[hirowla]

Hi,

I just want to clarify something about the new law 27B1(a) and some suggestions about how to explain it to club players when you get called. Please ignore the comparable call part of the law for this question.

Imagine a bidding sequence of 1NT - P - 1H (not accepted). Assuming that transfers are used, I gather that a 2D bid would be acceptable under 27B1(a)? And 2H would be unacceptable as it means spades? This is quite different from the old law as you could simply accept 2H in the past provided it wasn't artificial ( I realise it is in this case).

In terms of explaining it, would you say something like this for this example (after you have offered whether it is accepted):

"You may make any bid of 2NT or below that shows the same suits as you meant with your original bid, or you may make a comparable bid to your 1H bid, or you may make any other call including pass but if you choose this option your partner will be required to pass for the rest of the auction and if you are a defender there may be lead penalties".

I'm vague about the hat the first bid means because the meaning of the first (insufficient) bid would be UI to the offender's partner.

Any ideas?

Thanks,

Ian

[barmar]

I think the idea is supposed to be that "comparable bid" means roughly the same thing as "shows the same suits as you meant with your original bid", so they're not two different options.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2017-September-16, 11:40, said:

I think the idea is supposed to be that "comparable bid" means roughly the same thing as "shows the same suits as you meant with your original bid", so they're not two different options.

The one time I ruled on this was an OBOOT and I told the opener that if he made a call at his turn that gave no more information than his original call, then his partner would not be barred. I also mentioned to his partner that he should pretend he had not seen his partner's OBOOT. Mentioning "UI" and "comparable call" would just confuse, I suspect.

[hirowla]

 barmar, on 2017-September-16, 11:40, said:

I think the idea is supposed to be that "comparable bid" means roughly the same thing as "shows the same suits as you meant with your original bid", so they're not two different options.

Comparable bid is 27B1(b). I'm comfortable with that but trying to clarify (a).

I know that in this example changing the bid to 4D is not permitted under (a) as it isn't at the lowest level, but could be accepted as a comparable bid (if it is a Texas transfer).

[weejonnie]

 hirowla, on 2017-September-16, 17:44, said:

Comparable bid is 27B1(b). I'm comfortable with that but trying to clarify (a).

I know that in this example changing the bid to 4D is not permitted under (a) as it isn't at the lowest level, but could be accepted as a comparable bid (if it is a Texas transfer).

Assuming that the 1♥ call showed opening values and a heart suit then I don't see any reason why 3♥ or 4♦ (if showing strength to open at the one level, which it would opposite a weak NT, but not necessarily over a strong one) would not be accepted.

If, on the other hand, you would bid 4♦ on, say, 7 hearts to the AK and nothing else then it is not a comparable call. (You could bid 4♥ knowing partner is going to be silenced, of course)

[lamford]

 weejonnie, on 2017-September-17, 02:21, said:

Assuming that the 1♥ call showed opening values and a heart suit then I don't see any reason why 3♥ or 4♦ (if showing strength to open at the one level, which it would opposite a weak NT, but not necessarily over a strong one) would not be accepted.

If, on the other hand, you would bid 4♦ on, say, 7 hearts to the AK and nothing else then it is not a comparable call. (You could bid 4♥ knowing partner is going to be silenced, of course)

That is the case if 1♥ was an attempt to open out of turn, but that would be strange as the IBer would have had to have mistaken both the dealer and the auction consisting of two calls. More likely it was just a brain error. I have been keeping a record of 1Bs at a North London Club, since the requirement for the TD to find out what the person thought the auction was. In 80% of cases, 7 out of 9 to be precise, they thought that the auction was exactly what it was. They shrugged if you asked them why they bid 1H in response to 1NT. IF they intended to transfer to spades, they would say, of course. I don't think it is at all likely that the call showed opening values, and it is much more likely that it either showed responding values and a heart suit or not necessarily any values and a spade suit (missing by a level). The whole concept of "comparable call" is inherently flawed as there is no comparable call to the actual auction 1NT - Pass - 1♥, which has no meaning.

[axman]

 lamford, on 2017-September-17, 05:15, said:

That is the case if 1♥ was an attempt to open out of turn, but that would be strange as the IBer would have had to have mistaken both the dealer and the auction consisting of two calls. More likely it was just a brain error. I have been keeping a record of 1Bs at a North London Club, since the requirement for the TD to find out what the person thought the auction was. In 80% of cases, 7 out of 9 to be precise, they thought that the auction was exactly what it was. They shrugged if you asked them why they bid 1H in response to 1NT. IF they intended to transfer to spades, they would say, of course. I don't think it is at all likely that the call showed opening values, and it is much more likely that it either showed responding values and a heart suit or not necessarily any values and a spade suit (missing by a level). The whole concept of "comparable call" is inherently flawed as there is no comparable call to the actual auction 1NT - Pass - 1♥, which has no meaning.

I would expect that the concept of CC is flawed but not because (for instance)1NT - Pass - 1H, which has no meaning. As, mathematically, it is not necessary for there to be a CC for every auction. Supposedly, when a CC happens to exist there is a way that avoids penalizing.

[barmar]

This is a problem that existed in the old laws, and hasn't really been fixed -- partnerships don't have agreements about the meanings of insufficient bids, so any reference to some other call having the same or similar meaning is tough to interpret. The TD still has to determine what the IBer intended; the change is in how he determines what replacement calls are allowed once he does this.

[gordontd]

 barmar, on 2017-September-18, 12:52, said:

This is a problem that existed in the old laws, and hasn't really been fixed -- partnerships don't have agreements about the meanings of insufficient bids, so any reference to some other call having the same or similar meaning is tough to interpret. The TD still has to determine what the IBer intended; the change is in how he determines what replacement calls are allowed once he does this.

But the new laws don't refer to the "same of similar meaning". 27B1a just talks about the same denomination being specified, which should be fairly straightforward to determine in an objective way without referring to the intention of the player. When it comes to 27B1b, we are looking (usually) for a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call, and once again this doesn't require us to know what the player intended. All that is necessary is that the replacement call has essentially the same meaning as any one of those meanings that could have been attributed to the insufficient bid.

[gordontd]

 hirowla, on 2017-September-16, 08:11, said:

In terms of explaining it, would you say something like this for this example (after you have offered whether it is accepted):

"You may make any bid of 2NT or below that shows the same suits as you meant with your original bid, or you may make a comparable bid to your 1H bid, or you may make any other call including pass but if you choose this option your partner will be required to pass for the rest of the auction and if you are a defender there may be lead penalties".

I don't think you should say "2NT or below" as that confuses things. Why not just say "the lowest sufficient bid that shows hearts"? They will know what that bid is for them. Also, to improve clarity when explaining the options, I would end your sentence after "1H bid" and then start a new sentence with "Failing either of those options, you may make any other legal call except double, but in that case your partner would be required to pass..."

[barmar]

 gordontd, on 2017-September-19, 05:38, said:

But the new laws don't refer to the "same of similar meaning". 27B1a just talks about the same denomination being specified, which should be fairly straightforward to determine in an objective way without referring to the intention of the player.

How do you know which denomination was specified if you don't know the intention of the player? If 1♥ was meant as a transfer, it specifies spades; if it was meant as an opening bid (the offender didn't see the 1NT bid), it specifies hearts.

This is the difference between "denomination specified" and "denomination named".

[gordontd]

 barmar, on 2017-September-19, 08:32, said:

How do you know which denomination was specified if you don't know the intention of the player? If 1♥ was meant as a transfer, it specifies spades; if it was meant as an opening bid (the offender didn't see the 1NT bid), it specifies hearts.

This is the difference between "denomination specified" and "denomination named".

Just give the player the options, phrased as in the laws, and let them decide. If they want more assistance, take them away from the table.

[barmar]

 gordontd, on 2017-September-19, 08:38, said:

Just give the player the options, phrased as in the laws, and let them decide. If they want more assistance, take them away from the table.

So the TD doesn't have to determine if the option actually applies? I suppose if we're going to take their word for what they intended, this is essentially the same thing.

Just make sure they also understand the distinction between "specified" and "named".

[aguahombre]

If the intent of L27 is really to try for equity, not just give lip service to equity, the whole idea of 'comparable call' would be deemed not applicable to this given scenario.

I have opened 1nt -- setting our nt structure of responses and rebids in motion. If the auction is not competitive thereafter, there is virtually no UI which is useful to me. If later I have been given decision to make, I am not allowed to use the UI to sway that decision. Otherwise the UI is just plain irrelevant.

If partner bid 4♦ I can only bid 4♥. No damage.
If partner bids 2♦, I accept or super accept; no problem.
Even if Partner bids Stayman, there is no useful UI which won't be duplicated by future AI.

Even in the extreme case which follows, there is no harm:

1) I know partner intended to open 1♥ (which I don't) AND
2) she bids Stayman, so I know she has 4 spades and five or more hearts.

I'm still going to answer Stayman appropriately, and Partner will bid game if I bid a Major or make a slam try; if I bid 2d, partner will duplicate the UI with AI.

There is more, but you get the idea.

[hirowla]

 gordontd, on 2017-September-19, 05:51, said:

I don't think you should say "2NT or below" as that confuses things. Why not just say "the lowest sufficient bid that shows hearts"? They will know what that bid is for them. Also, to improve clarity when explaining the options, I would end your sentence after "1H bid" and then start a new sentence with "Failing either of those options, you may make any other legal call except double, but in that case your partner would be required to pass..."

The reason I was suggesting saying 2NT or below is that it is possible that offenders partner may not know what the suits are (I believe the withdrawn bid is UI) and I don't want to reveal what the suits involved are. I would have talked to the offender to find out the suits they meant away from the table, so I can judge the decision made. It does feel awkward hence why I'm asking for suggestions! The 2nd part of your suggestion I will definitely use.

[weejonnie]

 aguahombre, on 2017-September-19, 11:07, said:

If the intent of L27 is really to try for equity, not just give lip service to equity, the whole idea of 'comparable call' would be deemed not applicable to this given scenario.

I have opened 1nt -- setting our nt structure of responses and rebids in motion. If the auction is not competitive thereafter, there is virtually no UI which is useful to me. If later I have been given decision to make, I am not allowed to use the UI to sway that decision. Otherwise the UI is just plain irrelevant.

If partner bid 4♦ I can only bid 4♥. No damage.
If partner bids 2♦, I accept or super accept; no problem.
Even if Partner bids Stayman, there is no useful UI which won't be duplicated by future AI.

Even in the extreme case which follows, there is no harm:

1) I know partner intended to open 1♥ (which I don't) AND
2) she bids Stayman, so I know she has 4 spades and five or more hearts.

I'm still going to answer Stayman appropriately, and Partner will bid game if I bid a Major or make a slam try; if I bid 2d, partner will duplicate the UI with AI.

There is more, but you get the idea.

Whilst this is logical and understandable, regrettably it is not the law. The law cannot specify multiple specific cases, due to the plethroa of meanings at any point in the auction, only a broad generality. You would have to specify a 'captain making call' as a subset of allowed changes of call - in other words you can change an IB or BOOT to a call if the new call assumes captaincy and for the rest of the auction demands responses from partner (usually after a limit bid).

Not impossible, but I would like to see the wording.

[lamford]

 gordontd, on 2017-September-19, 05:38, said:

All that is necessary is that the replacement call has essentially the same meaning as any one of those meanings that could have been attributed to the insufficient bid.

So, if the auction did begin 1NT-(Pass)-1H, would you allow this to be replaced by any of 2D* (transfer), 2H* (transfer), 4D* (transfer), 4H* (transfer), 4H (natural) or 4S (natural)? All of these meanings could have been attributed to the insufficient bid.

[aguahombre]

 weejonnie, on 2017-September-20, 02:38, said:

Whilst this is logical and understandable, regrettably it is not the law. The law cannot specify multiple specific cases

My post was not an interpretation of the law, it was a criticism. It indeed cannot specify multiple specific cases, but it could cover all cases.

Back up the auction to the correct Dealer. Establish that the COOT is AI to the opponents and UI to the offender's partner. Get on with it.

If it is determined that damage resulted from 'not carefully avoiding using the UI to advantage', adjust.


Edit: Sorry, I misdirected from an insufficient bid to a call out of turn. But, the same approach could be taken in either situation if the goal were truly to restore normal.

[weejonnie]

 aguahombre, on 2017-September-20, 09:18, said:

My post was not an interpretation of the law, it was a criticism. It indeed cannot specify multiple specific cases, but it could cover all cases.

Back up the auction to the correct Dealer. Establish that the COOT is AI to the opponents and UI to the offender's partner. Get on with it.

If it is determined that damage resulted from 'not carefully avoiding using the UI to advantage', adjust.


Edit: Sorry, I misdirected from an insufficient bid to a call out of turn. But, the same approach could be taken in either situation if the goal were truly to restore normal.

I knew it was a general discussion, the difficulty would be how to implement it into a legal framework.

I think that at the moment, players should be grateful that in many, if not the majority of cases, the partnership will not be unduly hamstrung by an IB or BOOT. Just remember the previous situation.

[aguahombre]

 weejonnie, on 2017-September-21, 11:58, said:

.. the difficulty would be how to implement it into a legal framework.

It could be done, IMO; and I kind of showed how (above). But I will separate the two situations and paraphrase.

1) For an unaccepted call out of turn :
Back up the auction to the correct Dealer. Establish that the COOT is AI to the opponents and UI to the offender's partner. Get on with it.
If it is determined that damage resulted from 'not carefully avoiding using the UI to advantage', adjust.

2) For an unaccepted insufficient bid:
Establish that the IB is AI to the opponents and UI to the offender's partner. Have the offender make a sufficient bid.
If it is determined that damage resulted from 'not carefully avoiding using the UI to advantage', adjust.

All the verbage about comparable bids only needs enter the picture if determining whether UI was in fact used.