BudH

3♦ is allowed because it is the cheapest call that shows hearts. It happens to also be a comparable call, but in this case, it does not need to be comparable.

Version modified from your comments. I also changed an example of 1♠-(2♦)-2♥ to say it was forcing (not a negative free bid).

My first ACBL duplicate game (just before my 25th birthday) was March 31, 1987. I remember distinctly how many players were complaining that the laws changed that day and no longer could you say "no spades, partner" when on defense. I also remember there was moaning, groaning, and complaining for months, so much so that I think it likely the ACBL (and perhaps a few other NBOs) asked for a zonal option to restore allowance for defenders to ask partner if out of a suit. The zonal option when into effect fairly quickly - it took less than two years, perhaps close to one year.

Thanks for the comments. I'll see if I incorporate it and still hold it down to two pages. "Pass forever" takes less words than "required to pass for the rest of the auction". Shorter to read and typing space precious to keep it 14 point font. Same for prohibit the lead of any one suit "for as long as he holds the lead". Perhaps I could acronym it as FALAHHTL which actually would be understood. I agree "probable outcome(s)" could be adjusted. The 3♥ is listed twice, both as lowest sufficient bid and as a comparable call. I wanted it to be clear that bid works for BOTH reasons.

I created a two-page "cheat sheet" to help our local club directors with the new insufficient bid, call out of rotation, lead penalty, and comparable call laws. The intent is to have a laminated two-sided single sheet the Director can use at the table to help him (or her). http://www.budhinckley.com/BridgeDirector/DirectorGuide-IB-COOR-LP-CC.docx Please modify for your use as you see fit. I did paraphrase and slightly adjust some wording which I felt the average club director would understand better than some of the more legal sounding language, and kept the font large for easy reading, but with the restriction to keep it within two pages. I'd appreciate any suggestions for modifications.

I just checked the ACBL website and when I clicked on the link (http://cdn.acbl.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Laws-of-Duplicate-Bridge.pdf) for the laws of the game, it was the new 2017 ACBL published version (and the file was created and last modified last Thursday August 24). And it also says on the third page that the effective date is September 25, 2017 (the date I thought would be the most likely choice, being the last Monday in September). File name: Laws-of-Duplicate-Bridge.pdf File size: 802 KB Title: laws of duplicate bridge 02_2017rev.indd Creation Date: 8/24/2017, 3:08:09 PM Modification Date: 8/24/2017, 4:08:06 PM Creator: Adobe InDesign CC 2017 (Macintosh) Additionally, the Ruling the Game column in the September 2017 ACBL Bulletin (to be mailed in the next few weeks but accessible online) starts with the sentence: "The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2017 are scheduled to take effect in the ACBL on Sept 25." Clearly in conflict with the email I received from ACBL last week which said the effective date would be later than September and possibly January 1. Additionally, checking Baron Barclay Bridge Supplies for possible purchase of a new ACBL 2017 law book, their website says "a new version 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge will be coming out approximately October 20, 2017".

I sent a polite inquiry to ACBL last week asking when we would be told when the new laws would be used in ACBL play. Presumably that date was going to be by the WBF mandated 30 September 2017 date. Surprisingly, I was told "it's possible" the "implementation date" will occur by the end of September and that the "effective date" will likely be pushed back, possibly as far back as 01 January 2018. It also said we should hear something by late September.

This is one of those things you won't see in high level bridge (where insufficient bids and calls out of rotation are also rare.) But in a local club game, at least in the USA, I have seen several cases where stolen bid doubles are played throughout the 2-level and sometimes the 3-level. And that is where the large majority of insufficient bids and calls out of rotation will occur. Your local club director is going to have far more practice and experience using the new comparable call law and the changes to the insufficient bid, call out of rotation, and lead penalty laws than a high level tournament director will have.

It's not a problem for this particular auction, but in other auctions it could matter. It seems to me if double and redouble can be used under Law 27B1(b) using a comparable call (27B1a, that the same should be true for Law 27B1(a) using the option of showing the same denomination(s) with the cheapest sufficient call (instead of bid).

Law 27B1(a) - "If the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call, the auction proceeds without further rectification...." Looking at the hypothetical insufficient bid example below: 1NT-(2♥)-2♥ (intended as a transfer to spades, but didn't see the overcall) Unfortunately, due to the words "lowest sufficient BID", a stolen bid double is not allowed under 27B1(a) because it must be a BID. Unfortunate, and I suspect being able to use a double or redouble as a transfer should have been considered as acceptable. (Perhaps there were concerns about a pass for penalty by partner?) If they are playing stolen bid doubles, 2♠ is likely artificial, meaning the lowest sufficient BID is 3♠. Yes, it is possible the stolen bid double may be considered a comparable call under Law 27B1(b).

Here is a very revealing document written by Laurie Kelso (WBF Secretary) and Jacob Duschek (Denmark): http://www.qldbridge.com/director/laws/L23A-ComparableCalls(JD+LK).pdf The start of the quote below focuses on a 1♥ opening bid cancelled at RHO's turn, followed by RHO opening the bidding 1♠ with a 2♥ overcall being comparable. Note the last paragraph where it says it is "dubious" to consider a one-level overcall to be comparable due to minimum strength difference being too large between a one-level overcall and an opening bid (if the overcall minimum is 6-7 HCP). "Obviously, the 2♥ overcall does not have exactly the same meaning as the 1♥ opening. The opening bid shows about 11‑20 HCP, whereas the overcall shows about 9‑16 HCP. The difference in the maximum strength of the two bids is rarely relevant in this auction, so let us focus on the minimum. The overcall can be made with reasonable playing strength on a hand which is just short of an opening bid. The difference in strength, both at the top and at the bottom of the range, is small, and we can accept the meaning as “similar”, i.e., it is a comparable call. There is a good chance that South’s mistake will not influence the result. Should however South’s mistake nevertheless affect the auction or the play, i.e., if the additional information from the illegal opening bid (which is authorized for North) turns out to be useful for North, the Director adjusts the score. Note that the Director must not apply UI principles; instead, he must assess the likely auction and play had the illegal call never occurred at all. (This issue is worthy of a separate article.) The problem is somewhat different if South overcalls at the one-level after an opening bid out of turn. Now the overcall might be made on certain hands containing just 6-7 HCP, and the potential difference in strength could be quite large. Deeming this type of overcall comparable would now be quite dubious."

I agree. Until I hear otherwise (through some approved rulings of this type), I would tend to allow a queen difference in range. I might be convinced to allow a king difference. But an ace difference simply feels like too much of an allowance. The roughly queen difference works when playing Standard American and making a non-passed 2♥ response after partner's 1♠ opening with no interference that might be on about 10 HCPs that might not opening the bidding, following a withdrawn 1♥ bid out of rotation. Similar for a 2 over 1 with interference even if playing 2 over 1 game force (the game force not being applicable with the interference), e.g., 1♠ - (2♦) - 2♥ Possibly a queen lighter than a minimum opening bid. But not an ACE lighter.

On opening lead, East could choose to prevent the lead of any one suit. North never legally bid spades.

If opening bids usually have X HCP and one-level overcalls usually have a minimum of Y HCP, X and Y need to moderately close to reasonably be considered "comparable". For many pairs, X and Y might be 7 and 11. Is an ace difference close enough? VERY debatable.

LOL. All of the club directors will have heads that hurt, ruling on an insufficient bid or a call out of rotation nearly every session. Meanwhile, these will hardly ever happen in high level events, so it will take possibly YEARS to build up a reasonable number of cases from those sources.

If your Prague example is correct, then in my example Law 23C should adjust the score due to responder adjusting his call from the more likely call to a different call which is comparable to keep partner in the auction. This is why we need a dozen examples with approved interpretations, especially so we know (1) when Law 23C applies, and (2) how similar does a call need to be to be considered comparable when it really isn't quite meeting the "subset rule".

If I ever play outside the ACBL and make it to EBU land, I'll make sure I'll look up the details in the "Blue Book"!

Is the term "controls" defined in the Blue Book? An ace, a king, a king/queen, a singleton, and a void could easily be considered to be "5-plus controls" - unless it is specifically defined to only be ace = 2 and king = 1.

I saw a law change allowing (unless not allowed by the Regulating Authority) to all agreements when the OPPONENTS commit an irregularity.

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand how the new Comparable Call Law 23 works. You have to describe your hand with ONE SINGLE CALL as much as your withdrawn illegal call. I agree there are many auctions where if you were able to make TWO calls, they together would describe your hand as much as your withdrawn call. And perhaps that will be in the 2027 laws. But the 2017 law says simply your next call (singular) needs to describe your hand as much the withdrawn call so your partner knows no more about your hand from the two calls (one illegal and the other legal) than he does from the legal call by itself. In the example I have given, my pass (thinking I was opening the auction) was withdrawn. When partner opens, to be a comparable call, I need to make a call that only would be made by a hand that would not open the bidding as dealer. If 1♦ is the opening bid by partner and RHO passes, then here are some comparable calls: 1. 1NT (6-10 HCP) 2. 2D (only if it shows a limited hand, traditionaly 6-10 HCP) 3. 2NT (11-12 HCP, invitational and non-forcing) 4. 3D (if non-forcing - it could be be weak or invitational) 5. Jump shifts if weak and you play them so weak you wouldn't open them a weak 2-bid New suits, because they don't limit the strength of the hand and can be made by game forcing hands, are not comparable calls. (Partner now has improper information because he knows one of my suits and he should not know the upper limit of my hand, but in this case he would know, improperly, I hold less than opening bid values.)

I was being mildly sarcastic when I said I was "forced" to bid 2NT. Since I know the law and know the only reasonable comparable call I can make is 2NT with the given hand, I choose that call. Nothing in the laws says I have to make the bid I would usually make (1♥) when I know it is not a comparable call but I know 2NT is a comparable call (to my withdrawn pass thinking I was dealer). 1. 1♥ not comparable because strength is unlimited 2. 2NT is comparable because it is a subset of all hands that would pass the bidding. (Said another way, the combination of my withdrawn pass and my 2NT bid gives no more information to my partner than the 2NT bid itself.) The laws say my great score can be taken away if the result might well have been different AND ADDITIONALLY the opponents were damaged. I think it can be easily argued the opponents were not damaged. They were just very unlucky. The words "damaged" and "unlucky" are not the same. We've all seen an insufficient bidder take a wild guess with his partner required to pass and bid 3NT and then get a very lucky lie of the cards to allow the contract to make for a top and a bottom for the opponents. The "unlucky" opponents. Not "damaged" opponents.

Under the new laws, assume I pass out of turn when my partner is the dealer and has yet to call. My pass is not accepted. Director reminds my partner of the obligation to not use UI from my pass. Partner opens 1♦ and RHO passes. I hold the following hand: ♠KJxx ♥Q9xx ♦xx ♣AJx Knowing if I bid the "normal" 1♥, it will not be a comparable call to my withdrawn pass (so my partner will be required to pass once), I jump to 2NT (invitational) instead as a comparable call. Partner, holding a 2=4=4=3 14 HCP hand raises to 3NT which makes 9 tricks. Nearly all other tables reach 4♥ in a 4-4 fit which fails on a 4-1 or 5-0 split. Do I get to keep my great score in 3NT? Or should the Director use Law 23C "without the assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged, he shall award an adjusted score." Notice it says "outcome ... different" AND "non-offending side is damaged". Both must be true. Is the non-offending side really "damaged" by this "rub of the green"?

I have a copy of Mr. Portwood's file, and also the one he wrote on procedure changes (mostly for players).

As I mentioned in the original post, opener can probably tell the reason partner didn't use Texas immediately was due to one of two possible reasons: 1. partner was going to transfer to 2H and bid 3H next invitational, but now feels it is correct to be in game, OR 2. partner was going to transfer to 2H and jump to 4H as a mild slam try, but the spade overcall made him change his mind for some unknown reason. Fortunately in this case, it is very unlikely to matter, since 99% of the time, opener is going to bid 4H to accept the transfer and responder will pass or move towards slam.

Comparable call #2: 1NT-(2S)-2D (ooops!) using the 2017 laws. You didn’t see the overcall and 2D was intended as a transfer to hearts. I will assume you play 4D as Texas and that 3D would be a natural and game forcing bid at this point. You can bid 3H now as the “lowest sufficient bid specifying the same denomination”. It also is a comparable call because 2D showed 5+ hearts and any strength. The 3H bid shows 5+ hearts and more strength, therefore it defines the hand more precisely. Could a 4D bid be used as a Texas transfer? It is not the "lowest sufficient bid specifying the same denomination", so it will need to be considered a "comparable call" to be allowed. A 4D Texas transfer bid would show 6+ hearts, so the length is a subset (better defined). OK there. What about strength? 2D showed 5+ hearts and any strength, so OK there. Then there is what I call the "does partner know more about your hand than he is supposed to" test which might affect the possibility of a later adjusted score even if 4D is considered comparable. Partner most likely can tell you were either (1) going to transfer to 2H and bid 3H next invitational, OR (2) you were going to transfer to 2H and jump to 4H as a mild slam try, but the spade overcall made your hand look worse. None of the above information is partner “allowed” to know. I would allow 4D Texas transfer as a comparable call. It is a subset of the 2D transfer, the previous paragraph not withstanding. Any opinions on whether you would or would not consider a 4D Texas transfer to be considered comparable?