Comparable Call

[jeffford76]

Ah, now I see where the text Gordon quoted is. I wonder why it is not closer to, or in, L27.

 

I assume it's there because they wanted to avoid renumbering laws, and thought the old Law 23 was a suitable one to replace.

[weejonnie]

The old law 23 is somewhere in part of law 72.

 

The key thing about the new law 23 is its application in the most significant proposed changes to the laws. Personally I think it is a good thing as it enables those who commit the irregularity a better chance for a reasonable result without disadvantaging the NOS - although of course Law 16 raises its ugly head.

 

(Obiter - I don't really like the main change around 68 - 71. You can imagine the scenario.

 

"Play on please"

"I'm willing, but are you sure we can? We'd better call the director"

...)

[Vampyr]

Because it applies to other laws too, as well as being referred to in L27.

 

Which ones?

[RMB1]

Which ones?

26, 27, 30, 31, 32

[Vampyr]

Thanks.

 

I find the changes in L31 and 32 shocking.

[gordontd]

I find the changes in L31 and 32 shocking.

We all know what a sheltered life you have led!

[weejonnie]

Thanks.

 

I find the changes in L31 and 32 shocking.

It is a major change - instead of giving the NOS no chance to take advantage of the UI through a draconian penalty, it gives them the chance to (almost) take part in the auction as if the irregularity had not occurred.

 

Of course this will mean that the Director will have to be at the table for a longer period since they have no means of knowing whether the person who calls out of turn has a comparable call until several calls are made. This will impact on a playing director.

[Vampyr]

Draconian? I thought the old law was too lenient. Why not is almost everyone's sympathy with the offending side? Why is calling when it is your turn considered an onerous requirement?

 

I am curious whether the WBFLC are planning to subsidise clubs when their pool of playing directors dries up.

[blackshoe]

I am curious whether the WBFLC are planning to subsidise clubs when their pool of playing directors dries up.

Don't be. Clubs are not of much concern to the WBF.

[Vampyr]

Don't be. Clubs are not of much concern to the WBF.

 

You are right. Overlooking the vast majority of bridge played around the world seems to be almost a point of pride with them.

[weejonnie]

Draconian? I thought the old law was too lenient. Why not is almost everyone's sympathy with the offending side? Why is calling when it is your turn considered an onerous requirement?

 

I am curious whether the WBFLC are planning to subsidise clubs when their pool of playing directors dries up.

I would have thought that having to guess the final contract with no input from your partner was a pretty strong punishment. You can expect to score much worse than AV- for an infraction that doesn't even rate a PP. (OK law 23 can still be applied.)

 

WRT the current proposal - Directors are now going to have to potentially rule on two aspects: was the offender's partner making use of UI in their own call and was the offender's response a comparable call? (And does loaw 72C apply?)

[Vampyr]

I would have thought that having to guess the final contract with no input from your partner was a pretty strong punishment. You can expect to score much worse than AV- for an infraction that doesn't even rate a PP. (OK law 23 can still be applied.)

 

You don't always have to guess the final contract. And a PP would certainly be appropriate for a repeat offence.

 

But why should a person not be punished anyway? You bid clockwise starting from the dealer. If that is too much to ask, maybe the person should stick to go fish.

[barmar]

But why should a person not be punished anyway?

I don't think the question is whether or not they should be punished, but does the punishment fit the crime? It seems unfair that a small, unintentional slip in procedure can result in a very serious penalty, when it's possible to restore equity. Like if you absent-mindedly walk out of a store without paying for something, and when the alarm sounds you offer to return the item, but they refuse to take it and get you punished for shoplifting.

 

Or to compare with other games, it's as if a double fault in tennis resulted in losing the whole game, not just that point.

[weejonnie]

IIRC the purpose of the laws is to restore equity, not punish infractions. I may be wrong . . .

[mycroft]

*primarily*. Key word.

 

We seem to be going more and more to "let's try to get a real result if possible". I agree with Vampyr that that may not be the best in a particular case, but I don't write the Laws. I don't think it's *wrong*, however, to try to get a real result; maybe just not right.

 

I hope that I will never see the creep in of "don't care" due to the ameliorating of the penalties. However, I haven't seen it so far.

[weejonnie]

Well a lot depends on the quality of the 'poor bloody infantry' - the directors at the clubs - to understand and apply law 16. The current laws are very strict, forcing a pass in such circumstances leaves no chance for any UI problems (as is the case for IBs of course, although some intelligence is needed).

 

As I have said before: sometimes an irregularity results in a result that appears to be unduly harsh (and of course the director has no leeway in the matter). The ACBL moved away from one form of harshness by embracing weighted scores (which seem to have been so successful that they are going to be the standard remedy), so it seems reasonable to allow 'comparable calls' if the tendency for the laws is to try and embrace fairness for both sides. If it turns out that the directors cannot work out how to enforce this adjustment - well there is always 2027.

[mycroft]

Currently we expect the PBI to handle "she may accept, if not then you can do what you wish, but your partner must pass [once/throughout],..." and resolve the "but that bid's forcing" "not when partner is forced by law to pass, it isn't"/ "but she just shot out 3NT and it made and nobody else is there; do they get rewarded for their infraction?" and all the other stuff that is currently there. Never mind Vampyr's idea that it's best to accept the IB and force them to play the weird auction rather than let them correct it and "get two bids in for free" (of course it's not free, and frequently not beneficial either).

 

I think if they can handle it now (they can't handle it now - I play in clubs, including some with very good TDs. But I bet not another in 100 notices how they get it wrong, and TDs-as-players get to suck it up a bit) they can handle the expansion.

 

Also, education. Education is key. My concern is more that this is a gross change (in the psychic meaning, not the adolescent meaning), and we will spend *years* answering "but doesn't he have to pass?" questions. Note that the last time I heard about "he won a trick with a card he could have played to the revoke trick, so..." (from one of those club TDs, no less - not one of the "very good" ones) was 20*15*. Good game, good game.

[Vampyr]

What I actually think is that you should never accept an insufficient bid unless you have agreed sensible ways to use the extra space.

[blackshoe]

It appears that the only reasonable solution is to take all four players out behind the barn and shoot them in the head. At least then they won't be repeating this mess. It may be difficult to get enough tables for a decent game next week though.

[weejonnie]

It appears that the only reasonable solution is to take all four players out behind the barn and shoot them in the head. At least then they won't be repeating this mess. It may be difficult to get enough tables for a decent game next week though.

But the NOS are entitled to a blindfold and cigarette. Agreed?

[WellSpyder]

I hope that I will never see the creep in of "don't care" due to the ameliorating of the penalties. However, I haven't seen it so far.

I agree I haven't seen this with IBs. But the idea of lack of punishment seems quite prevalent with revokes these days - defenders seem aggrieved more often than not that there is still a penalty for a revoke even if it doesn't hinder declarer. In other words, they seem to feel equity should be restored for the OS as well as the NOS....

[blackshoe]

But the NOS are entitled to a blindfold and cigarette. Agreed?

Sure. :P

[mycroft]

Burn's rule will work. Really it will. Same issue with getting tables next week, though.

[jallerton]

The proposed wording is:

 

A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call if it:

1. has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call, or

2. defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call, or

3. has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the

withdrawn call.

 

There's also the usual possibility of the TD adjusting if they have gained from the IB.

 

 

This s would still leave us with the mind reading aspect though. And the fact that it is anyway illegal for an insufficient bid to have any meaning at all.

 

 

There's more to that law than I quoted, but you asked for an explanation of the term "comparable call" and the whole text is on a password-protected site, accessible law by law, so although we haven't been asked not to give any of it away, I'm reluctant to divulge too much.

 

That's why it uses the word "attributable".

 

How does using the word "attributable" help? How is a TD supposed to ascertain the purpose attributable to an insufficient bid? Is that any easier than determining the "meaning" of an insufficient bid? The proposed new Law requires the TD to consider both!

[gordontd]

How does using the word "attributable" help? How is a TD supposed to ascertain the purpose attributable to an insufficient bid? Is that any easier than determining the "meaning" of an insufficient bid? The proposed new Law requires the TD to consider both!

It seems to me that we won't have to consider the intention of the player, just what meanings the call might appear to have to the rest of the table. But of course we'll need to see how it plays out in practice.