Comparable 1NT call
We had a situation where an inexperienced TD gave an incorrect ruling on 1NT bit out of turn of RH opponent. RHO then bid 1 club and it now appears that almost any call is comparable. BTW, it would be helpful if the White Book stated that information gained from the bid out of turn is authorised for all players.
A subset of 1NT is 1D/1H/1S. Meaning there are at least 4 cards in the bid suit and an opening hand.
2C subset. Opening hand and five clubs ( assuming players do not play cuebids here)
1NT. Call corrected at the lowest level. (TD forgot this one)
Double. Comparable call - at least three cards held in the other three suits and an opening hand.
Anybody have any comments here? My main grioe is the White Book is not helpful here. Information is authorised for ALL players contrary to most situations. If information is not authorised the whole thing breaks down.
Comments
If I had an Acol 1NT opening bid and RH opponent opened I would almost always pass - unless I had a five card suit. There is no comparable call here.
Alan
1D/H/S are not subsets of a 1NT opening bid because they are not limited. Nor is "double'". Yes, anyone who plays 2C over 1C as natural could bid that, but do you seriously know anyone who does that?
If the pair were playing a strong NT, then a 1NT overcall would be likely to be comparable. Otherwise, I doubt there is a comparable call and so there might well be UI.
The words of the laws themselves tell us whether or not the UI laws apply in a given situation.
Thank you Gordon but surely this cannot be correct where there is no non-penalised rectification of a 1NT bid as equity cannot be restored and this is the essential part of this new law, and no, I do not know anybody who would bid 2C in the example I gave but perhaps you have forgotten what inexperienced players sometimes do having come across similar bids probably twice per year.
If an insufficient 2C is bid after 1NT - 2C - 2C (stayman and insuffcient) then 2H/S is allowed and comparable ( The bid shows H&S or both but now shows spades if bid or both if 2H is bid. I agree that 1NT opener is a limited bid but if the information from the OOT 1NT is authorised for all four players, as I have been informed, then there should be no problem when TD asks what the bid intended and as all four players know this what is the issue in making the bid good i.e. 1NT. Previously the laws allowed this!
Additionally, we have been instructed to be liberal in interpreting these laws so surely 1NT would be allowable without further penalty.
Alan - If I had an Acol 1NT opening bid and RH opponent opened I would almost always pass - unless I had a five card suit. There is no comparable call here.
If a player opens 1H - BOOT, and then after 1C the player then bids 1H, the first 1H meaning opening hand values, the second meaning say 8+ points and includes the requirements of 1H opening. This is NOT a subset it is more wide ranging except all four players have UI. It is allowable! So, why not allow 1NT, as opening say 12-14 HCPs but overcall 15-17, but all four players know it is 12-14.
I'm not sure what led you to believe this, but no, there is no requirement that there be a non-barring replacement for a call out of turn or an insufficient bid.
That interpretation was in a WBF minute relating to the 2007 laws. The current laws have been updated to say what they intend, which includes "has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call"
I don't think a weak NT has a similar meaning to a strong NT. I would however be prepared to accept a 15-18 overcall as being similar to a 15-17 opening bid.
I'm not sure why you think it is allowable. My view is that in most styles of overcall, a two-level non-jump overcall is close enough to an opening bid to be considered comparable, but a one-level overcall is not.
Thank you all. I need to reboot my approach on this one. Thank you all.
How about IB discussion 4, club director training - Day 2 course book? Isn't that close to what has been discussed here?
I think you'll have to quote it for us to be able to comment!
Sorry I read the OP wrong, law 27 not appropriate. (brain dead after a long day). That is why I have the "Name" CMOT.
Isn't the bid out of turn a withdrawn call and law 16C applies (AI NOS UI OS). If a bid is replaced with a comparable call then almost by definition there is no additional unauthorised information as the comparable call has to provide the same information as the withdrawn bid - or additional information encompassing all that provided by the withdrawn call.
There has been several threads on other sites about problems arising when the BOOT or IB is severely limited. Generally IMHO it is a very rare occasion when a comparable call will be available. (1NT bid = 1NT overcall in same strength is obvious example)
To be honest the laws about Comparable Calls are a bit of a mess. Law 23A almost defines a comparable call as a call that does not leave any UI from the replaced call - but it has this vague "or similar." So they had to add 23B and 23C.
I can't see many circumstances when comparable call includes anything other than repeating the original call and often the original call is no longer comparable.
[The one that comes to mind is 1S - (pass) - 3S would be replaced with 1S - X - 2NT in my version of Acol, giving exactly the same information.]
I suspect that 'or similar' may be used at low levels to allow some things that are only loosely comparable such as replacing a 1S opening bid with a 1S overcall.
Alan
Alan - According to Gordon R' replacing 1S BOOT not accepted with 1S as an overcall is definitely not a CC due to strength usually implied.
The whole approach by the EBU denies the fact that the mode of bridge clubs are communities of people having a social/competitive evening out, not Bermuda Bowl players. The issues CC has created will inevitably lead to heated aggravations at the table and different opinions. Bidding 1NT OOT cannot be restored without penalty so equity can never be restored. Everybody is aware 1NT is OOT so why not rebid 1NT and continue with the initial call treated as UI.
All the WBF/EBU has to do is call the BOOT UI and TD can adjust after play if necessary.
The above would stop someone opening 1NT OOT with a 12-14 count just in case LHO makes a bid. UI will have been conveyed and scores can be adjusted after play.
I know of two experienced players who have, since the new law, refused requests to become TD to help the clubs giving CC as the main reason and "they only want to enjoy the game" not have an argument.
These problems were never an issue, they are now. If the WBF cannot have a more simple approach then this really is contemptible.
There's no "they had to add" about 23B. 23A defines comparable call; 23B tells us how we use those definitions.
I've already given an example of a "similar" call - a 15-18 1NT overcall is similar to a 15-17 1NT opener;
I think a 2NT overcall of a weak two opener is similar to a 1NT overcall.
For most players, 1S - X - 2NT does not give exactly the same information as 1S - (pass) - 3S, since the first one is unlimited, though one might argue that it is similar.
Again, as I've already said, I don' t think a 1S overcall is similar to a 1S opening bid.
For examples of when a comparable call includes something other than repeating the original call, think of an opening pass out of turn at partner's or LHO's turn to call: this could be replaced with almost any call that shows less than opening values, so if partner opens 1S, I would expect to be able to respond 1NT, 2NT (natural limit bid), 2S, 3S, 4S.
Alan
I understood you meant that. I just think you are wrong! 23A is just definition. It needs 23B to tell us what to do with the definitions!
23B is unnecessary duplication.
What you do with the definition comes where you use it for example 26B1(b) which is very similar to 23B.
These rules seem to be in the wrong order - presumably because of the desire not to change numbers of existing rules.
Alan