Comparable Call

[jallerton]

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.

 

So, perhaps even more significant then the change to the wording of the Law, we'll have a different recommended way for the TD to determine the "meaning" of the insufficient bid. Presumably the TD will no longer have to go through the rigmarole of taking the IBer away from the table.

[Vampyr]

So, perhaps even more significant then the change to the wording of the Law, we'll have a different recommended way for the TD to determine the "meaning" of the insufficient bid. Presumably the TD will no longer have to go through the rigmarole of taking the IBer away from the table.

 

I don't get it. The TD determines what the IB was supposed to "mean"? And somehow discover whether there is a call in the player's system that means the same? What guidance is going to be given to club directors to enable them to do this? Or any ditectors? What is the procedure going to be? I really do not understand of any of this.

 

One thing seems clear; the IBer will still need to be taken away from the table to help the director determine whether there is a penalty-free replacement. If it turns out that there is not, the IBer's partner cannot be privy to the discussion. Please Gordon, or someone, explain how this is supposed to work. I was under the impression that it was the same as before, t the bid doesn't necessarily need to be a subset or the intended meaning of the IB.

 

I think that there needs at least to be a different version for clubs, possibly returning to the pre-2007 law, awarding A+/A, or... well, who knows? Not this, unless I am missing something and it is a lot simpler than it seems.

[gordontd]

So, perhaps even more significant then the change to the wording of the Law, we'll have a different recommended way for the TD to determine the "meaning" of the insufficient bid. Presumably the TD will no longer have to go through the rigmarole of taking the IBer away from the table.

I hope so, but we'll all find out more once the laws have actually been agreed and the EBL has run a course for its TDs, which is in May. Thereafter, in the EBU we'll have a course for our panel TDs, so that they are able to run a series of courses across the country for county & club TDs.

[dcrc2]

I hope so, but we'll all find out more once the laws have actually been agreed and the EBL has run a course for its TDs, which is in May. Thereafter, in the EBU we'll have a course for our panel TDs, so that they are able to run a series of courses across the country for county & club TDs.

What's the point in the draft Laws being sent out for comment, if we can't get them to clarify important things like this? The Laws need to say either:

1. If it is unclear what the player's intentions were when making the bid, the TD should find this out without making the information available to the other players.

or

2. If it is unclear what the player's intentions were when making the bid, the TD should allow any correction which is comparable with one of the possible intended meanings.

There's really no excuse for leaving this sort of thing open to interpretation!

[Vampyr]

What's the point in the draft Laws being sent out for comment, if we can't get them to clarify important things like this? The Laws need to say either:

1. If it is unclear what the player's intentions were when making the bid, the TD should find this out without making the information available to the other players.

or

2. If it is unclear what the player's intentions were when making the bid, the TD should allow any correction which is comparable with one of the possible intended meanings.

There's really no excuse for leaving this sort of thing open to interpretation!

 

Absolutely. This is something completely new and a procedure should be provided. On the other hand, it is perhaps exactly the same, except that the director just has to see if the layer has a similar bid, not a more precise one. No procedure is noted because it will be the same, but the criteria are different.

 

Also if the withdrawn bid gives more information, as apparently it now can, why does Law 16 not apply?

 

Why have the words "in the director's opinion" been removed? Is the director supposed to call in someone else to make the determination? Who?

[gordontd]

Why have the words "in the director's opinion" been removed?

Didn't you used to object to the words being there?

 

[This is the second time I've upvoted one of Stefanie's posts when I intended to click the reply button!]

[weejonnie]

Board 1

"Director please"

"How may I help"

"West has opened the auction when it was my turn."

(To West)

"OK, you have two options: you may accept the call, in which case the auction proceeds as usual, or you may refuse to accept the call, in which case it is withdrawn and the auction reverts to you. East may call what he likes at his turn, but mustn't make use of the fact that West has called out of turn and when the auction reaches West then he will either make a comparable call (one with the same, similar or more precise meaning, or with the same purpose), in which case the auction procedes (but you are protected should you be damaged as a result of the inadmissable call) or will be free to make any call, in which case East will have to pass at his next turn and there may be lead penalties."

"How do I know whether West will have available a comparable call, since there will be three calls before it is his turn?"

"You don't."

"I refuse to accept the call."

 

OK - I can't see any alternative but for the director to remain at the table since he is going to have to find out whether West has a comparable call in a few minutes (and his presence may encourage East to not take advantage of the UI). It is then that he is going to have to take West away to see whether he has a comparable call available. (I used 'precise' because I think that is more understandable than "defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call, or")

 

Note that the 'compelled to pass' is now always only for one round for partner after a BOOT (but not for an IB - why not?)

 

With regard to law 16, the director is going to have to watch out if the partner makes a call that enables their partner to make a comparable call, when an alternative may not.

[gordontd]

Board 1

"Director please"

"How may I help"

"West has opened the auction when it was my turn."

(To West)

"OK, you have two options: you may accept the call, in which case the auction proceeds as usual, or you may refuse to accept the call, in which case it is withdrawn and the auction reverts to you. East may call what he likes at his turn, but mustn't make use of the fact that West has called out of turn and when the auction reaches West then he will either make a comparable call (one with the same, similar or more precise meaning, or with the same purpose), in which case the auction procedes (but you are protected should you be damaged as a result of the inadmissable call) or will be free to make any call, in which case East will have to pass at his next turn and there may be lead penalties."

"How do I know whether West will have available a comparable call, since there will be three calls before it is his turn?"

"You don't."

"I refuse to accept the call."

 

OK - I can't see any alternative but for the director to remain at the table since he is going to have to find out whether West has a comparable call in a few minutes (and his presence may encourage East to not take advantage of the UI). It is then that he is going to have to take West away to see whether he has a comparable call available. (I used 'precise' because I think that is more understandable than "defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call, or")

 

Note that the 'compelled to pass' is now always only for one round for partner after a BOOT (but not for an IB - why not?)

 

With regard to law 16, the director is going to have to watch out if the partner makes a call that enables their partner to make a comparable call, when an alternative may not.

I think it's likely that NBOs will publicise the content of Law 23 since it would be helpful to players for them to become familiar with the concept of a comparable call.

[weejonnie]

I think it's likely that NBOs will publicise the content of Law 23 since it would be helpful to players for them to become familiar with the concept of a comparable call.

I would hope so - it is one of the most fundamental changes in the laws (both in definition and application) - along with claims procedure.

 

(I wonder how many EBU members now know the 5 choices after a OLOOT - they were specifically described in the December quiz in the EBU magazine.)

[blackshoe]

I hope so, but we'll all find out more once the laws have actually been agreed and the EBL has run a course for its TDs, which is in May. Thereafter, in the EBU we'll have a course for our panel TDs, so that they are able to run a series of courses across the country for county & club TDs.

Would that the ACBL would come up with such a plan! :unsure:

[pran]

(I wonder how many EBU members now know the 5 choices after a OLOOT - they were specifically described in the December quiz in the EBU magazine.)

This has been a standard element in Norwegian TD training at least since 1980 (when I received my License).

[Vampyr]

Didn't you used to object to the words being there?

 

[This is the second time I've upvoted one of Stefanie's posts when I intended to click the reply button!]

 

What I objected to was the whole concept, and most of it was due to the difficulty for the director. But my preferred pre-2007 version was considered "draconian" because people, after all, have paid their money and can bid what they like. And can have meanings for their insufficient bids.

 

So we are still left with the nonsense, but it appears now that the director is supposed to -- what? Call in an outside expert?

 

And in fact, I think that a "comparable" call is harder for an outsider to determine than a more specific call. The supposed comparable call may have negative inferences and other nuances the director cannot possibly know about. Unless he has until the end of the session to he system. And the volunteer playing director has not. And these are the people who direct the majority of games. Perhaps the WBFLC think that bridge is played only in tournaments and only with experienced, paid, non-playing directors? The latter constitutes a small minority of player sessions.

[blackshoe]

Most club games in this country, or at least in my little corner of it, have non-playing directors.

[barmar]

Why have the words "in the director's opinion" been removed? Is the director supposed to call in someone else to make the determination? Who?

Perhaps because the director is supposed to try to ascertain facts, not rule based on his opinion. Where judgement is required, is it really necessary to state it explicitly (I don't think any other law has similar wording).

[Vampyr]

Most club games in this country, or at least in my little corner of it, have non-playing directors.

 

I guess it depends on the size of the club. A North London club which meets once a week, along with many clubs paying London rents, cannot afford a non-playing director.

[barmar]

I guess it depends on the size of the club. A North London club which meets once a week, along with many clubs paying London rents, cannot afford a non-playing director.

Are you talking about "a certain North London club"? This club probably needs 2 directors: one full-time TD to handle all of SB's calls, and another (possibly playing) TD for everyone else.

[axman]

What's the point in the draft Laws being sent out for comment, if we can't get them to clarify important things like this? The Laws need to say either:

1. If it is unclear what the player's intentions were when making the bid, the TD should find this out without making the information available to the other players.

or

2. If it is unclear what the player's intentions were when making the bid, the TD should allow any correction which is comparable with one of the possible intended meanings.

There's really no excuse for leaving this sort of thing open to interpretation!

 

The primary attribute of laws is that they not need explaining. As such, if the users of the laws do the unwanted, it is a signal to the writers to improve their writing.

[Vampyr]

Are you talking about "a certain North London club"? This club probably needs 2 directors: one full-time TD to handle all of SB's calls, and another (possibly playing) TD for everyone else.

 

LOL we do have two directors each week, but they consist of a mother movement director and a tournament director. This is a system I recommend.