Comparable calls

[bobtehnoob]

Case 1

 

(1♣) - 1♣

 

this is a funky one and depends heavily on agreements

 

if you're playing sa/2o1 and 2+ for a 1♣ opener you are generally relegated to 2♣ or 1NT since double generally does not (should not?) promise 2+ clubs. if 1♣ necessarily promises no 4c major then you don't really have a call that is valid for subset condition, since you don't really have a functional way to show exactly: 2+c, 3- h and a, AND opening points

 

this gets really tricky if 1c shows 3+ though

 

that being said, I believe acbl rules permit upgrading the bid to the adequate level to be "good enough" of a comparable call, but with obvious UI consequences afterwards. this is a situation where I'd have to see the offender and their partner's hands to know what is and isnt allowable, but depending on agreements I'd lean towards 1nt showing strength and 2+ clubs or 2c "just bid it at the lowest legal level" being fine enough but with some restrictions on bidding (ie, if they have an agreement that stayman is on when nt is overcalled, offender's partner MUST bid stayman to ask with an appropriate hand) and then it's offender and partner's job to disentangle themselves from where they end up

 

I think it's fine as a once-or-twice shortcut solution to just have offender correct their bid to 2c and have a tableside announcement that this is not Michaels, but a correction of an insufficient bid.

 

Case 2

1♣ - (1♠) - 1♥

 

double is fine and most people would agree that it is close enough even if some may do it with 3 hearts and a stronger hand

 

Case 3

1♠ - (2♥) - 1NT(Director!)

 

if I am being liberal, I would be ok with x, presumably opener would check for stoppers with 3h if strong enough, and the hand certainly would suit such a double if the insufficient bid wasn't made

 

I would want to see opener's hand though and make sure they aren't making an invitational 2n bid without a stopper in hand already (aka using the UI that partner has a heart stopper)

[BudH]

The Law Commission members are not mathematicians, I don't think they intended that to be taken so literally.

 

If you could draw a Venn diagram of the set of hands shown by the two calls and most of the replacement is contained in the original, that should be close enough.

 

I was just told in an ACBL director course in the last two weeks that the "subset option" is not "large majority". It has to be completely within.

 

Here is a key quote from our course material:

 

"Any of the three definitions in Law 23 may be used to rule a call comparable, but they are independent tests. They should not be mixed together in an attempt to find a way to allow a call as comparable. For example, 23A2 refers to a subset. Subset has a definite meaning: for a call to be defined as a subset, all the meanings of the replacement call must fit into the meaning of the withdrawn call (the replacement call shows only some of the hands the original call showed, and none that the original call didn’t show). There is no such thing as “more or less similar to a subset.”

[BudH]

I'm sure this has been covered, so apologies for asking again.

 

Case 1

 

(1♣) - 1♣

 

Not condoned.

I don't see how the "overcalling" side can do much here.

Double is a thought but there are plenty of doubling hands that would not have opened 1♣.

Would North have a chance if their 1♣ is the modern "2+, either long clubs or balanced, no 4cM"?

Are they stuffed?

 

Case 2

1♣ - (1♠) - 1♥

 

A good change in the Laws is being able to replace an insufficient bid with a negative double.

Say East has a 7-count with four hearts, so doesn't want to bid 2♥.

Perfect but there are issues.

 

♠xxx ♥AKx ♦KQx ♣Jxxx

 

What should East do after 1♣ - (1♠) ?

 

Put it to a bidding forum and you will get votes for double, even if that "guarantees" four hearts.

So maybe double is only a 95% subset of the hands that would have bid 1♥ if legal.

Is that rare possibility enough to make it incomparable?

 

TIA

 

Case 1: Assuming 2♣ is Michaels, if 3♣ is natural, even if it shows a weak hand with long clubs that would not typically open the bidding 1♣, then 3♣ as the cheapest bid that shows clubs can be chosen by offender to keep offender's partner from being required to pass for the rest of the auction. Law 27B1(a).

 

Case 2: Per Law 23A1, a negative double is comparable.

[barmar]

I was just told in an ACBL director course in the last two weeks that the "subset option" is not "large majority". It has to be completely within.

 

Here is a key quote from our course material:

 

"Any of the three definitions in Law 23 may be used to rule a call comparable, but they are independent tests. They should not be mixed together in an attempt to find a way to allow a call as comparable. For example, 23A2 refers to a subset. Subset has a definite meaning: for a call to be defined as a subset, all the meanings of the replacement call must fit into the meaning of the withdrawn call (the replacement call shows only some of the hands the original call showed, and none that the original call didn’t show). There is no such thing as “more or less similar to a subset.”

I think the wiggle room comes from the fact that the definition of a call doesn't define a set of hands precisely in the first place, bid meanings are usually fuzzy.

[pescetom]

I think the wiggle room comes from the fact that the definition of a call doesn't define a set of hands precisely in the first place, bid meanings are usually fuzzy.

 

I think everyone has agreed that 2017 Comparable Calls is a dead man walking.

The wiggle room is what we put in its place.