Comparable Call

[gordontd]

Is north allowed to know his partner has to pass any bid he makes can he change his action to use this to his advantage? We now know the rules stop south doing it.

Yes, a player who knows that their partner must pass may take that into account when choosing what to call.

[nige1]

Bridge suffers from some rules that are unnecessary, complex, contentious, and add no value.

.

[etha]

Yes, a player who knows that their partner must pass may take that into account when choosing what to call.

 

 

It's odd that north can use it but south can't use "I am going to have to pass whatever partner bids in all probability" when he makes his call.

[gordontd]

It's odd that north can use it but south can't use "I am going to have to pass whatever partner bids in all probability" when he makes his call.

You can use your knowledge of legal restrictions in place. I'm not sure why you think you should be able to use to your advantage the fact that your partner committed an infraction.

[etha]

You can use your knowledge of legal restrictions in place. I'm not sure why you think you should be able to use to your advantage the fact that your partner committed an infraction.

 

 

Right so the restriction the knowledge of which I am using is I know I must pass pards bid most likely. So opening a multi is pretty bonkers and opening 3spades much more likely to succeed.

[etha]

Right so the restriction the knowledge of which I am using is I know I must pass pards bid most likely. So opening a multi is pretty bonkers and opening 3spades much more likely to succeed.

 

 

 

The TD can even test that I am using this knowledge and not the fact pard bid 1♦ by asking a panel if you had to pass at your next turn what would u open this hand without telling them pard tried to bid 1♦.

[gordontd]

Right so the restriction the knowledge of which I am using is I know I must pass pards bid most likely. So opening a multi is pretty bonkers and opening 3spades much more likely to succeed.

"most likely" doesn't cut it! The only reason you would know anything like that is because of your partner's infraction, which is specifically stated to be Unauthorised Information to you.

[Tramticket]

Right so the restriction the knowledge of which I am using is I know I must pass pards bid most likely. So opening a multi is pretty bonkers and opening 3spades much more likely to succeed.

 

Given that the 1♦ opening out of turn is Unauthorised, you should be selecting, from Logical Alternatives a bid that is not suggested by the UI. Opening 2♦ is clearly a LA (arguably the only LA).

[etha]

"most likely" doesn't cut it! The only reason you would know anything like that is because of your partner's infraction, which is specifically stated to be Unauthorised Information to you.

 

 

No I know I have to pass because the td told me that was what the rule is.

[etha]

No I know I have to pass because the td told me that was what the rule is.

 

 

Ok i'll shut up you obviously know what the rules are I just thought it was odd.

[pran]

"most likely" doesn't cut it! The only reason you would know anything like that is because of your partner's infraction, which is specifically stated to be Unauthorised Information to you.

I feel confused.

 

The way I understand the laws the fact that your partner has committed an infraction and the nature of this infraction is authorized information to everybody at the table.

Also knowledge of the laws is of course authorized,

 

Where do the laws specifically state otherwise?

 

Of course certain information that can be deduced from the infraction is specifically stated in relevant laws to be unauthorized (like knowledge of the offender's hidden hand or withdrawn calls), but I cannot see why for instance knowledge of a fact that according to relevant laws a player might be forced to pass because of an irregularity is unauthorized?

[gordontd]

I feel confused.

 

The way I understand the laws the fact that your partner has committed an infraction and the nature of this infraction is authorized information to everybody at the table.

Also knowledge of the laws is of course authorized,

 

Where do the laws specifically state otherwise?

 

Of course certain information that can be deduced from the infraction is specifically stated in relevant laws to be unauthorized (like knowledge of the offender's hidden hand or withdrawn calls), but I cannot see why for instance knowledge of a fact that according to relevant laws a player might be forced to pass because of an irregularity is unauthorized?

Without knowing what call your partner tried to make, which is specifically stated to be UI, how could you begin to know what action you might take to mitigate the effects of the restrictions that might arise from it?

 

Think of it like any other UI case: your actions will be judged according to those of your peers who didn't know what call your partner had tried to make. Why would they do other than describe their hand and hope that partner would be able to make a comparable call? It's only the knowledge of the specific call that your partner made that gives you the idea that you might be barred from bidding on the next round. And if you are, your partner will know this and will be able to adjust accordingly.

[barmar]

It seems like there are two ways to look at this.

 

One is that South isn't allowed to know what North's withdrawn call was, so he doesn't know that if he bids Multi it will be very unlikely that partner can find a call comparable to it. So he has to make his normal Multi bid to avoid taking advantage of the UI.

 

The other way is to realize that after a Multi opening, there are practically no calls that partner can make to show his own suit. So just knowing that partner tried to bid out of turn is enough to tell you that he won't have a comparable call and you're going to be barred. You're not taking advantage of the specific call, just that he has to find a CC to some opening bid.

 

On the third hand, maybe 2♦ shouldn't be allowed at all, because partner can pass it if he has diamonds, rather than make the normal response to Multi.

[sanst]

This discussion makes more than clear that the whole concept of a comparable call should be dropped ASAP, not with the review of the laws in 2027. Law 23C should cover all replacement calls.

[weejonnie]

This discussion makes more than clear that the whole concept of a comparable call should be dropped ASAP, not with the review of the laws in 2027. Law 23C should cover all replacement calls.

You would prefer to go back to the "Partner is silenced for the rest of the auction/ next round" routine? AND with lead penalties.

 

CCs aren't perfect but they work in the vast majority of cases with their aim of producing a sensible auction to a sensible spot. If you don't like to take the risk that partner might have no comparable call available when you play the multi - then don't use the multi! Partner could have bid 3♦ over a natural 2♠ (weak) which would almost certainly have been regarded as comparable since it is similar in nature to 1♦. You can't expect to play highly artificial calls without some modicum of risk.

 

(As I said before - you are entitled to know the rules, but not entitled to know that your partner has broken them - in this scenario at least. Partner is allowed to know "Heaven's! I have bid out of turn, if I don't make a comparable call my partner will be silenced" - as that is the actual rule.You are not allowed to know "Heaven's! Partner has bid out of turn, If I make my normal call he won't have a comparable call to make" - since that arises from the withdrawn call - which is UI.)

[pran]

You would prefer to go back to the "Partner is silenced for the rest of the auction/ next round" routine? AND with lead penalties.

 

CCs aren't perfect but they work in the vast majority of cases with their aim of producing a sensible auction to a sensible spot. If you don't like to take the risk that partner might have no comparable call available when you play the multi - then don't use the multi! Partner could have bid 3♦ over a natural 2♠ (weak) which would almost certainly have been regarded as comparable since it is similar in nature to 1♦. You can't expect to play highly artificial calls without some modicum of risk.

 

(As I said before - you are entitled to know the rules, but not entitled to know that your partner has broken them - in this scenario at least. Partner is allowed to know "Heaven's! I have bid out of turn, if I don't make a comparable call my partner will be silenced" - as that is the actual rule.You are not allowed to know "Heaven's! Partner has bid out of turn, If I make my normal call he won't have a comparable call to make" - since that arises from the withdrawn call - which is UI.)

1. (a) The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.

[...]

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

How can the fact that your partner has broken the rules be unauthorized information to you once the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification?

[lamford]

How can the fact that your partner has broken the rules be unauthorized information to you once the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification?

If you reread gordontd's posts on this matter, it might be apparent to you.

[pran]

How can the fact that your partner has broken the rules be unauthorized information to you once the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification?

If you reread gordontd's posts on this matter, it might be apparent to you.

The fact that partner out of turn made a call (which was not accepted) is AI to me, but what that call was is UI to me.

 

So I am free to select any call different from the call I originally intended to make so long as my selection is only influenced by the fact that he made a COOT and not by any knowledge of what that COOT actually was.

 

There is an important distinction here.

[weejonnie]

No - although the law has been read out - the only part that applies to you is 16C

 

2. For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from

withdrawn actions of the non‐offending side is unauthorized. A player of an offending side

may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized

information if the other call or play is a logical alternative

 

All the TD says about comparable calls etc only applies to your partner. To you, partner hasn't made a call at all.

[sanst]

You would prefer to go back to the "Partner is silenced for the rest of the auction/ next round" routine? AND with lead penalties.

No, certainly not. I want no restrictions at all, but the TD should after the play decide whether there was use of UI and act accordingly. And yes, the pre-2007 rules were not fairer but clearer. It seems that even the WBFLC needs discussions about what call is a CC. How is a simple TD at a club supposed to decide that?

[sanst]

If you reread gordontd's posts on this matter, it might be apparent to you.

Try explaining that to the players at the table and make sure they act accordingly. This CC business isn’t working at all and it’s high time the WBFLC recognizes the fact.

[weejonnie]

No, certainly not. I want no restrictions at all, but the TD should after the play decide whether there was use of UI and act accordingly. And yes, the pre-2007 rules were not fairer but clearer. It seems that even the WBFLC needs discussions about what call is a CC. How is a simple TD at a club supposed to decide that?

Well that simple TD (under your proposal) is going to have to make rather a lot of UI decisions instead of Comparable Call ones. Personally, I have no real problems (I think) with comparable calls.

 

What could the original call have meant? Suits, length, features, purpose.

What does the proposed comparable call mean? Suits, length, features, purpose.

 

(feature = high card points and/ or controls)

 

If the call shows the same (or more) suit lengths, similar (or more precise) features or the same purpose then I allow it.

 

If there is a difference and the partner makes use of that difference then I may adjust under 23C/ 27D.

[sanst]

Well that simple TD (under your proposal) is going to have to make rather a lot of UI decisions instead of Comparable Call ones. Personally, I have no real problems (I think) with comparable calls.

 

What could the original call have meant? Suits, length, features, purpose.

What does the proposed comparable call mean? Suits, length, features, purpose.

 

(feature = high card points and/ or controls)

 

If the call shows the same (or more) suit lengths, similar (or more precise) features or the same purpose then I allow it.

 

If there is a difference and the partner makes use of that difference then I may adjust under 23C/ 27D.

First you have to decide on the comparability of the (proposed, the player can seek your advise) call. And then still there might be a UI case. In my view it’s much better to wait for the outcome and a call from the NOS if they think there has been use of UI. I don’t see how the actual situation is easier and less time consuming for the TD. I find it pretty difficult to explain the CC to players who have trouble understanding the idea., of whom there are many.

[weejonnie]

First you have to decide on the comparability of the (proposed, the player can seek your advise) call. And then still there might be a UI case. In my view it’s much better to wait for the outcome and a call from the NOS if they think there has been use of UI. I don’t see how the actual situation is easier and less time consuming for the TD. I find it pretty difficult to explain the CC to players who have trouble understanding the idea., of whom there are many.

There is No UI in a comparable call case - law 23B. (And yes, it can be difficult to explain a comparable call since most players have probably not come accross it in the 18 months since its release.)

[lamford]

Why did North bid 2H? Pass looks obvious to me.

My guess is that he did not fully understand the "comparable call" rule. And I don't think a TD can really establish whether he does until he calls ... He just, I think, made the call he would have made without the BOOT.