[shevek]

See below!

---

Strange pass by East as dealer but normal contract and result.

Thing is ....
WEST had opened 1♠ out of turn, not accepted.

Auction reverts to East, who thought along these lines, when given the options for the partnership:

"If I open 1♦, partner will have to find a comparable response to a 1♠ opening.
Can't be 1♠. Nor 2♠, since we play weak jump shifts. I think he will bid 3NT, which won't be best.
How about I pass and raise his 1♠ opening to game!"

Good thinking? Or .....

[blackshoe]

 shevek, on 2018-August-22, 21:02, said:

Good thinking? Or .....

Quote

Law 16C: When a call or play has been withdrawn as these laws provide:
1. For a non-offending side, all information arising from a withdrawn action is authorized, whether the action be its own or its opponents’.
2. For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of an offending side may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative.
3. The Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C1) if he considers that a violation of C2 has damaged the non-offending side.

[sanst]

Aa clear case of f the most flagrant use of UI, but so naive, that it makes me smile. I would explain to E what is and, more importantly, what isn’t allowed. To make things worse, if E had opened 1♦ W could have bid 1♠ with no restrictions for E. E should have answered 2♠, W would have finished the auction with 4♠, no harm done. If necessary, there is Law 23C.

[sfi]

 sanst, on 2018-August-23, 03:39, said:

To make things worse, if E had opened 1♦ W could have bid 1♠ with no restrictions for E. E should have answered 2♠, W would have finished the auction with 4♠, no harm done.

I would not allow a 1S response to 1D as a call comparable to a 1S opening. East would have UI that West has 5+ spades (not four) and an opening hand (rather than just 5+ or whatever their range is). The first discrepancy is debatable, but the second one clearly makes the call not comparable. Given the information provided, East was right to think that they would be be required to pass on the next round of the auction.

[blackshoe]

 sfi, on 2018-August-23, 05:13, said:

I would not allow a 1S response to 1D as a call comparable to a 1S opening. East would have UI that West has 5+ spades (not four) and an opening hand (rather than just 5+ or whatever their range is). The first discrepancy is debatable, but the second one clearly makes the call not comparable. Given the information provided, East was right to think that they would be be required to pass on the next round of the auction.

If you're right, then aren't you saying that in this case at least, once West opens out of turn, there is no way to get a "bridge result" on the hand? If the purpose of the comparable call law is to get a bridge result more often than under the previous laws should we not conclude that the law has failed to achieve that purpose?

Does 23A3 apply only to artificial bids? What is the purpose of a natural bid. Seems to me that the purpose is to suggest playing in that suit, at the level bid or higher according to partner's hand. On that basis a 1!S opening bid and a 1!S response to a 1!D opening bid have the same purpose. I'm not certain that's the intent of this law, but it could certainly be read that way.

I also don't think that "East has UI" is a valid argument against whether a 1!S response is comparable to the withdrawn 1!S opening in the case. Of course East has UI. East will always have UI when West opens out of turn and his call is withdrawn. If "East has UI" is a valid argument against "comparable call" then there can never be a comparable call, and again the law fails. That can't be right either.

[barmar]

It seems like the Comparable Call definition works against purpose in this case. None of the definitions in Law 23A really fit.

Quote

has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call

Other than showing spades, there's not much similarity between opening 1♠ and responding 1♠.

Quote

defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call

This is the opposite: the withdrawn call's meaning is a subset of the replacement.

Quote

has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the withdrawn call.

This is mainly intended for artificial calls, so doesn't apply here. I don't think we can consider "suggest spades as a denomination" to be "the same purpose" of both bids and ignore all the other details of their meanings.

This seems unfortunate to me. It feels like we should allow west to respond 1♠. I don't think the UI issue is relevant, as East is required to ignore the UI and bid as if West is only showing 4+♠ and 5+ HCP. If he were to make a 3-card raise when there are other LAs, or jump to game with a minimum opening, those would be UI violations. But if they end up in game via a normal route, which would be likely with the given hands, we get a normal bridge result and "no harm, no foul" should apply.

But it doesn't seem like the Laws as written allow this.

[pescetom]

 blackshoe, on 2018-August-23, 06:20, said:

If you're right, then aren't you saying that in this case at least, once West opens out of turn, there is no way to get a "bridge result" on the hand? If the purpose of the comparable call law is to get a bridge result more often than under the previous laws should we not conclude that the law has failed to achieve that purpose?

The interesting thing about "The Emperor's New Clothes" is that the Emperor continues the procession even after the child points out that he is wearing nothing at all

[gordontd]

 blackshoe, on 2018-August-23, 06:20, said:

If you're right, then aren't you saying that in this case at least, once West opens out of turn, there is no way to get a "bridge result" on the hand? If the purpose of the comparable call law is to get a bridge result more often than under the previous laws should we not conclude that the law has failed to achieve that purpose?

"More often" <> "always".

West would have a comparable call available in this case if they were playing strong jump shifts.

[barmar]

 gordontd, on 2018-August-23, 09:25, said:

"More often" <> "always".

West would have a comparable call available in this case if they were playing strong jump shifts.

True, but not very usefull. In the modern style, a SJS shows a slam-invitational hand, not just a game force. Yes, that's a subset of the hands that would open 1♠ (I'm ignoring the fact that some SJS hands would be strong enough to open 2♣, since you're extremely unlikely to have that opposite an opening hand), but he's risking getting too high. So he has a choice of making a CC that may get them too high, or passing and missing game.

[gordontd]

 barmar, on 2018-August-23, 09:43, said:

True, but not very usefull. In the modern style, a SJS shows a slam-invitational hand, not just a game force. Yes, that's a subset of the hands that would open 1♠ (I'm ignoring the fact that some SJS hands would be strong enough to open 2♣, since you're extremely unlikely to have that opposite an opening hand), but he's risking getting too high. So he has a choice of making a CC that may get them too high, or passing and missing game.

Or punting game, which is what most would do.

[sanst]

 barmar, on 2018-August-23, 09:06, said:

This seems unfortunate to me. It feels like we should allow west to respond 1♠. I don't think the UI issue is relevant, as East is required to ignore the UI and bid as if West is only showing 4+♠ and 5+ HCP. If he were to make a 3-card raise when there are other LAs, or jump to game with a minimum opening, those would be UI violations. But if they end up in game via a normal route, which would be likely with the given hands, we get a normal bridge result and "no harm, no foul" should apply.

But it doesn't seem like the Laws as written allow this.

AFAIK, from a very reliable and well informed source, this is indeed what is intended with Law 23. But they certainly didn’t get the wording clear enough.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2018-August-23, 09:06, said:

This is mainly intended for artificial calls, so doesn't apply here.

How do you know this? The law doesn't say so.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2018-August-23, 19:17, said:

How do you know this? The law doesn't say so.

I have a strong feeling that the participants in this discussion have completely overlooked

Law 23C said:

If following the substitution of a comparable call [see Laws 27B1(b), 30B1(b)(i), 31A2(a) and 32A2(a)] 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, and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged, he shall award an adjusted score [see Law 12C1(b)].

I understand this to say that the Director should be rather lenient when ruling "comparable call" but (always) stand ready to subsequently apply Law 23C for cause?

[gordontd]

 sanst, on 2018-August-23, 14:34, said:

AFAIK, from a very reliable and well informed source, this is indeed what is intended with Law 23. But they certainly didn’t get the wording clear enough.

I don't have the impression from anyone that the intention was to allow an opening bid to be replaced with a one-level response. If they had really wanted that level of disparity, they could have just allowed any replacement, with L23C to deal with advantage gained.

[gordontd]

I think there is some confusion in this thread about the question of UI. West's opening bid out of turn is UI to East. However, once East has opened, if West has a comparable bid available and selects it, then the question of UI does not arise.

[pran]

 gordontd, on 2018-August-24, 02:55, said:

I think there is some confusion in this thread about the question of UI. West's opening bid out of turn is UI to East. However, once East has opened, if West has a comparable bid available and selects it, then the question of UI does not arise.

There is no longer a question of UI as such, but Law 23C dictates that if the application of Law 23A/B has resulted in damage to NOS then the Director shall award an adjusted score. Whether such damage was caused by UI or in any other way is irrelevant.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2018-August-24, 00:54, said:

I have a strong feeling that the participants in this discussion have completely overlooked {Law 23C}.

I understand this to say that the Director should be rather lenient when ruling "comparable call" but (always) stand ready to subsequently apply Law 23C for cause?

Sure, but we're not talking about that, or at least I'm not. The question is rather what makes a call comparable and what makes it not comparable?

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2018-August-24, 07:25, said:

Sure, but we're not talking about that, or at least I'm not. The question is rather what makes a call comparable and what makes it not comparable?

This is a question that dates back to the 2007 laws, specifically Law 27B1b, which was so unfortunately written that the publication of the 2007 laws was delayed some 6 months while waiting for a revision.
(I took part in the translation of those laws into Norwegian and assume that I was one among plenty of directors around the world who at the time alerted WBFLC that the original Law 27B1b actually seemed meaningless and self-contradicting.)

The answer to your question is that this is specified in Law 23A, and subject to the Director's judgement.

Law 23C is the important safe-catch which instructs the Director to award an adjusted score if he (when play of the board is completed) judges that the non-offending side has eventually been damaged by the irregularity.

The purpose of Law 23 is to let play continue if at all possible and then adjust afterwards if desirable, rather than adjust immediately at the time of the irregularity.

[blackshoe]

 pran, on 2018-August-24, 08:09, said:

The answer to your question is that this is specified in Law 23A, and subject to the Director's judgement.

You remind me of the physics professor who claimed something or other was obvious. When this claim was contested by about half the class, he went away for about half an hour. When he came back, he said "yes, it's obvious" and went on with his lecture.

[pran]

 pran, on 2018-August-24, 08:09, said:

The answer to your question is that this is specified in Law 23A, and subject to the Director's judgement.

 blackshoe, on 2018-August-24, 16:54, said:

You remind me of the physics professor who claimed something or other was obvious. When this claim was contested by about half the class, he went away for about half an hour. When he came back, he said "yes, it's obvious" and went on with his lecture.