Comparable Call - when do we make a determination?
It is up to the offending player to decide whether their call is comparable - we're not supposed to rule before they make the call.
So when do we rule?
Let's assume the offending player has selected and made a call.
If they say their bid is comparable - do we accept it at the time (so no calling or lead restrictions) and adjust at the end of the hand if it turns out they were wrong?
Or do we get them to tell us at the time what the withdrawn and replacement calls show, and then make a determination (adjusting at the end of the hand if it turns out they have misled us)?
And what if a player thinks it is not comparable when it is (I can think of several non-stupid scenarios)? Are they hoist by their own petard?
Comments
It's up to the TD to determine what options the player has and which will bar them, before they make the call, often by having a discussion away from the table. Those at the table need to know whether the player's partner is barred from bidding before it is that partner's turn to call.
That's not what I understood - I was told (on the county director's course, I believe) that the TD cannot determine whether a call is comparable or not before it is made - it is up to the player. We can help (a lot): "If this call means XYZ and that call means ABC then they would be comparable" but not make a determination.
Where does it say we can?
I would say they need to know before the next in rotation makes a call.
That's pretty much what I thought - in fact if, in your scenario, the player has to make the call chosen after the director rules it is comparable (or not) then it's exactly the same.
Are there any county course tutors out there willing to wade in? @Senior_Kibitzer?
There is no route (in law) for offender to declare that their call is or is not comparable - that would be making a ruling and making rulings is the directors role.
The WBF Commentary on the Laws says "If the offender wants to
know whether a replacement call fulfils the conditions of Law 27B1 the TD should tell him, also
away from the table."
Where does it say we can not?
I think it's more likely that the county course says that the TD should not suggest which calls might be comparable, than that is says that the TD should not tell the player whether their proposed call would be considered comparable.
So it does - thank you Gordon.
I'm sure there must be something that stops a director giving advice to a player. There will be a blurred line between informing a player of the laws and advising them what to do. Imagine "will this be a psyche, director?"
It is intriguing that the note in the commentary is under 27B (Insufficient bid not accepted) and not under 23 (comparable call). There is no such advice under laws 30 to 32. but surely the same should apply.
And while I'm here: the same note, it states _The TD might also need to ask the offender what he meant to do when making the insufficient bid. _
I was under the impression that the bidders intention was irrelevant - indeed I cannot see why it would be relevant. Whether or not a call is comparable is surely a function of the bidding system alone?
The extent to which the offender's intent matters is ambiguous under the law, the wording implies that it's what the bid can sensibly be considered to mean which is important. I guess in practice players are unlikely to make sideways leaps as to what they're trying to show. Obviously in the literal sense no meaning attaches to an insufficient bid.
The line between advising a player as to the law and suggesting a course of action is uncomfortably close here, you just have to be careful with your choice of words. But I do think a player should be allowed to ask "is this bid comparable?" Hopefully the next revision of the laws will tidy up some of the processes around these laws, they've proven to be a bit messy in practice.
What James said.
You know me, Jeremy, I'm a sucker for wading in!!
The County Course that you attended was not that long after the 2017 Laws and, if I remember correctly, before the Commentary to those Laws became available, and I remember being aware of differing views on approach.
I have always believed that on the offender's return to the table, both the offender and the TD should know whether the offender's replacement call will allow the auction to then continue normally or not.
The discussion away from the table is the crux and the careful wording of Gordon's last sentence above is worth re-reading a couple of times. The way that I like to describe it is that we, as TD, don't want to help the offender play bridge, but we need to guide him through the concept of Comparable Calls, such that he knows whether a replacement call that he might propose to make would be Comparable . (To that end, I will stop the offender from starting to tell me anything about his actual hand. )
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Thanks, Barry.
I can imagine a situation like this - player asks a question along the lines of, "so would 3H be a comparable call?" - if we answer yes then they go back to the table, make the call and we advise the table that the auction continues normally and to call back if there is an issue later.
However, if we say that 3H would not be comparable, are they obligated to make that call now, or can they ask, "what about 2H?"
In that way a player can go through available option until they find a comparable call.
Or, should we tell a player to not state any suggested calls until we describe the laws. Then tell them how it works, perhaps with examples from an unrelated scenario... then ask them to select a call and we tell them that it is/is not comparable, but they are committed to making that call now?
I think that things can get complicated somewhat (or possibly simplified) because people cannot stay quiet -
1NT - 2S - 2D... "That's an insufficient bid", what should happen is: "Director!" What tends to happen is: "oops, I missed the overcall".
So from the strict reading of the laws, any meaning that might be attributed to a 2D call can be used to make a comparable call. However, due to UI we now know that the responder intended a weak take out in D or a transfer to H depending on systems. Should the offender be limited to the meaning that we now know that they intended, or can they make any legally allowed call that can could be attributed to the 2D call (such as a 2D open or whatever). What if they managed to announce to the table 'I thought I was dealer' - can they now complete a transfer to Hearts as that was a possible meaning to a 2D call?
The answer is to offer to take the player away from the table and discuss their options if they are uncertain.
Sorry Martin, I may be reading this wrong but in the 1NT- 2S - 2D instance isn't 27B1(a) appropriate. You need to find out if they intended partner to bid 2H ( the denomination specified by the withdrawn bid) or a weak/moderate 2D. Now they could bid 3H for the first or 3D for the second. However, the director would have to consider 27D after the hand has been played. In case the offending side had "gained" through their error. I think that also means that had opener played the hand they might have gone two down but because the offender is now playing the hand they make.
If we are thinking that 1NT - 2S - 2D is a transfer, then 2D shows hearts. As such, replacing the insufficient bid with 3H is the lowest sufficient bid that specifies the same denomination as the withdrawn call - which satisfies 27B1(a).
Isn't law 23 about what is attributable or possibly attributable to the withdrawn call, rather than what was intended? Hence my question about what happens when the offender makes a statement such as, "I missed the overcall" or "I thought I was dealer", does that change what is possibly attributable to the call? I would assume that it would, but only because of UI...
Hi Martin I think I see what you mean. Let's just turn it around the other way. What will happen if we ask the partner of the offender what is attributable to the withdrawn call and ask them for a comparable call for their partner to use as a replacement? After all they are both using the same system card. In most instances (not all) partner will be able to make a pretty good guess which will more than likely be the same as the bid that partner intended anyway. Note that the extra comments by offender takes Law 25 away in an insufficient bid instance. I don't think that the offender can tell us anything other than what was intended. In fact most of the Comparable call and Insufficient bid examples in the Club director training booklet use the intended meaning of the call.
Using a different situation Opener bids 1 Club 1 Spade overcall then 1 Heart by responder, insufficient. Now if the bid isn't accepted the 1 Heart shows 4+ Hearts and 6-9 HCPs. That was what responder intended and that is probably what partner attributed to the bid. If responder says "I didn't see the 1 Spade" it makes little difference. Now a double could be the same or similar meaning. It's highly likely that the opener will think "silly idiot wasn't watching for an overcall" so also knows about it anyway.
The comparable call is there to allow the auction to continue with an opportunity for the offending side to reach a realistic contract rather than one partner "punting" a contact and failing miserably. Don't forget that Law 23C doesn't allow the offending side to "gain" from their error. Obviously I might caution the offender to be careful of any additional information that they might give away after the irregularity is spotted in the future.
Hope this helps.
Hey CMOT
I see what you are saying, however, what if the responder says, "I thought I was dealer" so that we assume a 1H opening hand to their 1H call and their replacement would need to be comparable to that, or the minimum sufficient bid in hearts.
If they more correctly say nothing, then 1H might have been a response, but might have been an opening hand. Asking their partner what a call might mean might be useful, particularly where there might be a conventional meaning to a bid, but I don't think that they should be limited to what their partner might think in that situation, but should be limited to what their insufficient bid might mean.
Yes, comments made by the player may well limit what is attributable to to a call, but that is not to their advantage.