get excited (as they must pass) when he later bids them?
From the original post, North has already bid 2H, so, yes, they play there if EW pass it out.
If they get a top from the 2H then they keep it, just as with any punt at a final contract when partner is going to be silenced. The EW pair, however, get an adjusted score of the expected NS 3NT going off, since the table contract arose from the irregularity.
@Martin How would you determine that North had deliberately passed out of turn to force his partner to pass? If you somehow learned that he'd done this deliberately, how would you treat this odd action, since North would only do this if he knew that partner had a rock-crusher and had to be silenced? It might suggest that he already knew the likely outcome of the hand and that's an issue of itself.
On what law do you base this?
Yes
I don't think the above statement for EW is correct. The consequence from the irregularity is being considered, only if a comparable call had been made, guiding us to examine 23C.
Now without a comparable call, I think the only law to take action about adjusting is 72C, which is not applying as you very nice and clear described below to Martin.
1. If N bids, say, 2S that isn't comparable as per 1H - 1S, etc.
2. If N bids 2H wirh a genuine negative that is comparable and the bidding may proceed normally.
3. If 2. is correct and N bids 2H with what might be considered a positive the TD should rule against unless some evidence in their system e.g. 3C/D require 5 including at least 5 points in the suit.
I agree North's 2H bid meaning "I have to bid this" is not comparable (opener knows his hand is less than an opening bid, information he is not supposed to hold).
But the Director should have taken North away from the table at North's (legal) turn to give North the opportunity to ask if 2H would be allowed as a comparable call to keep his partner in the auction. When the Director tells him 2H is not comparable and if used, his partner would be required to pass (once), then North can "place the contract" knowing if he bids it could be the auction's last bid.
A player in this situation should never make a call not knowing if his partner will be required to pass.
I'd base it on 27D but only if the 2H bid was made with the expectation that it would be accepted as a comparable call. If the 2H bid were made with the intention that this was his punt at a contract then result stands for both sides.
Isn't that law only relating to insufficient bids? Possibly 12 B 1?
@Milton one wouldn't, but they could and so the non-offending side could be damaged by the offender getting to the best contract via BOOT?
Lets say in that example, zero points with 7 card heart suit... pass out of turn.
Should partner open a suit at the 1 level then you can bid your rubbish hearts knowing that partner has to pass. If partner opens strongly, punt 4H.
Well IMHO generally this scenario and other similar ones, hypothetically can take place, but I think they are closer to science fiction than reality. Even in the example you are giving opener may well have 4 hearts and 17 points offering a great deal contract in many Hearts for NS, but anyway...
I will borrow an expression from Larnaka's workshop, from an answer at exams, in which particular question I failed to answer with glory :) The characteristic answer was "Score stands. A TD who decides this to be a deception (or a intentional BOOT in our case) by purpose or uses Law 72C reads too many detectives. "
No offense Martin, just my opinion.
I think there was a debate in another discussion in this forum on the propriety of a Director advising a player, North in this case, whether a particular call would be acceptable as a comparable call or not. I am not sure whether there was a final consensus or not, but it may not be a bad idea to have a generally agreed approach. I hold the view that the Director may give all the advice he can in general terms but should stop short of actually advising the player whether a specific call would be acceptable as a comparable call or not.
I can see arguments both ways - however the Director has to rule on whether a call is comparable since only then can the player's partner know whether he can make a call or has to pass.
I think that the director should explain the consequences of the bid under law 84C
C) Player’s Option
If a Law gives a player a choice of rectification the Director explains the options and sees that the
choice is made and implemented.
Since I think it's possible for a TD to list the "attributable" options in many cases without looking at the players hand or asking their intention, I think it's fine to do that. In some cases though there may well only be one of those options and so the TD needs to take care not to appear to recommend that option but simply to offer it as the non-barring choice.
'the director has to rule...'
He has to rule after the call has been made, not give advice in advance as to how he would rule for a particular call.
What I am saying is that if the player asks 'will ...... be acceptable as a comparable call?' he should not answer yes or no before the call has actually been made.
Can Law 84C be interpreted as requiring the Director to explain the options of specific calls?
Recently I had an instance where North passed when his partner South was the dealer and had to open. East did not accept the pass so it was withdrawn and the auction reverted to South. I was asked what the consequences would be. I said that South was free to bid his hand according to their system and when the turn came to North there would be no rectification if he made a comparable call. He asked what a comparable call would be and I told him if he made any call within their system that showed strength less than an opening hand and said nothing about a suit that he could not have conveyed otherwise, he should be OK. North was happy with that.
For a start you don't want anything the offending player may say to give additional information to the table to which they are not entitled, so you should be prepared to take him away from the table.
Secondly you should never look at the player's hand and should stop him if he tries to tell you what he holds (even away from the table).
But if he tells you (away from the table) that he has a call available that shows X, then I think you have to give him some help as to whether you are inclined to rule a call that shows X to be comparable or not. But you have to stress that whatever indications you may be able to give him, you will not be able to make the actual ruling until you go back to the table and he makes a call.
Say that you indicate that it is likely that a call showing X would be comparable. You then go back to the table and he makes a call. Now you have to investigate what that call shows. You ask his partner and look at the system card. If you agree that it shows X, then you go with the indication you gave the player away from the table and rule it comparable. However, that may not be the case. You may discover that the call shows something sufficiently different from X, leading you to rule the call not comparable.
I feel that this gives a sensible balance between giving guidance as to the operation of what are still largely unfamiliar concepts (laudable) and coaching (clearly not acceptable).
I think we are both saying pretty much the same thing, only expressing it differently. You have spelt the process out more clearly than I did. Your statement that 'you will not be able to make the actual ruling until you go back to the table and he makes a call' is what I have been driving at in another discussion also but somehow (mis)understood the comments by others to mean that it does not have universal support.
Doesn't this approach add even more ambiguity into the auction?
Previously one would essentially need to guess a final contract much of the time, knowingly barring partner from bidding. Or 'make the bid good' - a relatively well understood principle.
Now, one has to 'make a comparable call' without knowing if this will be accepted. If not accepted, then partner is barred and now you are not in a sensible contract at all having perhaps bid what was intended to be a conventional suit and now you are playing in it.
Should the comparable call attempt be a double and it not be accepted as comparable by the director then they can have another bid, but now partner is barred from bidding even if a new (and accepted) comparable bid is made (27B3) so have to make a guess at the final contract.
It causes problems - but the player whose call has been cancelled can always have a guess at the final contract as before. I suppose anything that gives flexibility is going to result in 'borderline' decisions and it is up to the TD to adjudicate - and at anything over a no-fear event there is a good chance (s)he won't know the systemic meaning of the two calls.
At the end of the day, in such cases, we can always run to 23C - in fact the WBF in their minutes in 2017 state that
Mr Di Sacco said that he would like a call to be considered ‘comparable’ whenever the
Director was satisfied that the likelihood of needing to subsequently apply Law 23C was low.
He also reminded the Committee of its 2008 decision to allow ‘liberal’ interpretations of Law
27B1(b) in respect to the 2007 Laws.
But others spoke against "liberal interpretation, or at least said "wait for the commentary ...".
Are we still waiting?
'Fraid so.
27D doesn' t allow for split scores.
How would you determine whether the 2H bid was made with the expectation that it would be accepted as a comparable call or whether it was a punt?
@SDN - that's an interesting question... In this instance, perhaps north thinks that 2H is not comparable and so bids it as the final guess at the contract. However, the director may then say, that's fine, no restrictions on bidding :)
Is it allowed for a player to lie about their hand, in order to keep the auction open? Such as:
Pass out of turn, not accepted then partner deals: 1H - pass - 1NT?
Normally 6-9, denying H and S holdings... however, knowing that 1S would bar partner from bidding they bid 1NT even with 5 spades. Is their BOOT authorised or unauthorised information? This could lead to partnerships agreeing that making any limited NT bid in this situation is forcing, or semi-forcing, essentially devising a system to field their error.
[SDN]: "Your statement that 'you will not be able to make the actual ruling until you go back to the table and he makes a call' is what I have been driving at in another discussion also but somehow (mis)understood the comments by others to mean that it does not have universal support."
I've changed my approach to these rulings marginally in the light of arguments that have been expressed here and elsewhere, but I still don't agree with this (and neither does Martin, unless I'm misunderstanding him).
We all want the director to explain the laws fully to the players so that they are aware of the possible consequences. I think we all agree that we don't want directors coaching players or putting ideas into their head: ("Have you thought of bidding X? That might well be comparable").
However, I still think that if an offender wants to suggest a call to the TD and find out whether it would be ruled comparable (or otherwise "non-barring") they should be allowed to do that, away from the table, and get a definitive answer from the TD. This isn't the TD leading the player - the idea has come from the player themselves. The director may look at their convention card and ask about their methods to help them understand the meaning of the call, but has no reason to look at their hand.
@VixTD - I think it is really complicated to be honest... I can really appreciate the idea behind this rule change, being to get more sensible bridge auctions and allow 'proper' bridge where possible. However, the wording of this law if find a bit ambiguous and leaves room for interpretation.
I can see I from all sides:
However, lets say away from the table we are asked, what about x bid, is that comparable? If we say no, then they can try again and perhaps realise that they need to guess a final contract.
Lets say that we agree that it is comparable - for example... 1NT - 2D - 2C* not accepted, so says, can I replace with 3 clubs (being transfer Rhubensol) which is a transfer to D, which is stayman? Yes, sounds fine to me.
Then at the table the opposition say, 'well last week you did this bid with 6 clubs and no 4 card major', so it is either Stayman or long clubs. Is this now not comparable?
If we decide that it isn't, then what? We have given bad advice to the 3C bidder who is potentially stuck in clubs with a 2-1 fit :) as partner is now barred from bidding.
So, I can understand the need for caution for giving a ruling away from the table, in case additional information arises at the table that would adjust that ruling.
I do like the idea of saying, your underbid/BOOT could show 'X, Y or Z', if you can substitute that bid with another that has the same/similar/meaning then you should be okay, but until you actually make a bid I cannot make a ruling. However, if you are not sure of bid would be accepted or not I can give you an indication of 'No', 'Probably not', 'Unclear', 'probably', 'highly likely' - however, if you are doubtful, it may be better to make a final guess at the contract.
Then the bid is made and we can now make a decision... being careful to not give UI? Assuming that 2C Stayman is replaced with 3C Stayman - by saying that partner is not barred from bidding we have just told them that this IS Stayman! Perhaps we should not give a ruling? hmmmm, I am thinking off the top of my head now and I am not clear now what I should be doing. At the table I am currently saying that the withdrawn bid is X showing Y, if you have another bid that also shows Y then no problems and bidding continues. However, I am yet to see a comparable call attempted... by saying that the replacement bid has the same meaning, are we potentially giving information to their partner so that they don't forget the system?
Another example, late on bidding asking for Aces:
1H - Pass - 1S - pass
3H - pass - 4NT - 5C
5C* not accepted...
So, we check their card and no mention of systems dealing with interference at this level. Take the offender away from table and say, well that shows 0 or 3 aces (RKC), so if you have a bid that means the same, you can bid it with no barring.
So, they say that they just take the overcalling suit and that was asking for aces - in this case clubs was bid so no D means C, H means D etc...
So, not problems, I can just bid 5D now and it has the same meaning as 5C.
Sounds great, but would their partner have remembered this? If we go back and say, you are not barred, then by extension they know that 5D means the same as 5C and there is no chance for a forgotten system. So as a director, we have given UI to the offending side.
Remember that making a comparable call is an additional option in IB cases. Making the bid good (strictly, correcting by the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination...) is still there as an option separate from making a comparable call.
Makes very good sense to me.