Do you mean Offender passed out of turn with his RHO as Dealer?
I am no expert, but this 2D bid seems in no way comparable sincle it doesnt adhere to any of Law 23 requirements (same/similar meaning as pass, subset of pass, same purpose as pass). Following Law 26, offenders partner must pass at his next call and there may be lead penalty.
2D is not a comparable call - it is not the same as pass, and it is not a subset of pass because 2D could be opening values with hearts. There is too much extra information from the pass, especially if an opening 2H would be weak.
If offender wants to play in 2H, they can bid 2H which is not a comparable call, so opener must pass.
I think this is interesting, and a case that should be (but isn't) covered by the comparable call rules.
First a comment on
If offender wants to play in 2H, they can bid 2H which is not a comparable call, so opener must pass.
2H would be a transfer to spades, but IF deemed non comparable, partner cannot bid so it gets left in 2H (interesting if opponents join in - does dealer have to assume the bid shows hearts or spades?)
Now to the meat:
I see no problem with the transfer being completed - partner is doing as told - there is no way to use the UI.
After 1NT - 2D - 2H - Pass, responders hand IS a subset of a passed hand, so IMHO the sequence should be treated as comparable, but a sequence such as 1NT - 2D - 2H - 2NT not so.
Of course that's not how the comparable call rule works - but it should be.
And this also falls over if breaking the transfer is part of their system.
2H would be a transfer to spades, but IF deemed non comparable, partner cannot bid so it gets left in 2H (interesting if opponents join in - does dealer have to assume the bid shows hearts or spades?)
The dealer is allowed to know the laws - and therefore that their partner has chosen a call that they must pass - and must therefore be natural.
After 1NT - 2D - 2H - Pass, responders hand IS a subset of a passed hand, so IMHO the sequence should be treated as comparable, but a sequence such as 1NT - 2D - 2H - 2NT not so.
I think the problem is the difficulty that the law-makers have: they want the laws to be relatively simple (although it may not feel that at times!) so if you start listing exceptions then life becomes more complicated. The EBU (and no doubt other RAs) has similar problems on defining what a suitable hand is to be considered strong enough for there to be bids at the 2 and 3 level such that opponents aren't scared off by hands with strong offensive, but limited defensive capability. (Hence this comes up frequently)
I suppose you would include in a comparable call the option "a call that compels partner to respond in a particular manner" or "a call that assumes permanently captaincy of the auction" (anyone want to define that!)
Even opening 1NT doesn't always transfer captaincy over to partner permanently. Last night: -
1N - 2D - 2H - 4C - 4D - 4S - 6H (yes the 1NT bidder decided the final contract)
Interestingly, if playing natural bids after a 1NT open, then 1NT - 2H would be a weak takeout of 1NT. So, after a pass out of turn, not accepted and partners opening bid of 1NT is made, so you make a bid of 2H as a weak take out - this is now a comparable call to the pass, as a hand that is too weak to even invite over a 1NT open, is a sub-set of hands that would pass as a dealer.
An opening pass might be considered as 0-11 without pre-empt shape/values. A weak take-out into hearts after an opening of 1NT from partner might be considered as 0-10 count with 5+ hearts.
That would then mean that partner would not be barred from bidding later in the auction.... say there is then an overcall of 3C, the 1NT opener with 4H and a max 14 count would not be barred from bidding 3H now.
Maybe the 1NT opener passes the 3C overcall and the player that initially passed out of turn bids 3H now... must show max weak take out values and/or additional hearts, so the 1NT opener might now call 4H.
Above would count if always play natural calls over 1NT, however, as we are all allowed to know the laws, after that pass out of turn we know that the 1NT opener has to pass any non-comparable call and as such all bids now would be natural.
Hence: normally, 1NT - 2D would be a transfer to H but we know that we cannot do this due to the preceding pass out of turn
So now we have to bid, 1NT - 2H as a natural weak take out. Making the 2H a comparable call to the initial pass out of turn and so the 1NT opener would not be barred from the auction.
I think Martin is suggesting that players could have a system agreement that says something like "revert to natural bidding if replacing an insufficient or out of turn bid" - would that be allowed?
White Book 1.6.4.1 (d) "Under Law 40B2 (a) (iv), _a pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its understandings during the auction and play consequent on an irregularity committed by the opponents."
_
However while 40B2(a)(iv) allows a Regulating Authority to make such a regulation in respect of an irregularity committed by the opponents the Laws do not permit this for the offending side.
The laws allow you to make a call that (is not a 'replacement' call and) silences partner. Regardless of partnership agreement, if you make a bid which silences partner then you are prepared to play in that contract - partner can make inferences from the fact that you made the bid based on general bridge knowledge,
Comments
Do you mean Offender passed out of turn with his RHO as Dealer?
I am no expert, but this 2D bid seems in no way comparable sincle it doesnt adhere to any of Law 23 requirements (same/similar meaning as pass, subset of pass, same purpose as pass). Following Law 26, offenders partner must pass at his next call and there may be lead penalty.
2D is not a comparable call - it is not the same as pass, and it is not a subset of pass because 2D could be opening values with hearts. There is too much extra information from the pass, especially if an opening 2H would be weak.
If offender wants to play in 2H, they can bid 2H which is not a comparable call, so opener must pass.
I think this is interesting, and a case that should be (but isn't) covered by the comparable call rules.
First a comment on
2H would be a transfer to spades, but IF deemed non comparable, partner cannot bid so it gets left in 2H (interesting if opponents join in - does dealer have to assume the bid shows hearts or spades?)
Now to the meat:
I see no problem with the transfer being completed - partner is doing as told - there is no way to use the UI.
After 1NT - 2D - 2H - Pass, responders hand IS a subset of a passed hand, so IMHO the sequence should be treated as comparable, but a sequence such as 1NT - 2D - 2H - 2NT not so.
Of course that's not how the comparable call rule works - but it should be.
And this also falls over if breaking the transfer is part of their system.
The dealer is allowed to know the laws - and therefore that their partner has chosen a call that they must pass - and must therefore be natural.
I think the problem is the difficulty that the law-makers have: they want the laws to be relatively simple (although it may not feel that at times!) so if you start listing exceptions then life becomes more complicated. The EBU (and no doubt other RAs) has similar problems on defining what a suitable hand is to be considered strong enough for there to be bids at the 2 and 3 level such that opponents aren't scared off by hands with strong offensive, but limited defensive capability. (Hence this comes up frequently)
I suppose you would include in a comparable call the option "a call that compels partner to respond in a particular manner" or "a call that assumes permanently captaincy of the auction" (anyone want to define that!)
Even opening 1NT doesn't always transfer captaincy over to partner permanently. Last night: -
1N - 2D - 2H - 4C - 4D - 4S - 6H (yes the 1NT bidder decided the final contract)
Interestingly, if playing natural bids after a 1NT open, then 1NT - 2H would be a weak takeout of 1NT. So, after a pass out of turn, not accepted and partners opening bid of 1NT is made, so you make a bid of 2H as a weak take out - this is now a comparable call to the pass, as a hand that is too weak to even invite over a 1NT open, is a sub-set of hands that would pass as a dealer.
An opening pass might be considered as 0-11 without pre-empt shape/values. A weak take-out into hearts after an opening of 1NT from partner might be considered as 0-10 count with 5+ hearts.
That would then mean that partner would not be barred from bidding later in the auction.... say there is then an overcall of 3C, the 1NT opener with 4H and a max 14 count would not be barred from bidding 3H now.
Maybe the 1NT opener passes the 3C overcall and the player that initially passed out of turn bids 3H now... must show max weak take out values and/or additional hearts, so the 1NT opener might now call 4H.
Above would count if always play natural calls over 1NT, however, as we are all allowed to know the laws, after that pass out of turn we know that the 1NT opener has to pass any non-comparable call and as such all bids now would be natural.
Hence: normally, 1NT - 2D would be a transfer to H but we know that we cannot do this due to the preceding pass out of turn
So now we have to bid, 1NT - 2H as a natural weak take out. Making the 2H a comparable call to the initial pass out of turn and so the 1NT opener would not be barred from the auction.
So the bid is comparable if and only if it is not comparable?
The Epimenides paradox in bridge laws - I love it!
Just because the laws allow a player to make the bid, that does not mean the bid is comparable.
Even when there are comparable bids available, the player does not have to make a comparable bid.
I think Martin is suggesting that players could have a system agreement that says something like "revert to natural bidding if replacing an insufficient or out of turn bid" - would that be allowed?
White Book 1.6.4.1 (d) "Under Law 40B2 (a) (iv), _a pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its understandings during the auction and play consequent on an irregularity committed by the opponents."
_
However while 40B2(a)(iv) allows a Regulating Authority to make such a regulation in respect of an irregularity committed by the opponents the Laws do not permit this for the offending side.
The laws allow you to make a call that (is not a 'replacement' call and) silences partner. Regardless of partnership agreement, if you make a bid which silences partner then you are prepared to play in that contract - partner can make inferences from the fact that you made the bid based on general bridge knowledge,