Comparable Call

[weejonnie]

Would be interesting if any scenarios have been run through.

 

For instance - suppose the IB is an asking bid about partner's club holding and the comparable call is an asking bid about partner's spade holding? Presumably this is OK - although the withdrawn call shows that the IBer was interested in a different suit. (Obviously we can adjust if we feel the contract wouldn't have been reached had the IB not taken place or partner took advantage of the UI.)

 

Personally, I like the extension of the comparable call to include "the same purpose" as opposed to "the same meaning" - and extending it to BOOTS, as it gives the OS a better chance to play bridge rather than, as in the current laws, almost certainly awarding the NOS a top/ imps after a BOOT.

[Vampyr]

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.

 

This is a little better in principle, but still how is the director supposed to determine this?

 

Would be interesting if any scenarios have been run through.

 

For instance - suppose the IB is an asking bid about partner's club holding and the comparable call is an asking bid about partner's spade holding? Presumably this is OK

 

Are you serious? Of course it's not OK. But again, how does the director determine that the bid was own asking bid about clubs?

 

Personally, I like the extension of the comparable call to include "the same purpose" as opposed to "the same meaning" - and extending it to BOOTS, as it gives the OS a better chance to play bridge

 

But that ship has sailed. "Playing bridge" involves adhering to the rules.

[weejonnie]

This is a little better in principle, but still how is the director supposed to determine this?

 

 

 

Are you serious? Of course it's not OK. But again, how does the director determine that the bid was own asking bid about clubs?

 

 

 

But that ship has sailed. "Playing bridge" involves adhering to the rules.

If you read the proposed law it says "e.g. asking bid" - it doesn't qualify it e.g. "a call requesting the same information" (as I agree it should)

[barmar]

If you read the proposed law it says "e.g. asking bid" - it doesn't qualify it e.g. "a call requesting the same information" (as I agree it should)

I don't interpret it as saying that all asking bids have the same purpose. It's just giving examples of categories of calls for which the criteria for determining whether they're comparable is that the replacement call has the same purpose as the withdrawn call. This is trying to fix the flaw in the old wording, which just used "meaning" as a catch-all term that encompassed both what a bid shows and what a bid asks.

 

Stayman and Blackwood are both asking bids, but we wouldn't say that they have the same purpose. Blackwood and Kickback are asking bids that have the same purpose.

 

But I can see how SB might twist this to his purposes. In discussions about alerting and explaining, many people say that when explaining an asking bid you should just say something like "Asks partner to further describe his hand" -- they don't believe that you should explain the meanings of partner's responses. By this logic, there is no difference between Stayman and Blackwood. This seems ridiculous to me, as everyone knows that these conventions ask very specific questions -- how could anyone really equate a bid that asks partner to show length in specific suits with one that asks partner to show controls?

[Vampyr]

I don't interpret it as saying that all asking bids have the same purpose. It's just giving examples of categories of calls for which the criteria for determining whether they're comparable is that the replacement call has the same purpose as the withdrawn call. This is trying to fix the flaw in the old wording, which just used "meaning" as a catch-all term that encompassed both what a bid shows and what a bid asks.

 

Stayman and Blackwood are both asking bids, but we wouldn't say that they have the same purpose. Blackwood and Kickback are asking bids that have the same purpose.

 

But I can see how SB might twist this to his purposes. In discussions about alerting and explaining, many people say that when explaining an asking bid you should just say something like "Asks partner to further describe his hand" -- they don't believe that you should explain the meanings of partner's responses. By this logic, there is no difference between Stayman and Blackwood. This seems ridiculous to me, as everyone knows that these conventions ask very specific questions -- how could anyone really equate a bid that asks partner to show length in specific suits with one that asks partner to show controls?

 

The ACBL LC is inviting suggestions for changes of wording. Perhaps someone who creates a suitable change can write to them.

[barmar]

The ACBL LC is inviting suggestions for changes of wording. Perhaps someone who creates a suitable change can write to them.

I've posted a question about it to the Yahoo group.

[Vampyr]

You know, the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that "comparable call" and is a lot more complicated to determine then a call which is a subset of the replaced call. Plus the new fun twist is that now instead of talking the intention of the bidder as the "meaning", we are supposed to guess what all of the players think. The defenders, of course, may have a totally wrong impression, as the call may be artificial, unusual, etc. Perhaps the partner of the bidd should be asked what he thinks...

 

But anyway, we had a really good law: if old bid and new bid are not conventional, IB may be replaced by lowest sufficient bid in the same suit. Otherwise partner is silenced.

 

Was there a reason that anyone thought there was anything wrong with this?

[barmar]

Was there a reason that anyone thought there was anything wrong with this?

I guess they thought that was too severe in cases where it's relatively easy to replace the artificial call with an essentially equivalent call, so you could get a normal bridge result. Now in the 2017 version we're just clarifying how we define equivalent (the 2007 law referred to what a call shows, which didn't address calls that ask rather than show).

 

The old law had the same problem as the rewrites in that you have to discern the intended meaning of the IB, to know if it was artificial.

[mycroft]

Well, the biggest issue was the insufficient blackwood/2NT-2♣ issue. Many believed that the penalty this caused, when "everybody" knew what we meant, was massively excessive. Also, the issue of "oh good, they get to replace p-1♣-x-1♥; 2♦-1♠ w/o penalty (and without L16, but with the special "could not have been reached without the IB" section) to 2♠".

 

I'd really like to be able to say "okay, we've had a small issue, but everybody knows what was going on. Let's see if we can have a real auction without giving an advantage to the offenders, and without them having to "shot-in-the-dark" it (which the NOS is going to hate when it happens to matchpoint well, or the information they would have got in a normal auction that would lead to the correct defence goes away and they let through the contract everyone else breaks, or...) Similarly with calls out of turn, where the crapshoot auctions happen a lot ("oh crap, partner passed out of turn, and will have to pass this time. Oh well, blast 3NT and hope, I guess." Good luck defending that one well). So we're now trying to make those work.

 

I'm not sure this is the right way to go, as I said. But I think it's worth trying.

[gordontd]

Was there a reason that anyone thought there was anything wrong with this?

No, I expect the entire world thought it was great as it was, but they couldn't resist making the change in order to irritate you.

[jallerton]

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.

 

Are you just referring to subsection 3 below, or to subsections 1 and 2 also?

 

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.

[gordontd]

Are you just referring to subsection 3 below, or to subsections 1 and 2 also?

All of it, but mainly subsection 2. If it appears to an onlooker that there are three likely possibilities for the insufficient bid having been made and the player replaces the call with another that appears to have one of those meanings, the requirements of the law will have been fulfilled.

[pran]

No, I expect the entire world thought it was great as it was, but they couldn't resist making the change in order to irritate you.

AFAIK it all started with the insufficient Blackwood response (actually occurring).

The first remedy was the "play for Maximum AVE-" rule in 1997 Law 25B2b2

[Vampyr]

AFAIK it all started with the insufficient Blackwood response (actually occurring).

The first remedy was the "play for Maximum AVE-" rule in 1997 Law 25B2b2

 

I thought that was just a part of L25 for if you changed your mind, and that the issue was a passed Blackwood response by a player who wanted to sign off.

[Vampyr]

No, I expect the entire world thought it was great as it was, but they couldn't resist making the change in order to irritate you.

 

I am not the only person in the world who thinks that if you want to play a game, you should follow the rules. If you fail to, there should be onsequences. I mean, we are just talking about the basic mechanics. Children are capable of this.

[gnasher]

Was there a reason that anyone thought there was anything wrong with this?

 

Yes, there were several reasons I thought there was something wrong with it. It sometimes gave a massive unearned bonus to the opponents. It sometimes gave a similarly massive penalty to the offenders, but sometimes did not penalise them at all. The variation in these was independent of the seriousness of the offence.

 

The new law is a bit better, in that these effects occur slightly less often, but still awful.

[lamford]

The new law is a bit better, in that these effects occur slightly less often, but still awful.

I agree. I thought on balance dburn's suggestion was best, which, as I recall, was that a bid is made sufficient. The original bid, and the possible reasons for it, are UI to the offenders, but AI to the non-offenders. That might be tough on some club directors to handle, however, but I think that TDs should always have to go on the excellent courses that the EBU (and I hope other RAs) run.

[Vampyr]

Yes, there were several reasons I thought there was something wrong with it. It sometimes gave a massive unearned bonus to the opponents. It sometimes gave a similarly massive penalty to the offenders, but sometimes did not penalise them at all. The variation in these was independent of the seriousness of the offence.

 

The new law is a bit better, in that these effects occur slightly less often, but still awful.

 

What alternative do you have in mind?

[Vampyr]

I agree. I thought on balance dburn's suggestion was best, which, as I recall, was that a bid is made sufficient. The original bid, and the possible reasons for it, are UI to the offenders, but AI to the non-offenders. That might be tough on some club directors to handle, however, but I think that TDs should always have to go on the excellent courses that the EBU (and I hope other RAs) run.

 

Going on the course it's not going to help very much with dealing with UI cases, and in any case many clubs have to rely on directors that have not had any training. What would you want them to do, have the two or three people who have been on the course direct all of the sessions? That would be unfair on those people.

 

Also, UI is often not understood well by the players. You were there when the opponents' auction went 1NT-2♦. No announcement was made, and the responder tapped her bid several times. The opener said no that is a suit, and the respondent said no it's a transfer to hearts. The director told opener that she should proceed as if under her misunderstanding, and she then bid 2♥ on a three-card suit.

 

The pre-2007 Laws that gave pretty harsh penalties to the offenders of several irregularities may have had a beneficial effect that people, once so penalised, would thereafter pay more attention to the game.

 

I suspect that the problem being addressed by these two changes is people who are for some reason incapable of playing to the basic rules, as other cases are very rare. Maybe a bit of understanding towards handicapped and infirm players would be more beneficial than these changes. e.g. announcing who is dealer and calling the bids that are made, and possibly the cards that are played, would be better.

[pran]

I thought that was just a part of L25 for if you changed your mind, and that the issue was a passed Blackwood response by a player who wanted to sign off.

It was, but the basic idea propagated through to the 2008 Law 27 (although the AVE- score as an option disappeared again).

[axman]

You know, the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that "comparable call" and is a lot more complicated to determine then a call which is a subset of the replaced call. Plus the new fun twist is that now instead of talking the intention of the bidder as the "meaning", we are supposed to guess what all of the players think. The defenders, of course, may have a totally wrong impression, as the call may be artificial, unusual, etc. Perhaps the partner of the bidd should be asked what he thinks...

 

But anyway, we had a really good law: if old bid and new bid are not conventional, IB may be replaced by lowest sufficient bid in the same suit. Otherwise partner is silenced.

 

Was there a reason that anyone thought there was anything wrong with this?

 

The primary defect that I can devise is that a system of extraneous communication (read 73B) can be concocted in relation to say, the existence of the IB, or say its correction in the same suit. Also, I would think that such concoctions could in general be fashioned where remedies amount to a do over. I would tend to believe that there are few (probably am not on firm ground here) who are skillful enough to pull it off, and fewer of those still- inclined to want to pull it off- which makes 1987wbf27 a reasonable approach to a remedy as it is rather restrictive and thus less likely to be prone to abuse. There is much to be said for simplicity. Going into the myriad of issues could get tedious.

[gnasher]

What alternative do you have in mind?

The illegal action is withdrawn, the auction continues with legal calls, the withdrawn action is AI to the non-offenders and UI to the offenders, and we all get on with playing bridge rather than Throw The Matchpoints Up In The Air And See Where They Land.

Offender receives whatever PP the director considers appropriate.

[barmar]

I am not the only person in the world who thinks that if you want to play a game, you should follow the rules. If you fail to, there should be onsequences. I mean, we are just talking about the basic mechanics. Children are capable of this.

Yet insufficient bids and bids out of turn happen all the time. Do you really think that this is because the punishment isn't severe enough? So we should stop pandering to these players who can't play by the rules, and throw the book at them? Do you really think that will make them pay more attention? Or just turn them off of the game?

 

But maybe it's good riddance. The dozens of players who are left will enjoy the game more.

[Vampyr]

The illegal action is withdrawn, the auction continues with legal calls, the withdrawn action is AI to the non-offenders and UI to the offenders, and we all get on with playing bridge rather than Throw The Matchpoints Up In The Air And See Where They Land.

Offender receives whatever PP the director considers appropriate.

 

You don't play much club bridge, as far as I am aware, Andy. And when you do I suspect that you do, you play at a club which has a non-playing director who is an expert bridge player.

 

The volunteer club director struggles with UI.

 

Yet insufficient bids and bids out of turn happen all the time.

 

What do you mean by "all the time"? Once per every 100 tables in a session? And the vast majority of these are COOT, which often don't cost. For example I was dealer recently and Lefty opened the bidding. But I passed, so all was well.

[barmar]

What do you mean by "all the time"? Once per every 100 tables in a session? And the vast majority of these are COOT, which often don't cost. For example I was dealer recently and Lefty opened the bidding. But I passed, so all was well.

Our club usually gets 6-8 tables, and my estimate is that we get an average of one director call for these types of errors per session. You're probably right that opening the bidding out of turn is the most common, I'm just lumping all these simple errors of procedure together, since the underlying legal philosophy seems to be the same.