[pescetom]

I Guess it depends partly upon propension to double with a strong hand (I don't see these players doing that here, but it's not a method I play and I certainly would ask if necessary).

This is a good example of why it is necessary to understand what the offender thought he was doing (which in turn is reason to consider it a poor law, IMO). I have seen EBU discussion where it was argued that TD should never ask and should condone a substitution if there was any possible intention that led to it being comparable, but that seems self serving to me (and in contradiction to the Commentary, IIRC).

[weejonnie]

pescetom, on 2023-April-19, 09:31, said:

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?

Yes 3NT (assuming it is natural). (Lowest call showing the same denominations) - Can still adjust of course if needed, but no UI regarding the actual bids.

[pescetom]

--

[Gilithin]

Case 1: Just because someone makes an IB of 1♣ does not mean that they intended this as an opening. It can happen that they intended to bid 2♣ Michaels and had a brain fart (or indeed a slip of the hand, or a misclick). Assuming that they actually do hold clubs, if they play in the French style - 2♦ as Michaels and 2♣ natural - the hand might qualify for a 2♣ overcall, which would probably be more or less a strict subset of a 1♣ opening. Similarly for a pair playing a natural, intermediate 3♣ overcall. Obviously in these cases it is potentially nebulous whether the replacement is being made under 27B1a or 27B1b.

Case 2: In Acol country the hand is an easy 2♠ response, showing a good raise. In many parts of the 5cM world, a cue does not guarantee a fit so there 2♠ is also ok. As a general rule, when you have a choice between misleading partner about major length or minor length, it is better to mislead about a minor unless you have a way of controlling the auction in the event of partner raising your faked major. If you are concerned about the side-effects of negative doubles, I would suggest exploring them in a different forum though.

Case 3: X shows a hand of a completely different character to 1NT and therefore does not seem to fall into any of the categories of 23A. Weejonnie's solution works but can still occasionally lead to issues if the resulting AI allows the pair to stop in a making contract that would not have been available to them otherwise (27D).

[mycroft]

Note 2NT may be allowed under 27B1a (and 27D), without getting to B1b Comparable call.

I have issues with this, but I work with several who say "cheapest NT is always legal, no matter what the system says, 27B1a. If the meaning is so different that it's a 'different call', that's what 27D is for."

[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]

barmar, on 2023-March-08, 17:33, said:

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]

pilun, on 2023-March-05, 21:49, said:

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]

BudH, on 2023-May-28, 12:42, said:

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]

barmar, on 2023-June-01, 15:25, said:

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.