Calls out of Rotation/Comparable Calls
Calls out of rotation/Comparable calls
I am currently attending a Club Director course and I have some difficulty understanding exactly how to resolve some of the issues arising from Calls out of Rotation and Comparable calls.
For example, a scenario might be:
N is dealer and opens the auction with a call. Before E calls, S calls out of turn. As Director, I get called to the table. Having established what has happened, I explain to W that, as the LHO, he has two options:
1) accept the call, whereupon the auction continues as normal
2) reject the call whereupon the auction reverts to E as the correct person, with Laws 30, 31, 32 applying. If E then passes, S must repeat his call. If E bids, S must pass if his original call was a pass. If his original call was a bid, he is then free to make any legal call. If this is a comparable call, the auction continues normally without restriction. If the call is not comparable, N must pass at his next turn to call and if S becomes a defender he will be subject to lead restrictions when he first gets the lead.
So far, so good. However, now come the questions.
1) at exactly what stage do I take S away from the table to explain what a comparable call is as defined in Law 23. As part of the original explanation whilst addressing W and the rest of the table? Not until it becomes South’s turn to call? Or only if asked to explain by S?
2) whilst explaining to S the ins and outs of Law 23, I cannot tell S how to construct a suitable call from the cards in his hand, but can he construct a hypothetical call and ask me, before he returns to the table, whether or not I would rule it as comparable?
3) when S makes his call, the auction cannot proceed until it is determined whether or not the call is comparable. How is this done? Do I, as Director intervene on my own initiative at that point to rule on whether the call is comparable? Is it assumed the call is comparable unless someone challenges it and asks for a ruling? Or is there some other way of proceeding?
I have the misfortune to play only at non-affiliated clubs where the atmosphere is, shall we say, somewhat relaxed and I have no one knowledgeable or experienced enough to advise me.
If someone out there could help, I would be most grateful.
Comments
Hi jmpandap
You raise some interesting points. I started off by think the answers were obvious, but the more I thought about them the more I realised these questions are not clearly addressed in the laws. Here's my twopenneth worth:
1) You don't need to take S away from the table - the definition of a comparable call is contained within the laws. You might choose to explain this definition before W has chosen (whether or not to accept the call), after, or not at all - although you will of course do so if asked.
2) White Book 2018 8.23.1 includes "If possible, the offending player should take the opportunity to discuss their options with someone who understands the law." Although this is in reference to private matches (where there is no TD), it strongly implies that S may request advice, which would be given away from the table. The director has to be careful to ensure that advice (as to whether the call would be comparable) does not become assistance in choosing a call.
There are minds far more experienced than mine on this forum who I am sure will have a more definitive answer.
3) There is great potential for UI here. The safest way is to take S away from the table, ask about the potential meanings of the withdrawn call and the meaning of the actual call, and make a determination that is then relayed back to the table. S may of course be willing to state whether they believe their call is comparable or not (subject to later challenge).
The fun starts when N's explanation of the "comparable" call differs from S's - MI and UI!
The Commentary on the Laws requires the Director to not only explain the options but also the consequences of the options before LHO makes his choice. The following para under Law 27 in the Commentary states:
'Procedure after an Insufficient Bid
.....after a player makes an insufficient bid his LHO gets the option to accept it. It might however be relevant for LHO to first discover whether the offender has a call available that would allow the auction to proceed undisturbed, hence Law 20F1 allows him to ask the offender's partner about the meaning of any potential replacement call, prior to deciding whether to accept the infraction.'
Presumably this must also apply to BOOTs.
Not mentioned in the Commentary, but one must assume that the Director must ask the offender to leave the table while LHO consults the offender's partner about available calls, to avoid the offender getting this information.
The Commentary also states in the same section, next para, that 'If the offender wants to know whether a replacement call fulfills the conditions of Law 27B1 the TD should tell him, also away from the table.
I'm not sure why. We don't usually expect a player to leave the table when the player's partner is answering a question about their system.
I think that we start to get into stormy waters - away from the table we discuss options and agree that if the offender replaces bid x with bid y, then it is comparable. This happens and a query arises, either because their partner alerts and gives an alternative meaning, or the opposition query it, perhaps pointing out some obscure points on the convention card. So, we may need to revert our decision, but what happens to bid y? Is it too late for that to be replaced? If it is too late and partner is barred from bidding, then we have created a sticky mess.
I think it is better to give advice on the rules and that perhaps 'in principle' the bid would be comparable and allow the bidding to continue, subject to any query/appeal?
To answer the original questions:
1. There is no absolute requirement to take the player away from the table, but I usually offer it as an option while explaining everything to the whole table.
2. Yes, you should say whether or not a particular call would be ruled comparable, based on the pair's understandings but without reference to the player's hand.
3. You need to say whether or not a call is comparable (also mentioning the possibility of a later adjustment) as this is necessary for the auction to proceed with the player's partner knowing whether or not they will be able to bid.
Finally, we welcome all TDs with practical questions to this forum, whether or not EBU members, but it is worth noting that it is one of the large number of resources provided by the EBU, many of which are taken for granted but would not be able to be provided were there no system of affiliation to pay for them. So, while you are very welcome to join in and contribute here, please keep this in mind if you ever get the opportunity to vote on the affiliation of a bridge club to the EBU!
jmpandap
Thanks everybody. It will take a while to digest all your comments, but they are certainly most helpful
Just for the record, I am a member of the EBU and have passed the County Directors course.
Isn't there a difference between the two situations?
When a player's partner is answering a question about their system the answer refers to an agreement, which is usually recorded in the system card. The laws cover the situation where the answer is different from the system and also where UI may have been conveyed to partner.
When the partner is being asked which call/s would be comparable and he answers in his partner's (the offender's) presence , the offender gets to know which replacement call would be understood by his partner. He is not entitled to this knowledge. By allowing this to happen the TD's life becomes more difficult by having to judge whether the offender used the UI or not.
As I said in my comments, which were directed to the original poster who said that he only plays at non-affiliated clubs, we also welcome those who are not.
You ask the player's partner the same sort of questions in both situations. You don't ask "which calls do you think are comparable for your partner".
Oh OK. Thanks