I don't propose to debate whether it would be better for the game if we advised players against bids that are likely to be ruled back because of UI because I don't believe believe it is practical even if it was desirable. The fact that we can say before it is made whether we will rule a call comparable or not does not mean that we should but it does demonstrate that the analogy with UI cases is not necessarily a good one.
I do not see how it can help the game if a player has to gamble on whether we will rule a call comparable. As I said it puts the player in a worse position than under the 2007 laws and frustrates the intention of the introduction of comparable calls. However I agree that we should implement the law in a uniform way. I deliberately decided to contribute to this thread to give my input to the debate about what that uniform way should be. I think I have done that fairly clearly. I hope that others may also join in so that perhaps a consensus may emerge.
With a rule 23 situation, I'm going to have to rule forthwith, after it's made, whether I accept the call as comparable. As such, I can certainly give a ruling before the bid is made. Of course, there are UI implications if the player asks me at the table, so I'd want to be away from the table when they ask me. When I first saw Law 23, I realised that it's going to put extra strain on a director, such as being able to fathom their system on the fly. We're stuck with the law for now, though.
How can one know what the original meaning of an invalid bid is, even looking at a players card? Surely one would need to ask the bidder (away from the table) what their intent was?
For example: 1H - 3C - 2NT...
Was this intended to be cover in clubs with an invite to game, having missed the jump?
A good raise in Hearts? (game force or otherwise)
A standard ACOL (and horrible) 10-12 points, no more than 3 hearts, no more than 3 spades?
You can look at their card and see that 2NT after a major means a good raise to at least 3H, in which case 3H or 4H would be fine... however, that only works without an overcall, so, did they miss the overcall, or miss that it was a jump? If they missed the overcall, then raising in H is fine. If they missed that it was a jump, then raising H would not be fine.
I'm sure that there are better examples to illustrate that point, but you get my drift.
EDIT: Actually, having thought about it for a few seconds more, if 2NT was intended as a good raise to at least 3H, would 3H now be a comparable call? As they might bid 3H with 5 hearts and 6 points after the over call, meaning that 4H would be needed to allow partner to go on?
I had an interesting example of this last night - 1NT - pass - 2C (5 card Stayman announced as such) - 2D - 2D
The overcall was missed and 2D was intended to show a minimum and no 5 card major.
So, I can't think of a comparable bid, except double (if they play 'that was my bid') or pass. Doubles are not allowed, but is pass now a comparable bid? or will that in effect end the auction?
I ruled that a pass would need to be passed by his partner and he did indeed pass and missed a game (he was aware that he could punt a contract). Was that correct?
Why do you suggest that doubles are not allowed? If double is the correct bid for them in the auction with interference then double is just fine. Equally, if pass is what they've agreed then that is fine, too. If they have no agreement then they're stuck and responder must pass opener's rebid.
If they were playing "stolen bid doubles" then double would certainly be comparable. Failing that, if they play their rebids exactly as described (ie 2D just denies a five-card major) then I think Pass would be comparable. However, if they play the more common method whereby 2D promises a four-card major but denies a five-card one, then I doubt there would be a comparable call available.
Ah, got it now... I think it used to be that you could not double, but now you can, as long as it is comparable. If it is not comparable then they have to replace that with another bid that is (or punt a bid)
Plus a pass can possibly be bid too, though in this instance, only if they would bid something else on a maximum (2D shows no 5 card suit and minimum, they don't play garbage Stayman). If they wouldn't, then pass is not comparable as 2D was minimum and no 5 card major, whereas a pass is now just 'no 5 card major' then it has a wider definition than the substituted bid.
I can give you another example... with one partner I play a Precision variant. If he opens 1C then 1D shows a max of seven points. Say we have the auction of 1C-(1D)-1D, then my 1D is an insufficient bid. We play that in that situation pass shows 1-4 points and double shows 5-7 points. I can either pass or double as a comparable call to the insufficient 1D bid. There's some logic to a suggestion that my LHO should accept my insufficient bid to reduce the information I can give to my partner with either a pass or a double.
But Paul is not suggesting that the TD tell the player what to call. He's suggesting the player decides what they want to call, and check with the TD before making the call that it will be considered comparable. I think his approach is very sensible.
Having re-read the law at source, I think it is now much clearer to me.
You look at a bid to be replaced and consider what it might/could mean. It would be best for the bidder to stay silent as to their intentions and for their partner to not verbalise any assumptions that they may have about that bid, as this would start to give possible UI and could limit their options to correct.
Then any possible meanings by that call can be given by the next bid.
2H - 2D - underbid not accepted...
Any possible meaning to the 2D can now be bid as comparable:
This could be a natural Diamond suit, so 3D is fine, or it could have been a game forcing bid (Benji) so Double or 3H or 3S (assuming forcing) or 4S etc would be OK. Maybe they play multi, so 2S would be fine or 3D forcing might be okay.
The problems come when the underbidder says something along the lines of, 'I didn't see your bid' or 'I didn't see you jump'. Then we have a much clearer understanding of the intended meaning of that bid and as such the replacement bid needs to be much more accurately representative of that bid.
In the example from the other day where the underbidder (in auction 1NT - pass - 2C (5 card Stayman) - 2D (overcall) - 2D not accepted) said something along the lines of, 'I didn't see your bid'. Their partner then explained that 2D meant no 5 card major and minimum holding.
So now they need to find a bid with that same meaning... ish.
I think I have it now...
However, where the law states 23 A "1, has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call", how similar is similar? The second option, "2, defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call" is given as an 'or', not an 'and'. So there is an element of ambiguity there.
So in this example, 2D was meant (and known to the table) to mean no 5 card major AND minimum, if a pass now just means no 5-card major (but could be 12, 13 or 14 points), is this similar enough? Or would 23 A 2 now need to be satisfied and as pass has a broader meaning than 2D, it would not be comparable? It looks like this is the Directors decision and is not clearly laid out, but this seems similar enough to me and I should have accepted a pass as comparable and allow the bidding unhindered.
So, should I now go back and award an adjusted score of AVE+/AVE+ as neither side was at fault and it was my error as Director? I have checked out the scoring and it would not make a difference to positions, but would give circa 2.4% more to one pair and take away 1.6% from the other (it was a top/bottom situation). There has been no appeal, however, one of the players is a co-director (we alternate weeks), so we have discussed it a bit as to what could/should have been judged, so we both know that I was incorrect in the ruling.
Do not make the common mistake of giving artificial scores when ruling under director's error: they should be assigned though of course they need not balance.
I agree with much of what you wrote but not necessarily with some of the conclusions you reach in your sixth paragraph. I agree that a natural 3D overcall should be allowed, one way or another (one of the things about these laws is that there is often some overlap between them). However, neither a takeout double nor an overcall at any level is generally played as game-forcing, so they do not define a subset of a game-forcing artificial opening like a Benji 2D. When it comes to considering a Multi, for most players the strength of a major-suit contained in it is usually stronger than that required for an overcall, and the overall strength of the hand rather less; so I don't think that should be allowed either.
As to how similar is "similar", there have been a number of discussions about this but no universal conclusion. A few of my thoughts are:
A one-level overcall is not similar to an opening bid, but a two-level non-jump overcall is, in most people's styles.
A 15-18 1NT overcall is similar to a 15-17 opening bid.
A takeout double is not similar to any opening bid.
Good points, I shall have to consider it further. Fortunately this does not seem to happen very often at the club (phew).
Just a quick thought, I think the multi-D can include 4441 and strong hands (I don't play it and don't come across that many that do, so I may well be wrong here). In which case: 2S - 2D corrected to a double should show that hand type with a singleton spade? (which shows in one bid where the singleton lies and so it would make life easier for the underbidder to describe their hand - should they be allowed to benefit?)
The problem with that is that a takeout double has a wide range of shapes and strengths, whereas a Multi three-suiter is usually very precise about shape and quite limited in the range of strength. To put it another way, a multi-three-suiter would be a subset of a takeout double, not the other way around.
@bluejack - so you are saying that perhaps it would be fine for one pair to retain their 100% score on the hand and for the other to have AVE assigned? Or should I calculate the score based on the contract that would have been reached with a correct director judgement and likely number of tricks that would have been made?
It is a little moot as there would be no difference to rankings, the players involved are all happy and there has been no appeal, but I do enjoy working out these issues and can help with judgments in future.
I think bluejak is saying that they don't have to be artificial scores: you can award two different assigned scores, one to each side based on your assessment as to what would have happened, treating each of them in turn as non-offending and so getting the benefit of any doubtful points. You could of course weight each of those two scores if you think more then one outcome is possible.
In some cases though, no more than one outcome is likely and that might be the case here. If so, you would just award a score to both sides.
Just a thought on these, if one was to award an average of 50% for each party, does that impact other players at other tables, or is it considered separate?
I suppose the same question for Ave+/-?
Would it make a difference if I scored both favourably, for example, 650 in one direction for 4H making 11, and -620 in the other for 4H making 10 (2 tables managed to not make 10, but this pair in all likely hood would make the full 11 that other make and double dummy shows can make).
Or by awarding a score, would it be processed as 60% to one and 50% to another?
I have not had to do this or think about it previously, so will have to have another look at Scorebridge and see what is possible.
The artificial scores do not affect the match point for the real results. A score of AVE is definitely not matchpointed as zero (passed out). As far as the match points on the board for other pairs are concerned, all artificial scores (and nsot [yet] played) are the same: the real results are compared and then there is some factoring (neuburg) or fudge (simple matchpointing) to get the result on the board scored to the same "top" as other boards.
Regarding the question whether a TD may advise a player whether a particular call would be considered comparable or not, would it not create an awkward situation if a TD advised a player that a call would be allowed as comparable, the player makes that call, after the play the opponents feel aggrieved and lodge an appeal and the appeals committee rules that the call should not have been allowed? I don't think I would like to leave myself open to this. I believe that the TD should only go so far as to advise a player on the nature of comparable calls, but the decision as to what call the player finally decides to make should be his/her alone and the TD's ruling should follow after the call is made.
@SDN - I think that it is the correct approach in a congress or similar standard event where the players should know the rules. But in a 'normal' club night, it seems a bit harsh.
Besides, if a corrective call is made (such as double) then you will have to make an immediate decision as to whether this is comparable or not (if not then the double needs to be replaced with a legal call as you cannot replace a bid with a double unless it is comparable). So you may as well state before it is played that a double would/wouldn't be considered comparable to avoid UI if attempted. If you are going to state it for a double, why not for a pass or any other bid?
SDN: Your suggestion does not solve the problem. It may be awkward if a director's decision on what is comparable is overturned on appeal, but that's life, directors aren't going to get every decision right, and in many cases there will be no consensus on what the "right" answer is.
If the TD advises the offender on what "comparable" means in this context, but says nothing about which calls they consider comparable, and then lets them make a call, the TD still has to judge whether it's comparable, and this decision can still be appealed.
@VixTD said:
SDN: Your suggestion does not solve the problem. It may be awkward if a director's decision on what is comparable is overturned on appeal, but that's life, directors aren't going to get every decision right, and in many cases there will be no consensus on what the "right" answer is.
If the TD advises the offender on what "comparable" means in this context, but says nothing about which calls they consider comparable, and then lets them make a call, the TD still has to judge whether it's comparable, and this decision can still be appealed.
In my opinion it is one thing for a TD's ruling to be appealed and overturned, which happens quite often, but it is quite another where a TD has advised a player that a particular bid would be acceptable and the player makes that bid, which is then appealed and overturned. I feel that a TD may go as far as he wants in explaining to the player the nuances of comparable bids but he should still stop short of saying explicitly or implicitly that a particular bid would be acceptable as a comparable bid, e.g. 'if you bid 1NT I will rule it as a comparable bid'. The best that the TD should do is to allow the player to ask 'if I bid this would you allow it as a comparable bid' and answer yes or no. The outcome may be the same but there is a subtle difference between the two actions - in the first instance the TD has effectively made a decision for the player and in the second he has only given an advance ruling for a player's intended decision.
@VixTD said:
SDN: Your suggestion does not solve the problem. It may be awkward if a director's decision on what is comparable is overturned on appeal, but that's life, directors aren't going to get every decision right, and in many cases there will be no consensus on what the "right" answer is.
If the TD advises the offender on what "comparable" means in this context, but says nothing about which calls they consider comparable, and then lets them make a call, the TD still has to judge whether it's comparable, and this decision can still be appealed.
In my opinion it is one thing for a TD's ruling to be appealed and overturned, which happens quite often, but it is quite another where a TD has advised a player that a particular bid would be acceptable and the player makes that bid, which is then appealed and overturned. I feel that a TD may go as far as he wants in explaining to the player the nuances of comparable bids but he should still stop short of saying explicitly or implicitly that a particular bid would be acceptable as a comparable bid, e.g. 'if you bid 1NT I will rule it as a comparable bid'. The best that the TD should do is to allow the player to ask 'if I bid this would you allow it as a comparable bid' and answer yes or no. The outcome may be the same but there is a subtle difference between the two actions - in the first instance the TD has effectively made a decision for the player and in the second he has only given an advance ruling for a player's intended decision.
Let the player enquire about a number of possible bids and your reaction to each one and then decide which one he opts for.
@VixTD said:
SDN: Your suggestion does not solve the problem. It may be awkward if a director's decision on what is comparable is overturned on appeal, but that's life, directors aren't going to get every decision right, and in many cases there will be no consensus on what the "right" answer is.
If the TD advises the offender on what "comparable" means in this context, but says nothing about which calls they consider comparable, and then lets them make a call, the TD still has to judge whether it's comparable, and this decision can still be appealed.
In my opinion it is one thing for a TD's ruling to be appealed and overturned, which happens quite often, but it is quite another where a TD has advised a player that a particular bid would be acceptable and the player makes that bid, which is then appealed and overturned. I feel that a TD may go as far as he wants in explaining to the player the nuances of comparable bids but he should still stop short of saying explicitly or implicitly that a particular bid would be acceptable as a comparable bid, e.g. 'if you bid 1NT I will rule it as a comparable bid'. The best that the TD should do is to allow the player to ask 'if I bid this would you allow it as a comparable bid' and answer yes or no. The outcome may be the same but there is a subtle difference between the two actions - in the first instance the TD has effectively made a decision for the player and in the second he has only given an advance ruling for a player's intended decision.
Let the player enquire about a number of possible bids and your reaction to each one and then decide which one he opts for.
On further reflection, would it not be unfair to the opponent's if the TD helps the offender in selecting a call that will be allowed? Particularly if the discussion has taken place away from the table?
"The best that the TD should do is to allow the player to ask 'if I bid this would you allow it as a comparable bid' and answer yes or no." [SDN]
There seems to be a misunderstanding, this is what I'm arguing for.
When I first started applying the new laws I would tell the players what meanings I thought were attributable and therefore what calls I would consider comparable, or at least what sort of call (e.g. "if you have a call which promises responding values and four hearts"), but I understand the worries some people have expressed about the director leading the offender, or putting ideas into their head that wouldn't occur to them, so I'm more careful not to do this now. I don't think it's right to make offender make a call without knowing whether the TD would consider it comparable, so I do advocate discussing this away from the table where necessary.
Comments
I don't propose to debate whether it would be better for the game if we advised players against bids that are likely to be ruled back because of UI because I don't believe believe it is practical even if it was desirable. The fact that we can say before it is made whether we will rule a call comparable or not does not mean that we should but it does demonstrate that the analogy with UI cases is not necessarily a good one.
I do not see how it can help the game if a player has to gamble on whether we will rule a call comparable. As I said it puts the player in a worse position than under the 2007 laws and frustrates the intention of the introduction of comparable calls. However I agree that we should implement the law in a uniform way. I deliberately decided to contribute to this thread to give my input to the debate about what that uniform way should be. I think I have done that fairly clearly. I hope that others may also join in so that perhaps a consensus may emerge.
With a rule 23 situation, I'm going to have to rule forthwith, after it's made, whether I accept the call as comparable. As such, I can certainly give a ruling before the bid is made. Of course, there are UI implications if the player asks me at the table, so I'd want to be away from the table when they ask me. When I first saw Law 23, I realised that it's going to put extra strain on a director, such as being able to fathom their system on the fly. We're stuck with the law for now, though.
How can one know what the original meaning of an invalid bid is, even looking at a players card? Surely one would need to ask the bidder (away from the table) what their intent was?
For example: 1H - 3C - 2NT...
Was this intended to be cover in clubs with an invite to game, having missed the jump?
A good raise in Hearts? (game force or otherwise)
A standard ACOL (and horrible) 10-12 points, no more than 3 hearts, no more than 3 spades?
You can look at their card and see that 2NT after a major means a good raise to at least 3H, in which case 3H or 4H would be fine... however, that only works without an overcall, so, did they miss the overcall, or miss that it was a jump? If they missed the overcall, then raising in H is fine. If they missed that it was a jump, then raising H would not be fine.
I'm sure that there are better examples to illustrate that point, but you get my drift.
EDIT: Actually, having thought about it for a few seconds more, if 2NT was intended as a good raise to at least 3H, would 3H now be a comparable call? As they might bid 3H with 5 hearts and 6 points after the over call, meaning that 4H would be needed to allow partner to go on?
I had an interesting example of this last night - 1NT - pass - 2C (5 card Stayman announced as such) - 2D - 2D
The overcall was missed and 2D was intended to show a minimum and no 5 card major.
So, I can't think of a comparable bid, except double (if they play 'that was my bid') or pass. Doubles are not allowed, but is pass now a comparable bid? or will that in effect end the auction?
I ruled that a pass would need to be passed by his partner and he did indeed pass and missed a game (he was aware that he could punt a contract). Was that correct?
Why do you suggest that doubles are not allowed? If double is the correct bid for them in the auction with interference then double is just fine. Equally, if pass is what they've agreed then that is fine, too. If they have no agreement then they're stuck and responder must pass opener's rebid.
Martin,
If they were playing "stolen bid doubles" then double would certainly be comparable. Failing that, if they play their rebids exactly as described (ie 2D just denies a five-card major) then I think Pass would be comparable. However, if they play the more common method whereby 2D promises a four-card major but denies a five-card one, then I doubt there would be a comparable call available.
Ah, got it now... I think it used to be that you could not double, but now you can, as long as it is comparable. If it is not comparable then they have to replace that with another bid that is (or punt a bid)
Plus a pass can possibly be bid too, though in this instance, only if they would bid something else on a maximum (2D shows no 5 card suit and minimum, they don't play garbage Stayman). If they wouldn't, then pass is not comparable as 2D was minimum and no 5 card major, whereas a pass is now just 'no 5 card major' then it has a wider definition than the substituted bid.
I can give you another example... with one partner I play a Precision variant. If he opens 1C then 1D shows a max of seven points. Say we have the auction of 1C-(1D)-1D, then my 1D is an insufficient bid. We play that in that situation pass shows 1-4 points and double shows 5-7 points. I can either pass or double as a comparable call to the insufficient 1D bid. There's some logic to a suggestion that my LHO should accept my insufficient bid to reduce the information I can give to my partner with either a pass or a double.
But Paul is not suggesting that the TD tell the player what to call. He's suggesting the player decides what they want to call, and check with the TD before making the call that it will be considered comparable. I think his approach is very sensible.
Having re-read the law at source, I think it is now much clearer to me.
You look at a bid to be replaced and consider what it might/could mean. It would be best for the bidder to stay silent as to their intentions and for their partner to not verbalise any assumptions that they may have about that bid, as this would start to give possible UI and could limit their options to correct.
Then any possible meanings by that call can be given by the next bid.
2H - 2D - underbid not accepted...
Any possible meaning to the 2D can now be bid as comparable:
This could be a natural Diamond suit, so 3D is fine, or it could have been a game forcing bid (Benji) so Double or 3H or 3S (assuming forcing) or 4S etc would be OK. Maybe they play multi, so 2S would be fine or 3D forcing might be okay.
The problems come when the underbidder says something along the lines of, 'I didn't see your bid' or 'I didn't see you jump'. Then we have a much clearer understanding of the intended meaning of that bid and as such the replacement bid needs to be much more accurately representative of that bid.
In the example from the other day where the underbidder (in auction 1NT - pass - 2C (5 card Stayman) - 2D (overcall) - 2D not accepted) said something along the lines of, 'I didn't see your bid'. Their partner then explained that 2D meant no 5 card major and minimum holding.
So now they need to find a bid with that same meaning... ish.
I think I have it now...
However, where the law states 23 A "1, has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call", how similar is similar? The second option, "2, defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call" is given as an 'or', not an 'and'. So there is an element of ambiguity there.
So in this example, 2D was meant (and known to the table) to mean no 5 card major AND minimum, if a pass now just means no 5-card major (but could be 12, 13 or 14 points), is this similar enough? Or would 23 A 2 now need to be satisfied and as pass has a broader meaning than 2D, it would not be comparable? It looks like this is the Directors decision and is not clearly laid out, but this seems similar enough to me and I should have accepted a pass as comparable and allow the bidding unhindered.
So, should I now go back and award an adjusted score of AVE+/AVE+ as neither side was at fault and it was my error as Director? I have checked out the scoring and it would not make a difference to positions, but would give circa 2.4% more to one pair and take away 1.6% from the other (it was a top/bottom situation). There has been no appeal, however, one of the players is a co-director (we alternate weeks), so we have discussed it a bit as to what could/should have been judged, so we both know that I was incorrect in the ruling.
Do not make the common mistake of giving artificial scores when ruling under director's error: they should be assigned though of course they need not balance.
Martin,
I agree with much of what you wrote but not necessarily with some of the conclusions you reach in your sixth paragraph. I agree that a natural 3D overcall should be allowed, one way or another (one of the things about these laws is that there is often some overlap between them). However, neither a takeout double nor an overcall at any level is generally played as game-forcing, so they do not define a subset of a game-forcing artificial opening like a Benji 2D. When it comes to considering a Multi, for most players the strength of a major-suit contained in it is usually stronger than that required for an overcall, and the overall strength of the hand rather less; so I don't think that should be allowed either.
As to how similar is "similar", there have been a number of discussions about this but no universal conclusion. A few of my thoughts are:
A one-level overcall is not similar to an opening bid, but a two-level non-jump overcall is, in most people's styles.
A 15-18 1NT overcall is similar to a 15-17 opening bid.
A takeout double is not similar to any opening bid.
Gordon
Good points, I shall have to consider it further. Fortunately this does not seem to happen very often at the club (phew).
Just a quick thought, I think the multi-D can include 4441 and strong hands (I don't play it and don't come across that many that do, so I may well be wrong here). In which case: 2S - 2D corrected to a double should show that hand type with a singleton spade? (which shows in one bid where the singleton lies and so it would make life easier for the underbidder to describe their hand - should they be allowed to benefit?)
The problem with that is that a takeout double has a wide range of shapes and strengths, whereas a Multi three-suiter is usually very precise about shape and quite limited in the range of strength. To put it another way, a multi-three-suiter would be a subset of a takeout double, not the other way around.
@bluejack - so you are saying that perhaps it would be fine for one pair to retain their 100% score on the hand and for the other to have AVE assigned? Or should I calculate the score based on the contract that would have been reached with a correct director judgement and likely number of tricks that would have been made?
It is a little moot as there would be no difference to rankings, the players involved are all happy and there has been no appeal, but I do enjoy working out these issues and can help with judgments in future.
I think bluejak is saying that they don't have to be artificial scores: you can award two different assigned scores, one to each side based on your assessment as to what would have happened, treating each of them in turn as non-offending and so getting the benefit of any doubtful points. You could of course weight each of those two scores if you think more then one outcome is possible.
In some cases though, no more than one outcome is likely and that might be the case here. If so, you would just award a score to both sides.
Just a thought on these, if one was to award an average of 50% for each party, does that impact other players at other tables, or is it considered separate?
I suppose the same question for Ave+/-?
Would it make a difference if I scored both favourably, for example, 650 in one direction for 4H making 11, and -620 in the other for 4H making 10 (2 tables managed to not make 10, but this pair in all likely hood would make the full 11 that other make and double dummy shows can make).
Or by awarding a score, would it be processed as 60% to one and 50% to another?
I have not had to do this or think about it previously, so will have to have another look at Scorebridge and see what is possible.
The artificial scores do not affect the match point for the real results. A score of AVE is definitely not matchpointed as zero (passed out). As far as the match points on the board for other pairs are concerned, all artificial scores (and nsot [yet] played) are the same: the real results are compared and then there is some factoring (neuburg) or fudge (simple matchpointing) to get the result on the board scored to the same "top" as other boards.
Regarding the question whether a TD may advise a player whether a particular call would be considered comparable or not, would it not create an awkward situation if a TD advised a player that a call would be allowed as comparable, the player makes that call, after the play the opponents feel aggrieved and lodge an appeal and the appeals committee rules that the call should not have been allowed? I don't think I would like to leave myself open to this. I believe that the TD should only go so far as to advise a player on the nature of comparable calls, but the decision as to what call the player finally decides to make should be his/her alone and the TD's ruling should follow after the call is made.
@SDN - I think that it is the correct approach in a congress or similar standard event where the players should know the rules. But in a 'normal' club night, it seems a bit harsh.
Besides, if a corrective call is made (such as double) then you will have to make an immediate decision as to whether this is comparable or not (if not then the double needs to be replaced with a legal call as you cannot replace a bid with a double unless it is comparable). So you may as well state before it is played that a double would/wouldn't be considered comparable to avoid UI if attempted. If you are going to state it for a double, why not for a pass or any other bid?
SDN: Your suggestion does not solve the problem. It may be awkward if a director's decision on what is comparable is overturned on appeal, but that's life, directors aren't going to get every decision right, and in many cases there will be no consensus on what the "right" answer is.
If the TD advises the offender on what "comparable" means in this context, but says nothing about which calls they consider comparable, and then lets them make a call, the TD still has to judge whether it's comparable, and this decision can still be appealed.
In my opinion it is one thing for a TD's ruling to be appealed and overturned, which happens quite often, but it is quite another where a TD has advised a player that a particular bid would be acceptable and the player makes that bid, which is then appealed and overturned. I feel that a TD may go as far as he wants in explaining to the player the nuances of comparable bids but he should still stop short of saying explicitly or implicitly that a particular bid would be acceptable as a comparable bid, e.g. 'if you bid 1NT I will rule it as a comparable bid'. The best that the TD should do is to allow the player to ask 'if I bid this would you allow it as a comparable bid' and answer yes or no. The outcome may be the same but there is a subtle difference between the two actions - in the first instance the TD has effectively made a decision for the player and in the second he has only given an advance ruling for a player's intended decision.
Let the player enquire about a number of possible bids and your reaction to each one and then decide which one he opts for.
"The best that the TD should do is to allow the player to ask 'if I bid this would you allow it as a comparable bid' and answer yes or no." [SDN]
There seems to be a misunderstanding, this is what I'm arguing for.
When I first started applying the new laws I would tell the players what meanings I thought were attributable and therefore what calls I would consider comparable, or at least what sort of call (e.g. "if you have a call which promises responding values and four hearts"), but I understand the worries some people have expressed about the director leading the offender, or putting ideas into their head that wouldn't occur to them, so I'm more careful not to do this now. I don't think it's right to make offender make a call without knowing whether the TD would consider it comparable, so I do advocate discussing this away from the table where necessary.