Law 23 - Same Meaning?

Peter

I'm a little confused by Law 23 ...
I think I read somewhere that if someone responds 2C to partner's 2NT opening, thinking they were responding to 1NT then
if 2C/1NT would be ordinary Stayman and 3C over 2NT would be the same then 3C is allowed as comparable.
Does this mean we always consider what was in the Insufficient Bidder's mind when checking for Comparable Calls?
For example if someone responds to a 5NT King-asking bid with a 5-level Suit response do we take them away from the table, find out what they thought they were bidding after, and allow them to replace their IB with a bid that means what they thought they were saying with their IB? (assuming they have such a bid)
Thanks

ais523

Logically, it should be based on what the offender's partner assumes that the offender was trying to show; the replacement bid has to be comparable to that. (This is because the comparable calls rule is intended to reduce the impact of UI, which is based on what's been shown to the offender's partner.)

The last time an insufficient bid was made against me, it was alerted! (The bidding had gone 2!s by me, (Pass), Pass, (2!d).) Apparently the offender's partner thought that it was obvious enough what happened that it was important to disclose a particular nonstandard meaning the offender had in mind when making it. (They were correct, too, describing it as showing a hand with huge strength offensively and defensively; the replacement bid was 4!h which made.)

Insufficient bids normally show either that you've missed what someone bid altogether, or you mistook the level. In most systems an opening 2!c shows a hand that's much stronger than a normal opening bid in some way or another, so one partner having a 2!c opening bid and the other having a 2NT (strong and balanced) opening bid is highly implausible. Thus, it's most likely that the insufficient bidder mistook the level of the bid, and 2NT, (Pass), 2!c should be correctable to any bid comparable to 1NT, (Pass), 2!c.

gordonrainsford

The bit of Law 23 that covers these situations says:

LAW 23 – COMPARABLE CALL
A. Definition
A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call, if it:
...
3. has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay)
as that attributable to the withdrawn call.

So if it is attributable to the withdrawn call that it is asking for the majors, or for controls, then it can be substituted with a sufficient call that is asking for the majors, or for controls as the case may be.

Peter

Thanks all

JamesC

There was a useful talk at the last TD weekend (I think, might have been the county training) about the use of the word attributable in this law.

The point being, usefully, we don't have to consider exactly what the bidder was thinking. To run with the example, 2C might be stayman, might be an attempt to bid clubs (actually maybe not, a genuine attempt to bid clubs seems far fetched. Assume they're playing precision and this might be an opening bid of 2C). I believe the gist was that these are both 'attributable' meanings so a replacement call can be similar to either meaning.