BBO Discussion Forums: Comparable Call - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Comparable Call How much flexibility is allowed?

#41 User is offline   weejonnie 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 666
  • Joined: 2012-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North-east England
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, Pedantary, Trolling,

Posted 2019-January-28, 10:33

View Postlamford, on 2019-January-28, 08:20, said:

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.
The hardest director decisions inevitably are caused by the first failure to call at the appropriate time.
"Funny hand: both sides can make 4 hearts - VM"
No one ever becomes a TD because of the money. They do it because they want to help bridge flourish in their club, region or nation.
Getting rid of one rude player might result in the arrival of four pleasant ones.
0

#42 User is offline   sanst 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 433
  • Joined: 2014-July-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Deventer, The Netherlands

Posted 2019-January-28, 11:00

View Postweejonnie, on 2019-January-28, 10:33, said:

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.
Joost
0

#43 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,400
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2019-January-28, 15:31

View Postweejonnie, on 2019-January-28, 07:16, said:

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?
0

#44 User is offline   weejonnie 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 666
  • Joined: 2012-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North-east England
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, Pedantary, Trolling,

Posted 2019-January-28, 16:57

View Postpescetom, on 2019-January-28, 15:31, said:

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.
The hardest director decisions inevitably are caused by the first failure to call at the appropriate time.
"Funny hand: both sides can make 4 hearts - VM"
No one ever becomes a TD because of the money. They do it because they want to help bridge flourish in their club, region or nation.
Getting rid of one rude player might result in the arrival of four pleasant ones.
0

#45 User is offline   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,771
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2019-January-29, 06:35

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.
0

#46 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,284
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2019-January-29, 07:36

A tangential issue: is offender’s LHO allowed to know whether or not offender has a call that does not bar partner?
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#47 User is offline   BudH 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 356
  • Joined: 2004-April-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Bend, Indiana, USA
  • Interests:Operations Supervisor/Technical Advisor at nuclear power plant, soccer and basketball referee for more than 25 years; GLM; Ex-Head (Game) Director at South Bend (Indiana) Bridge Club; avid student of bridge law and game movements

Posted 2019-January-30, 12:26

View PostVampyr, on 2019-January-29, 07:36, said:

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.
0

#48 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,782
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2019-January-30, 14:02

View PostBudH, on 2019-January-30, 12:26, said:

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

Law 9B2 said:

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?
0

#49 User is offline   BudH 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 356
  • Joined: 2004-April-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Bend, Indiana, USA
  • Interests:Operations Supervisor/Technical Advisor at nuclear power plant, soccer and basketball referee for more than 25 years; GLM; Ex-Head (Game) Director at South Bend (Indiana) Bridge Club; avid student of bridge law and game movements

Posted 2019-January-31, 06:31

View Postpran, on 2019-January-30, 14:02, said:

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”.
0

#50 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,400
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2019-January-31, 10:41

View PostCyberyeti, on 2019-January-29, 06:35, said:

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.
0

#51 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,782
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2019-January-31, 14:49

Law 9B2 said:

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

View Postpran, on 2019-January-30, 14:02, said:

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


View PostBudH, on 2019-January-31, 06:31, said:

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.)
0

#52 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 18,097
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2019-January-31, 17:14

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.

#53 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,284
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2019-January-31, 21:48

View Postnige1, on 2019-January-24, 06:56, said:

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.

Quote


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.

Quote


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.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#54 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,356
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2019-January-31, 23:46

View PostVampyr, on 2019-January-31, 21:48, said:

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.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#55 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,101
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2019-February-01, 02:08

View PostVampyr, on 2019-January-31, 21:48, said:

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?
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
0

#56 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,400
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2019-February-01, 12:22

View Postgordontd, on 2019-February-01, 02:08, said:

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.
0

#57 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,562
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2019-February-01, 20:30

View Postgordontd, on 2019-February-01, 02:08, said:

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.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason. - barmar
0

#58 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,284
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2019-February-01, 22:29

View Postblackshoe, on 2019-January-31, 23:46, said:

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.

View Postgordontd, on 2019-February-01, 02:08, said:

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.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#59 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,284
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2019-February-01, 22:44

View Postblackshoe, on 2019-January-31, 23:46, said:

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?
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#60 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,284
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2019-February-01, 23:15

View Postpescetom, on 2019-February-01, 12:22, said:

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.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users