[pilun]

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

[sanst]

IMNSHO the whole concept of a ‘comparable call’ is useless. Both WBFLC and ACBL have published guidelines that more often than not don’t cover the situation you have to deal with. Besides it costs so much time that at a club nobody really cares about the necessary deliberations. If called I will decide that the bid should be replaced by a sufficient one, let the auction continue, warn the OS about the use of UI and award an AS afterwards, if necessary. In case of a COOT I choose a similar solution.

[helene_t]

Case 1: dbl is not comparable, unless maybe the "overcaller" is playing Polish Club.

Case 2: if they play Walsh I think dbl is comparable. Otherwise I am not sure. Depends how serious the event is.

[pescetom]

Case 1: you're stuck, following the laws literally (although Italian TD guidance is to allow 2C if it would show clubs)

Case 2: both double (whether or not it also promises diamonds) and 2H are comparable (WBF dixit).

[pilun]

 pescetom, on 2023-March-06, 08:52, said:

Case 2: both double (whether or not it also promises diamonds) and 2H are comparable (WBF dixit).

Even if double does not promise hearts? That is, if there are quite rare hands without four hearts where double is the correct system call.

[pescetom]

 pilun, on 2023-March-06, 14:40, said:

Even if double does not promise hearts? That is, if there are quite rare hands without four hearts where double is the correct system call.

The WBF Laws Commentary explicitly authorises this substitution. The text assumes that this double would normally either show 4+ card hearts or hearts plus diamonds. I concur that if a pair wrote on a system card that this double can be made at opening strength without promising at least 4 card hearts (not an agreement many would want to play) then it is not comparable.

[helene_t]

 pilun, on 2023-March-06, 14:40, said:

Even if double does not promise hearts? That is, if there are quite rare hands without four hearts where double is the correct system call.

Yes, you can substitute X for 1♥ if X contains all the hands that would have bid 1♥. Whether X also contains other hands (i.e. without hands) is not an issue.

The logic is that the insufficient 1♥ bid doesn't give any UI if it only contains a subset of the hands that would make the sufficient X call.

And then apparently WBF also allows some substitutions where 1♥ isn't quite a subset of X.

Edit: lol sorry I have it upside down, Mycroft explains it

This post has been edited by helene_t: 2023-March-14, 06:50

[pilun]

 helene_t, on 2023-March-07, 02:47, said:

Yes, you can substitute X for 1♥ if Z contains all the hands that would have bid 1♥. Whether X also contains other hands (i.e. without hands) is not an issue.

The logic is that the insufficient 1♥ bid doesn't give any UI if it only contains a subset of the hands that would make the sufficient X call.

And then apparently WBF also allows some substitutions where 1♥ isn't quite a subset of X.

I think I see. If double contains all the hands that would have bid 1♥, it's okay.
I was hung up over "Subset" and still am.

If it goes 1♣ - (2♠) - 1♥, there might be a problem with double, because some weak hands that would have bid 1♥ are not strong enough to double. Then you go back to double as a subset of the 1♥ hands. (Not the other way round)

[barmar]

 pilun, on 2023-March-08, 17:10, said:

I was hung up over "Subset" and still am.

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.

[mycroft]

I do not think this sequence is correct (helene and pilun, at least), and it is a very hard thing to get right in your head.

The intent is that *the withdrawn call* passes "no" information not present in the made call. Not the other way around. So your replacement call can be more restrictive than the withdrawn call, but not add hands.

So double in the 1♣-(1♠)-1♥ case is acceptable (if not playing NFB) *because* weak hands might have bid 1♥ and not double (and can pass instead, accepting the "must pass"), and "10+ and 5+" would have bid 1♥ but will bid 2♥ now - but there are "no" hands that would double (showing hearts) that wouldn't have bid 1♥ in the auction responder thought she was having (I assume 1♣-p-1♥, but would check at (away from) the table). "No" in quotes, because some might have bid 2♥ SJS or other rare hands.

And you can decide to lie with a hand not quite strong enough to double and we won't get on your case, because that way we can have a real auction - unless it is so big a lie as to trigger 23C.

What you explicitly can't do is make a call where "all hands that would have bid (withdrawn call) would (do this), *but also* a bunch of other hands." Because that means the information from the withdrawn call is relevant. Hence the "not playing NFB" line - "I have hearts or any 11+, but we all know it's the former because of the insufficient bid." But the NFB *would* be considered comparable - because "4+hearts, 6+ HCP" passes no information not contained in "4+hearts, 6-10 HCP". That is, 2♥ shows a subset of the hands that 1♥ would have shown in the "wrong" auction.

And we allow some things that are not strict "subset" because keeping a real auction is worth the odd little cheat (again, we have 23C to save us if necessary). So, 1♥ OOT in third seat can become 1♣-(1♠)-2♥ (in the ACBL at least), because "5+ hearts, good 11+" and "5+ hearts, 10+" is "close enough". But that's more of an interpretation of "what we really want" from the various Laws Committees ("Don't be a mathematician about it, be a bridge player") needed because, frankly, there are too many that prefer "the opponents did something wrong, we get a good score" to "play bridge if possible" (at least, when it's not them that did something wrong).

[weejonnie]

 pescetom, on 2023-March-06, 08:52, said:

Case 1: you're stuck, following the laws literally (although Italian TD guidance is to allow 2C if it would show clubs)

Case 2: both double (whether or not it also promises diamonds) and 2H are comparable (WBF dixit).

2H would also qualify as the lowest bid that shows the same denomination(s)- it does not have to be comparable (and partner is even allowed to know that the original bid was 1H.

[pescetom]

An interesting insufficient call that cropped up yesterday.
East is dealer and opens:

1♠ - (2♥) - 1NT(Director!)

North does not accept the call.

West says he thought the suits were both at 1 level and he intended to bid 1NT.
He holds ♠J3 ♥QJ97 ♦754 ♣A983.

EW have a system card which indicates that 1NT is 15-17 and 1X (1Y) 1NT is natural with a stop in Y.
1♠ - (2♥) - 2NT is a 4 card raise INV+.
1♠ - (2♥) - 3♥ is a 3 card raise INV+.
1♠ - (2♥) - X promises 8-12 HCP (3♣/3♦ would be Negative Free Bids)

Your instructions are to be liberal in allowing Comparable Calls.
Is anyone going to give some call the green light here?

[jillybean]

No

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2023-April-19, 10:59, said:

No

I agree 100% (with or without being liberal), but not all my colleagues do - so interested in other replies.

[blackshoe]

It would help to know with what call West wants to replace 1NT.

[pescetom]

 blackshoe, on 2023-April-19, 13:13, said:

It would help to know with what call West wants to replace 1NT.

West wanted to replace 1NT with Double showing balance of points.
I have a colleague who would allow 2NT, which I doubt would interest West anyway.

[smerriman]

I don't see how it could even be considered. 1NT showed a heart stopper, and double does not.

If they had claimed that they hadn't heard the interference, maybe they had more of a case for appealing to your being liberal (even though the laws still wouldn't allow it).

[pescetom]

 smerriman, on 2023-April-19, 13:47, said:

I don't see how it could even be considered. 1NT showed a heart stopper, and double does not.

Agreed.

 smerriman, on 2023-April-19, 13:47, said:

If they had claimed that they hadn't heard the interference, maybe they had more of a case for appealing to your being liberal (even though the laws still wouldn't allow it).

Not so sure here, although it wasn't the case. Why would you say the laws do not allow Double if 1NT thought RHO had passed? (Even without liberality, I would exclude a small difference in HCP minimum).

[smerriman]

Maybe you're right - I was thinking of the subset rule but of course there's also the 'similar call', which has an argument here.

[blackshoe]

I don't see double as comparable to 1NT.