[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2017-October-11, 09:46, said:

This is one of the main problems with this law. As is the case with doubles becoming penalty, the offenders get another weapon in their arsenal. I don't think that club directors will even know that in such cases an adjusted score must be applied.

So we should tailor the laws to be more friendly to less competent directors? This is precisely the case that the clause that says they should adjust if the infraction allowed them to get an otherwise impossible result was intended for.

[Vampyr]

VixTD, on 2017-October-12, 06:27, said:

I don't understand why "LOL partner" will have to pass for penalties. (Although they could of course choose to do so if they wish.)

It has something to do with being barred.

[Vampyr]

VixTD, on 2017-October-12, 06:27, said:

I agree that these changes to law 27 make life very difficult for club TDs, who generally had a pretty good grasp of the 1997 law. When I taught courses on the 2007 laws I would say to anyone who was struggling that if they could get a good approximation of a 1997 ruling it would be fine in most cases. I feel we've moved too far away from that now.

I think that in practice it should be the same. And in any case, who gets so many insufficient bids that it would become an unfair game if they erred on the side of the NOS?

Perhaps it is the Drafting Committee who are so old and so addled that they have trouble making sufficient bids. That is probably why they are so keen to see that the player suffers no consequences from the infraction.

[VixTD]

Vampyr, on 2017-October-13, 00:23, said:

It has something to do with being barred.

But if partner is barred, double was not a comparable call and so wouldn't have been permitted as a replacement call.

[Vampyr]

VixTD, on 2017-October-13, 06:44, said:

But if partner is barred, double was not a comparable call and so wouldn't have been permitted as a replacement call.

I do not think that there is any situation in which double could be a comparable call.

[VixTD]

Vampyr, on 2017-October-13, 08:04, said:

I do not think that there is any situation in which double could be a comparable call.

I may or may not agree with you there, but if you think that you must not allow them to double, so it won't happen.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2017-October-13, 08:04, said:

I do not think that there is any situation in which double could be a comparable call.

What about the simple case:
1♦ - 1♠ - 1♥

Wouldn't you here (of course dependent upon actual agreements) in most cases accept double as a call that is comparable to 1♥?

In my world this is known as a negative double and most often shows that the doubler would have bid 1♥ had this call been legal.

[MinorKid]

If the double is substituted from an insufficient bid as comparable call, then auction proceed as normal.
If it is not comparable call, then offender must replace it with a final sufficient bid or pass that offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. (2007 Laws)

[blackshoe]

I've already forgotten the 2007 laws.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2017-October-13, 17:47, said:

What about the simple case:
1♦ - 1♠ - 1♥

Wouldn't you here (of course dependent upon actual agreements) in most cases accept double as a call that is comparable to 1♥?

In my world this is known as a negative double and most often shows that the doubler would have bid 1♥ had this call been legal.

Hilarious.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-October-12, 08:20, said:

So we should tailor the laws to be more friendly to less competent directors? This is precisely the case that the clause that says they should adjust if the infraction allowed them to get an otherwise impossible result was intended for.

Well. The vast majority of bridge is played with less competent directors, who might not continue to volunteer if the laws are incomprehensible .

EDIT and hugely difficult for these directors to apply.

[Flem72]

WellSpyder, on 2017-October-10, 02:22, said:

Supposing that the player does indeed say something like this. Under the new laws, should the TD treat that as limiting the comparable bids? Or should the TD treat the issue of comparable bids in the same way that they would have done without the comment, but also take into account the UI?

gordontd, on 2017-October-10, 03:34, said:

My view is that we should treat it as limiting the comparable calls, but I don't think we've had enough cases or discussion to establish a consensus about this. In practice, it's unlikely to cause a problem though, since the information from any such comment will usually match the information given by the replacement call if it has been deemed to be comparable.

There would seem to be a requirement for a lot of layering. 2N-2D:

Suppose a 2D opening would be Flannery. If the 2D bidder says anything that conveys the information that s/he holds opening values -- thus desolving the possibility that s/he meant to call 3D, for instance -- 2D is a problem: Flannery claims opening values and, therefore, creates significant UI.

Suppose a 2D opener would be multi. The same problem exists, but to a lesser degree, as it would normally exclude hands -- for example -- in the 0-5 and 10+ ranges.

The UI has to do with who makes any eventual slam try; the Laws would seem strongly to encourage only CCs that would keep opener in the dark about responder's values until the slam try occurs. On other forums, I have seen the suggestion that the "values" aspect of a comparable call might reasonably be kept within a Q or so until there are enough rulings on this aspect of CC to engender a more solid approach. What is your opinion ?

[Vampyr]

Flem72, on 2017-October-15, 08:54, said:

Suppose a 2D opening would be Flannery. If the 2D bidder says anything that conveys the information that s/he holds opening values -- thus desolving the possibility that s/he meant to call 3D, for instance -- 2D is a problem: Flannery claims opening values and, therefore, creates significant UI.

Yes, comments are a problem and will largely make comparable calls impossible. I think that you are supposed to say something along the lines of "if you mean to show hearts you may make a call that shows hearts. If you mean to show diamonds you may make a call that shows diamonds." Of course this assumes the pair play transfers.

Quote

Suppose a 2D opener would be multi. The same problem exists, but to a lesser degree, as it would normally exclude hands -- for example -- in the 0-5 and 10+ ranges.

If you made no comments you are in luck if your weak two was in hearts!

[Flem72]

barmar, on 2017-October-10, 10:04, said: I'm a little unsure about the Flannery->Smolen replacement, though, because it's not a single call but a series of calls.

gordontd, on 2017-October-10, 10:49, said:

I was just about to pick you up on this point before I saw you had done it yourself. I don't think it should be allowed as it's the sequence that is needed to have the same meaning, not just a single call.

I'm confused. Are you saying that a call that initiates a sequence that shows the same hand as shown by a single call -- e.g., Flannery -- should not be allowed? So that, if the partnership had a call directly over 2N that showed 4=5, it would be OK, but a series of calls that showed the same hand would not? I'd tend to want allow the sequence, but then the Laws do say "comparable call."

[Flem72]

Vampyr, on 2017-October-15, 09:17, said:

Yes, comments are a problem and will largely make comparable calls impossible. I think that you are supposed to say something along the lines of "if you mean to show hearts you may make a call that shows hearts. If you mean to show diamonds you may make a call that shows diamonds." Of course this assumes the pair play transfers.


If you made no comments you are in luck if your weak two was in hearts!

The more interesting question is: Comment or none, would you be allowed to transfer to spades? I think so....

[Vampyr]

Flem72, on 2017-October-15, 09:41, said:

The more interesting question is: Comment or none, would you be allowed to transfer to spades? I think so....

How can this possibly be comparable?

[gordontd]

Flem72, on 2017-October-15, 09:39, said:

I'm confused. Are you saying that a call that initiates a sequence that shows the same hand as shown by a single call -- e.g., Flannery -- should not be allowed? So that, if the partnership had a call directly over 2N that showed 4=5, it would be OK, but a series of calls that showed the same hand would not?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Quite apart from the law saying "calls", you never know when you start a sequence if you are going to be allowed to finish it.

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2017-October-15, 10:26, said:

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Quite apart from the law saying "calls", you never know when you start a sequence if you are going to be allowed to finish it.

Right. Suppose you replace your insufficient Flannery with a sufficient Stayman, planning on using Smolen, but opener surprises you and bids a major, which you then raise. You've never actually made the comparable call.

On the other hand, is there any actual damage from this? Partner has UI about your major shape, but he hasn't used it. The opponents have AI about it, which they're free to use if they want; and your hand will most likely be on the table pretty soon.

I'm starting to warm to the idea that the best solution is to just cancel the IB, have them replace it with a legal call, and warn partner not to make use of any UI from the IB. But that's not the Law we have, we'll have to wait a decade before it becomes a possibility. Until then, I think we should just be liberal in interpreting CC.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-October-15, 18:54, said:

I'm starting to warm to the idea that the best solution is to just cancel the IB, have them replace it with a legal call, and warn partner not to make use of any UI from the IB. to pass throughout. But that's not the Law we have, we'll have to wait a decade before it becomes a possibility. Until then, I think we should just be liberal in interpreting CC.

FYP

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2017-October-15, 21:40, said:

FYP

No you didn't. The direction the Laws have been moving in regarding IB and BOOT is to try to get a normal bridge result, not penalizing the player for the slip, and I agree with this intent. As long as partner doesn't take advantage of UI, while the withdrawn call is AI to the opponents, why should partner be barred all the time? Making the IBer guess the final contract feels like an overly severe punishment, and the Lawmakers apparently agree.