Comparable Call

[Cyberyeti]

We're supposed to interpret comparable calls pretty liberally. I think this means that we're not supposed supposed to get hung up on the precise number of clubs shown.

 

The point is that 1♣ openings basically show two types of hands: hands with a "real" club suit, and most flat hands outside your NT range. If you're playing weak NT, the 2NT overcall shows the latter.

 

it may be true that a 1♣ opening precludes 3=3=4=3 and possibly 3-2=4=4, while the 2NT overcall doesn't. That's where the liberal interpretation comes in: it close enough to be "comparable".

 

The problem is that 1♣ also precludes 5♦/♥(332) and some more off shape possibilities like 4351/4252 which is why it's interesting.

[lamford]

The problem is that 1♣ also precludes 5♦/♥(332) and some more off shape possibilities like 4351/4252 which is why it's interesting.

The Law does say "same or similar meaning". And that is an alternative to the "subset" requirement, not in addition to it. Playing better minor or short club and a weak NT, the majority of hands that would bid 2NT over 2S would open 1C. In a strong NT structure it is not similar however, as hands that would open 1NT are excluded, so then I would disallow it. I would allow 2NT here, as often the extra information is of no value, and we can always step in and adjust if it becomes so. The original 1C is still UI to East, so he is an identical position to that without the infraction.

 

2NT was allowed, and the room was in 3NT, with the better players making +690 but at IMPs it was of not great relevance.

[BudH]

Regarding the (lack of) UI law to be (officially) used if you are liberal with your comparable call "same or similar" criteria, I recently took a player aside whose partner I allowed a borderline comparable call. I informed him the unauthorized information law did not apply - BUT, if he used the small amount of extra information about his partner's hand that he was not supposed to have, it would greatly increase the chance I would be awarding an adjusted score (under Law 23C).

 

In other words, although the UI law doesn't (officially) apply, in some ways, UI "principles" still may affect the score under Law 23C.

 

If there is NO extra information held by offender's partner, then Law 23C would rarely be used (although I can imagine a case where the declarer is on the other side of the table from "normal", allowing a better score than if the illegal call had not occurred).

[BudH]

We're supposed to interpret comparable calls pretty liberally. I think this means that we're not supposed supposed to get hung up on the precise number of clubs shown.

 

The point is that 1♣ openings basically show two types of hands: hands with a "real" club suit, and most flat hands outside your NT range. If you're playing weak NT, the 2NT overcall shows the latter.

 

it may be true that a 1♣ opening precludes 3=3=4=3 and possibly 3-2=4=4, while the 2NT overcall doesn't. That's where the liberal interpretation comes in: it close enough to be "comparable".

 

I am beginning to be more liberal in my comparable call allowance, such as this 2NT which frequently has 2+ clubs and the opening club bid having 3+ club bids.

 

However, I will assume a heart or spade opening showing FIVE or more is a completely different animal. Even a diamond opening showing 4+ starts to skirt even the liberal line.

 

(As is true of many of us, I would greatly support simply using the UI law exclusively and award an adjusted score when required - certainly would make the law much easier, although there would be more judgement situations to rule on.)

[BudH]

23A2 appears to allow the 2NT as a comparable call, as the 2NT overcall represents a subset of the 1C hands, specifically the BAL 15-18 hands. Of course, there are a small number of 2NT bids which aren't in 1C e.g. ones with five hearts, but IIRC the guidance for the 2017 laws is to not be pedantic about these kinds of things. This is one area where I really need to read up on what changed in 2017.

 

Since the rules on comparable calls consist of multiple parts and also have some leeway for TD judgement, for practical purposes I think it should be allowed for West to ask if a particular call is a comparable call. It might be fairest for the TD to discuss this with West away from the table, e.g. to avoid giving UI to East about the meaning of 2NT, or allowing a nefarious West to make up a meaning on the spot.

 

ahydra

 

2NT would be a subset of 1♣ opening bids (3+ clubs) only if the 2NT bid contained 3+ clubs. Which is not the case.

[Cyberyeti]

The Law does say "same or similar meaning". And that is an alternative to the "subset" requirement, not in addition to it. Playing better minor or short club and a weak NT, the majority of hands that would bid 2NT over 2S would open 1C. In a strong NT structure it is not similar however, as hands that would open 1NT are excluded, so then I would disallow it. I would allow 2NT here, as often the extra information is of no value, and we can always step in and adjust if it becomes so. The original 1C is still UI to East, so he is an identical position to that without the infraction.

 

2NT was allowed, and the room was in 3NT, with the better players making +690 but at IMPs it was of not great relevance.

 

Where does the borderline fall ? we play a 4 card club (but open 1♣ with 4M4♣32 strong NT), presumably you'd disallow it if Tramticket (who opens 1♥ on the 4♥4♣32s. not sure what he does with both blacks) opened it.

[lamford]

Where does the borderline fall ? we play a 4 card club (but open 1♣ with 4M4♣32 strong NT), presumably you'd disallow it if Tramticket (who opens 1♥ on the 4♥4♣32s. not sure what he does with both blacks) opened it.

I would allow 2NT if the majority of the hands shown were "similar" to those shown by a 1C opening. David Burn's idea is right. One should be allowed to make any call one wants but the original call is UI, but that is not the Law.

[Cyberyeti]

I would allow 2NT if the majority of the hands shown were "similar" to those shown by a 1C opening. David Burn's idea is right. One should be allowed to make any call one wants but the original call is UI, but that is not the Law.

 

That's a hell of a job for the director to calculate in his head while telling the player whether the bid is similar enough before he chooses to make it or not.

[pescetom]

Would you open 1 ♣ on

 

♠ -

♥ 76543

♦ AQ

♣ AKQ765

 

?

 

Yes I would, although I know some who would not.

I trust you are not arguing that 2NT is attributable to that.

 

I would allow 2NT if the majority of the hands shown were "similar" to those shown by a 1C opening. David Burn's idea is right. One should be allowed to make any call one wants but the original call is UI, but that is not the Law.

If not this, something similar.

[lamford]

That's a hell of a job for the director to calculate in his head while telling the player whether the bid is similar enough before he chooses to make it or not.

I agree, and the club TD students were divided as to whether to allow it or not.

[blackshoe]

Well if they were divided 50/50, clearly half of them or perhaps all of them don't understand the law. Problem is, who does?

[barmar]

The problem is that 1♣ also precludes 5♦/♥(332) and some more off shape possibilities like 4351/4252 which is why it's interesting.

Well, I assumed that if someone had a 5-card suit (especially a major) they would normally bid it rather than overcall 2NT. So a 2NT overcall tends to deny 5 cards in any suit other than opener's.

 

And by the "be liberal" policy, I think we can ignore the rare occasions when someone might choose to overcall 2NT rather than bid their suit at the 3 level (perhaps the suit is poor and your spade stoppers are good).

[Cyberyeti]

Well, I assumed that if someone had a 5-card suit (especially a major) they would normally bid it rather than overcall 2NT. So a 2NT overcall tends to deny 5 cards in any suit other than opener's.

 

And by the "be liberal" policy, I think we can ignore the rare occasions when someone might choose to overcall 2NT rather than bid their suit at the 3 level (perhaps the suit is poor and your spade stoppers are good).

 

Not here, we would open 1N/2N with that shape and overcall with it. KJx, KJ9xx, KJx, Ax is a 2N overcall every day of the week over 2♠, nobody bids 3♥.

[weejonnie]

Yes I would, although I know some who would not.

I trust you are not arguing that 2NT is attributable to that.

 

 

If not this, something similar.

Of course not - but the argument was that 1♣ denied a 5-card heart suit.

 

Yes I realise that openng 2NT does not deny a 5-card heart suit, but it does not guarantee it either. I think this would only be of significance if the situation after the 2NT requires partner to allow for a 5-card heart suit. If you used 5-card Stayman (for instance) and had 3 hearts, it might be decided that you had to use it even though you know partner will not have 5 hearts (or spades) and if you did not then you might be open to an adjusted score.

[lamford]

it might be decided that you had to use it even though you know partner will not have 5 hearts (or spades) and if you did not then you might be open to an adjusted score.

You only adjust for damage, so if someone did use five-card Stayman and found their partner did not have five hearts and then bid 3NT, they would be in the same position as someone who had not used it.

[weejonnie]

You only adjust for damage, so if someone did use five-card Stayman and found their partner did not have five hearts and then bid 3NT, they would be in the same position as someone who had not used it.

 

Yes but, for instance, it might give the opponents the chance to double the 3♣ call and find a better lead against 3NT.

[sanst]

Yes but, for instance, it might give the opponents the chance to double the 3♣ call and find a better lead against 3NT.

Then there is Law 23C.

[pescetom]

Of course not - but the argument was that 1♣ denied a 5-card heart suit.

 

Yes I realise that openng 2NT does not deny a 5-card heart suit, but it does not guarantee it either. I think this would only be of significance if the situation after the 2NT requires partner to allow for a 5-card heart suit.

In that case I think the point is that 2NT may contain a 5-card heart suit, whereas 1♣ may not. The latter is a superset of the former, rather than a subset as the law requires. I assume that as always the law has to do with agreements and that whether or not the hand actually contains a 5-card heart suit is irrelevant, so if the call is not comparable there is an infraction which obliges partner to pass for the rest of the auction. Or have I misunderstood?

[weejonnie]

In that case I think the point is that 2NT may contain a 5-card heart suit, whereas 1♣ may not. The latter is a superset of the former, rather than a subset as the law requires. I assume that as always the law has to do with agreements and that whether or not the hand actually contains a 5-card heart suit is irrelevant, so if the call is not comparable there is an infraction which obliges partner to pass for the rest of the auction. Or have I misunderstood?

Yes I understand that, however I think I would still regard it as "having the same or similar as that attributable to the withdrawn call" meaning. A 1♣ call does not deny 4 hearts - so we are within 1 card of the same suit length.

[Cyberyeti]

I would think the lawmakers should make a more black and white interpretation of the law, otherwise you're going to get a series of appeals that come down that the director (most likely) allowed a call that was not comparable or possibly the reverse.

 

Director error rulings are bad for bridge, both for confidence in the directors and affecting results when both sides get +rulings.

[Vampyr]

A tangential issue: is offender’s LHO allowed to know whether or not offender has a call that does not bar partner?

[BudH]

A tangential issue: is offender’s LHO allowed to know whether or not offender has a call that does not bar partner?

 

The recently released WBF commentary on the laws says offender’s LHO may ask questions about meanings of possible (replacement) calls But nothing else, so it is implied LHO has to judge for himself.

 

There should have been explicit text in the commentary to tell us the Director shall not inform offender’s opponents about existence (or non-existence) of one or more calls that will avoid offender’s partner from being required to pass.

[pran]

The recently released WBF commentary on the laws says offender’s LHO may ask questions about meanings of possible (replacement) calls But nothing else, so it is implied LHO has to judge for himself.

 

There should have been explicit text in the commentary to tell us the Director shall not inform offender’s opponents about existence (or non-existence) of one or more calls that will avoid offender’s partner from being required to pass.

Are you aware of

No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

I'd say that "all matters" is rather comprehensive?

[BudH]

Are you aware of

 

I'd say that "all matters" is rather comprehensive?

 

The WBF Laws Commission likely has a less liberal view of “all matters”.

[pescetom]

I would think the lawmakers should make a more black and white interpretation of the law, otherwise you're going to get a series of appeals that come down that the director (most likely) allowed a call that was not comparable or possibly the reverse.

 

Director error rulings are bad for bridge, both for confidence in the directors and affecting results when both sides get +rulings.

 

A more black and white interpretation of the Law has emerged, see the main topic on Commentary:

My link

Unfortunately the Commentary doesn't seem to be on quite the same wavelength or willing to go into similar detail.