Too helpful ?
1C - P - 1S - 2H
2D
Called to give a ruling.
Thinking of a comparable call I asked "would X would show Diamonds", told no by the 2D bidder so ruled no comparable call.
No further problem but later wondered ....
1. Was my question too specific.
2. Should the question, or another one, have been directed at one particular player and at the table.
3. Had the offending pair agreed a X would be take out would that be sufficient to be comparable.
2D
Called to give a ruling.
Thinking of a comparable call I asked "would X would show Diamonds", told no by the 2D bidder so ruled no comparable call.
No further problem but later wondered ....
1. Was my question too specific.
2. Should the question, or another one, have been directed at one particular player and at the table.
3. Had the offending pair agreed a X would be take out would that be sufficient to be comparable.
Comments
Why isn't 3D comparable?
Given the existence of Law 27B1(a), it is unlikely to matter much whether there is a comparable call available - opener normally just bids 3 !d and matters proceed without further ado, but FWIW:
I don't think that the question is too specific. Bear in mind that Law 27B3 only permits the offender to double if it is a comparable call, then I think that the TD is right to find out the meaning of double.
I am perfectly happy for the question to be put in the hearing of all four players. Were you to take the offender away from the table, and were he to tell you that double showed diamonds, but his partner were then to disagree, you would just have contributed to the possibility of the making of a double not permitted by Law 27B3, with a resulting right royal mess.
I think it is close as to whether a takeout double is a comparable call. Some people play takeout doubles as fairly shape-specific, and others have a looser style (I remember, many years ago, listening to a lengthy and tedious exchange between someone who though that a "Sputnik" double showed specifically 4-4 in the unbid suits, whereas a "takeout" double was more loosely defined, and someone who thought they were more-or-less interchangeable terms). If you can ascertain the style, then rule accordingly, but I would be inclined to rule a takeout double comparable if it normally shows 4 diamonds, relying on the words "or similar" in Law 23A1, and the fact that the WBF is apparently happy for us to be reasonably liberal in ruling on comparable calls.
But opener will probably just bid 3 !d anyway...
Well, I suppose it is, although it doesn't have to be to be a choice that allows the auction to proceed without further rectification.
3D was bid, by no comparable call I meant other than it.
Told you so :)