Law 23
Recently I was called to bid OOT, not accepted by LHO, RHO duly opened and offender was advised of her right to a comparable call. She said she did not understand a comparable call and I duly explained Law 23. Still she did not understand, particularly the concept of a 'subset'. Eventually she passed with the usual consequence. To what extent should a TD in those circumstances suggest a specific comparable call and/or a specific course of action when her partner is silenced?
Comments
I think it depends on the context, the seriousness of the event. I don't think you should say "you should do this", but it's not unreasonable to say, after an auction like 1C - (1S) - 1H, "... for example, if you play negative doubles as showing four or more hearts, that would be considered comparable, and so would a natural 2H bid". Probably also ok to re-iterate that certain options will silence partner.
I think it's easier to get across the concept of a comparable call after an IB than after a BOOT (besides which it isn't so often needed because of the "lowest sufficient bid that specifies the same denomination" provision of Law 27B1(a)). But if a player is obviously confused I agree that the TD should make a reasonable effort to explain in an alternative way that might lift the fog.
I do my best to avoid using terms like "comparable call" or "subset" without clarification, especially on a regular club night (that's all I direct) where players are unlikely to be familiar with the law and these terms.
With say a 1H BOOT not accepted I would ask what that meant in their system, and if it's ACOL I'd say:
"When it comes to your turn, if you have a comparable call, that is one which promises at least 4 hearts and an opening hand, then if you make such a bid everything continues as normal; otherwise partner silenced for...(I can never remember if it's one round or forever)".
This might not be perfect according to laws, but it's pragmatic and usually works.
If the player requires further guidance I am keen to take them away from table before UI flies around. I hope it is also reasonable for me to answer whether a particular bid would be comparable before they make it. "So if RHO now opens 1S would X silence my partner?", would get an answer from me based on after I determine whether their takeout promises 4+ hearts or not.
It got a bit harder on an occasion where a 1D BOOT was not accepted. RHO then opened a Precision 1D, maybe short as 1. Offender, away from the table, asked about a few possibilities, none of which I reckoned were comparable (given that 2D would have been Michael's under their agreements).
I think it unreasonable to expect club players to fully comprehend the formal language of the law book at the table.
If offender does not make a comparable call (or for insufficient bid doesn't make a cheapest call showing the same denomination),
Call Out Of Rotation - offender's partner passes for one round only
Insufficient Bid - offender's partner passes for the rest of the auction
Well technically not correct. if they make a comparable call that promises 5 hearts and partner allows for the fact that they may only have four and thus, for example they end up in a better-scoring 3NT contract then surely you can adjust under 23C
I'm not sure in what way that differs from Bud's statement? As I read it, all he was doing was distinguishing between the two different requirements to pass, not trying to give a complete ruling.