Comparable Call

[pran]

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?

 

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

"likely" - Do you know for a fact or do you assume?

 

To me "all matters" include every piece of information that is relevant for a player who is about to select an action as part of the rectification after an irregularity.

(Examples of such alternative actions include: Whether or not accepting a lead or a call out of turn or an insufficient bid.)

[barmar]

I think most of us interpret "all matters" as referring to the legal issues, like listing all 5 options that the presumed declarer has when deciding what to do after an OLOOT, or all the lead options when a penalty card is on the table. It's not obvious that it also includes things like the meanings of opponents' potential calls.

[Vampyr]

The offender can ask the director if 2N would be a "comparable" call.

IMO it isn't but I concede that is a matter of judgement.

 

Much finer judgement than can be expected of the average volunteer playing director.

 

The commentary on the laws apparently recommends that the director ask the offender's partner about meanings of possible replacement calls to establish if any are "comparable".

 

Yes, it does not seem that ”attributable” can mean anything else.

 

That way madness lies.

Clumsy kludges (like the rules about illegal calls) could easily be made more simple and objective (e.g. Cancel offending call, silence offender's partner).

 

Yes. This was the law for many years, with exceptions for “making the bid good”. I can’t imagine that anyone was unhappy with this.

 

One aspect of the current law that has not been discussed, as far as I know, is that judgement rulings are supposed to be made after consultation. This could be with some of the more experienced members of the club; some clubs consult via telephone referee. Perhaps the director on the night is an expert player and can quickly grasp the implications of the offender’s system. If not, play will grind to a halt at the table in question while the director is seeking consultation. I do not see a solution to this, apart from clubs advising their directors to allow no replacement bids that do not bar partner.

[blackshoe]

I do not see a solution to this, apart from clubs advising their directors to allow no replacement bids that do not bar partner.

I do not think that would be a legal solution.

[gordontd]

Yes. This was the law for many years, with exceptions for “making the bid good”. I can’t imagine that anyone was unhappy with this.

If this were true, I wonder from where came the impetus to change it?

[pescetom]

If this were true, I wonder from where came the impetus to change it?

 

Was there some equivalent provision to the actual 23C, obliging an adjusted score if the Director judges at the end of the play that without the assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different?

If this was lacking then it is unsurprising that there was some dissatisfaction.

[lamford]

If this were true, I wonder from where came the impetus to change it?

I think there is an increasing desire to get a "bridge result" on the board if at all possible. Perhaps with the increasing average age of bridge players, we have more senior moments, and the Laws have become more lenient towards careless errors. Overall I think that is quite a good thing. I would allow 2NT here, as being sufficiently "similar" if 1C was most often opened with strong balanced hands. If playing a strong NT, I think that would be going too far.

[Vampyr]

I do not think that would be a legal solution.

 

Many clubs have to finish their sessions within a specified time. The only other solution would be to give out artificial scores.

 

If this were true, I wonder from where came the impetus to change it?

 

Who knows? Are you really suggesting that the lawmakers polled a representative group of players to see how they felt about it? Or investigated the practicalities of a volunteer club director making a ruling?

 

Don’t forget that we are talking about the fine legal minds that produced the current mess.

[Vampyr]

I do not think that would be a legal solution.

 

Maybe easier to understand this way:

 

An offender informs the director:

 

Insufficient call A would have had meaning M1 if it had been an opening bid, M2 if it had been an overcall, M3 if it had been a response with no intervening overcall, and M4 if it had been a response with an intervening double. Calls B, C and D would have meanings M5, M6 and M7 in the auction as it stands. Would any of these be comparable to call A?

 

The director responds that she hasn’t the faintest clue (meanwhile play has stopped at her own table too). Now what?

[Vampyr]

Was there some equivalent provision to the actual 23C, obliging an adjusted score if the Director judges at the end of the play that without the assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different?

If this was lacking then it is unsurprising that there was some dissatisfaction.

 

What do you mean by equivalent provision? L23C or whatever it is now would of course apply.

[blackshoe]

What ruling a director makes is up to him. I might not agree with it, but he's at the table. But for club management to instruct a director how to make a ruling? No, that's just not on.

[Vampyr]

What ruling a director makes is up to him. I might not agree with it, but he's at the table. But for club management to instruct a director how to make a ruling? No, that's just not on.

 

You don’t seem to understand. Some of the directors would not even know what “comparable call” means. And most of them are not expert players.

 

Anyway you have seen from this thread that among people who do,know what “comparable call” means, there is little agreement on what constitutes one. I am definitely with Nigel on this one; rulings will be highly subjective and wildly variable.

[gordontd]

Maybe easier to understand this way:

 

An offender informs the director:

 

Insufficient call A would have had meaning M1 if it had been an opening bid, M2 if it had been an overcall, M3 if it had been a response with no intervening overcall, and M4 if it had been a response with an intervening double. Calls B, C and D would have meanings M5, M6 and M7 in the auction as it stands. Would any of these be comparable to call A?

 

Maybe the director needn't have reached this point. Look at the auction on the table ask some questions of the offender's partner about their agreements, consider what meanings might be "attributable" to the infracting call, decide which replacement calls will be considered comparable, offer to hear the offender away from the table if they think you have missed anything out.

 

In practice this is likely to be shorter to do than it was to write. Uncontested auction on the table: 2NT - 2D. "Do you play transfer bids in response to 2NT?" "Yes". "I will consider any call that shows diamonds or any call that shows hearts to be comparable. If you need to discuss this with me further or think I have missed something out, let's go away from the table. If it turns out you have gained from the infraction I can adjust afterwards."

[pescetom]

What do you mean by equivalent provision? L23C or whatever it is now would of course apply.

I mean the same article or one with the same effect.

If that was already present then I can't see what the innocent side should complain about.

If it was the offending side complaining then they get little sympathy from me.

[sanst]

You don’t seem to understand. Some of the directors would not even know what “comparable call” means. And most of them are not expert players.

 

Anyway you have seen from this thread that among people who do,know what “comparable call” means, there is little agreement on what constitutes one. I am definitely with Nigel on this one; rulings will be highly subjective and wildly variable.

I would say that Blackshoe understands it perfectly. Yes, there are quite a few poor directors, although most of them do the job to the best of their knowledge and abilities. And I completely agree with him that the club management should not interfere with his or her decisions. If there are complaints, that management should seek the advice of an experienced director or the RA and, if necessary, relieve that director of his duties. I had once a decision turned back by the president of the club, who wasn’t a director at all and didn’t ask me about it, so a quited directing there immediately. In the end my decision was upheld by the AC.

Actually, I’m in favour of a change of the law always allowing a change call in case of a IB or COOT without restricting the partner, but the TD should always afterwards decide whether the OS gained an advantage by the infraction and award an AS if necessary and give a PP when there was use of the UI from the call.

Rulings will always be variable. If you don’t want that, you should always cancel a board if there’s an infraction and decide A+/A-. That’s the way the law deals with minor traffic infractions over here: so much over the speed limit > that’s €xxx. Please, pay here. Only in highly exceptional circumstances you can go to court and make a successful appeal. I don’t think that’s the way we want to play bridge.

[Vampyr]

I mean the same article or one with the same effect.

If that was already present then I can't see what the innocent side should complain about.

If it was the offending side complaining then they get little sympathy from me.

 

Quite. It seems pretty clear that the change in the law was intended to mitigate the effect on the offending side.

[gordontd]

Quite. It seems pretty clear that the change in the law was intended to mitigate the effect on the offending side.

My understanding was that it was intended to reduce the random effects of requiring the offending side to guess their final contract, which not infrequently gave the non-offending side a poor result.

[Vampyr]

My understanding was that it was intended to reduce the random effects of requiring the offending side to guess their final contract, which not infrequently gave the non-offending side a poor result.

 

Interesting.