Is the same bid comparable after two passes?
One session swiss pairs, the TD put out the boards for the last round, return to table 1 (where the TD is a sitter) and pick up an opening bid with spades, and opens 1S. Someone senior in the EBU smiles at the TD and says "you know how to sort this out" - this is board 19, the dealer is South, the TD is North. 1S is not accepted, and the TD explains that North and East get to call and North must ignore the 1S bid for the moment. Both Pass, North repeats 1S, and the auction continues - East-West lose interest in the legal problem and think about the bidding the hand.
The question that was not addressed: how much weaker do your third-in-hand (NV v V) openers have to be for 1S not to be comparable? The 1S bid showed the values for a first-in-hand opening bid, information that is not 'contained' in the legal auction.
Comments
Assuming that NS would not make a different opening bid in third position with a first-in-hand opening (except perhaps pre-empting with a long suit and opening points) then the weakest 1S will be is 8HCP. I think I would rule the call comparable using the similar criterion. We should then have a normal auction and bridge result. I would be prepared to adjust under 23C if North had used the knowledge of a first-in-hand ruling to obtain a better result. A example which comes to mind is not using Drury and thereby avoiding a lead directing double but there would be other possibilities. Most times we would get the result as if there had been no infraction which is surely what the Laws intend.
One answer to this question can be found in the paper issued by the Chairman of the WBFLC. His question 15 is exactly on point.
Well 1st in hand the rules state that the hand must contain 8 points and meet the rule of 18. Third in hand the hand must contain 8 points. By definition this makes the minimum 15 (16 if playing 5-card majors), (last night I suggested my parter should have opened 1 Spade 1st in hand on AJXXX AXXXX XXX) so for normal players (especially with the emphasis these days on light openings - which were an integral part of the Acol system of course,) I would regard the bid as similar.
For someone whose conventional agreement is ('sound openings in 1st and 2nd with 5 card majors) but with 4 card majors and weaker hands in 3rd (a la Roth Stone) then it might be borderline. In the interests of leniency, I would probably still rate it as 'similar' and advise opponents of their rights under 23C. (but see below)
We could perhaps consider that a meaning that is a deviation from the original meaning to be similar (up to a Queen in strength and one card in length). Obviously this is not official policy, but we have to draw the line somewhere.
The same document I referenced above also has this to say:
"To be considered comparable the two calls need to have a common strength (overlap each
other). If the difference in strength can be a king or more the calls are not comparable and if the
difference in strength can be bigger than the overlap in strength, the calls are not comparable
either. A 15–18 NT replacing a 13–15 NT OOT is not comparable. A 1♠ overcall of a 1♥
opening replacing a 1♠ opening in first or second seat OOT is not comparable. Let us look at
the first example in more detail. The difference in strength is 2 points (13-14), the overlap is
one point (15). Had a 13–15 NT replaced a 15–18 NT the difference in strength would have
been 3 points (16–18). "
Thanks. Good to see someone had anticipated the question.
So in a typical Acol situation 1S in first or second position is 10-19 4+ spades. In third position 1S is 8-19 4+ spades.
Is there a problem in ruling these comparable? I wouldn't have thought so, with 23C available if necessary.
I would be happy with that. The ones that I think are more problematic are American 5cM sound opening systems where a first in hand opener shows 13 plus but consequently third in hand openers can be very light (and potentially only four cards)>