Comparable call guidelines
I remember reading a document about comparable calls that gave guidance in how much leeway we have.
For example it said that point ranges could be considered similar if one wasn't a subset of the other but the overlap was big enough as a proportion - for example a 15-17 range was close enough to a 16-18 range, but not to a 17-19 range.
There were other things about suit lengths too.
I now can't find this document. There is some (good) stuff in the commentary to the 2017 laws, but I don't think that's what I read.
Assuming I haven't dreamt this, does anyone know what document I'm referring to, and can they point me to it?
Thanks.
Comments
I think the document you're thinking of is here: https://www.eurobridge.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Comparable-Call.pdf
I'm not sure how "official" a status it has – it's on the EBL website (and linked from the EBU website) and appears to have been written based on a proposed version of Law 23 before the 2017 Laws were finalised.
I think you're right.
Thank you!
Also worth noting that it was written by the long-serving Chair of the WBF Laws Committee.
You're right to question the status of the document. The guidance on law 23C is certainly at odds with the current WBFLC interpretation.
I don't think it should be left for unsuspecting eyes to view without a very clear disclaimer.
Wher can I find the "current WBFLC interpretation"?
Try the EBU laws publications, "articles about the 2017 laws" which should take you to this page:
https://www.ebu.co.uk/regulation-and-conduct/new-laws-duplicate-bridge-2017
Look at the "2017 laws commentary", and in the EBU training documents "comparable calls" and "law 23C by Max Bavin", but the article "comparable calls guidance" should not be taken as a correct current interpretation (and should be removed from the website, in my opinion).
The laws commentary is direct from the WBF, Max was the WBF Chief TD at the time of writing his article. "Comparable calls" is from our own Gordon Rainsford. The guidance article was a draft written by Ton Koojiman just as the new laws were going to press, and was not adopted as an official guideline.
Thanks.
I have the Commentary to the Laws, but the rest seems to be EBU, rather than WBFLC.
(I'm not questioning the validity of the EBU stuff, just looking for any WBF stuff.)
Where can I find guidance on insufficient bids within RKK bidding
Bidding went 1S P 2S P
4NT P 4H - call TD
In this sequence 4H is meaningless but everyone knows it means 2 Aces and no QS - making 5H a comparable call?
We look at what the call could have meant, which will include the player's intention but also other possibilities.
Such possibilities would of course be system dependent, but if they played 4CM they could be responding to 3NT and showing a second suit or maybe a cue bid.
Such other possibilities are usually benefical for the player, as they widen the range of possible hands that the replacement bid cvould be a subset of.
In this case it's clear that 23A3 (same purpose) applies.