[pilun]

West is dealer but East passes out of turn, not accepted.

Should West be told that a sequence like 1♣ - 1♥ is problematic? (It might affect West's choice of opening call)

Anyway, we then get
1♣ - (no) - ?

East is told that a non-comparable call will bar partner. Yes?
Should the director help by explaining which calls are comparable?

East has a number of choices, such as 1NT with a 4+ card major.
Is opener allowed to interpret that as "6-10 virtually any shape"?

If East instead bids 1♥ - NS take no action - will that end the auction?

Do you think Law 23 has been a success?

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 30B1: When the offender has passed at his partner’s turn to call, or at his LHO’s turn to call if the offender has not previously called, then:
(a) Offender’s partner may make any legal call at his proper turn, but Law 16C2 applies.
(b) Offender may make any legal call at his correct turn and:
(i.) When the call is a comparable call (see Law 23A), there is no further rectification. Law 26B does not apply, but see Law 23C.
(ii.) When the call is not a comparable call (see Law 23A), offender’s partner must pass when next it is his turn to call. Laws 16C, 26B and 72C may apply.

Quote

Law 16C2: For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized.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.

I don't think East's pass suggests anything in particular about what first call West should make, except perhaps that with a marginal opening bid West should pass. So West's 1♣ bid is fine.

Quote

Law 23: Comparable Call
A. Definition
A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call, if it:
1. has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call, or
2. defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call, or
3. has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the withdrawn call.
B. No Rectification
When a call is cancelled (as per Law 29B) and the offender chooses at his proper turn to replace the irregularity with a comparable call, then both the auction and play continue without further rectification. Law 16C2 does not apply, but see C following.
C. Non-Offending Side Damaged
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 would read this to the table, making sure that both East and West understand it, before West chooses his call.

IMO, no bid is comparable to East's withdrawn pass. West is free to bid what he wants, except perhaps for pass, and East is also free to bid what he wants, subject to Law 30B1(b)(ii). However, if East does bid, West must pass for one round. So if NS pass throughout, East's first bid will end the auction.

Quote

Should the director help by explaining which calls are comparable?

No. The director explains the law. He's not there to help players bid.

If E ends up declaring after one round of bidding, Law 26B does not apply. Law 72C is unlikely to apply, and based on the information given in the OP, does not apply. Given that West did not pass, Law 16C does not apply. So I would probably rule the result stands, whatever it is. But I'd have to see all four hands to be sure.

Quote

Do you think Law 23 has been a success?

I have no idea. Ask the WBFLC.

[pilowsky]

 blackshoe, on 2024-May-04, 19:05, said:

I would read this to the table, making sure that both East and West understand it, before West chooses his call.

By making them do a quiz at the end and assuming they understand if they get better than 50%?

[mycroft]

It is always known that people under restrictions may deviate from their agreements to keep a "normal auction", but of course, partner should treat it as the bid.

Remember the goal of comparable call is "the illegal call (whether insufficient or out of turn) does not pass 'any' useful information not contained in the comparable call". That is, you should not be able to limit partner's hand more from both calls than from the legal one.

Therefore, 1♣-1♥ is clearly not comparable, because 1♥ shows 4 hearts and 5+ points, but with the withdrawn pass, it shows 4 hearts and 5-11 or 12 points. Should the director state this straight up? Probably not. But they can ask opener if 1♥ could be bid with an opening hand, and when they say yes, ask "so it wouldn't be a subset of pass, would it?" Which is basically telling them, so why not?

1♣-1NT, if the PooT player works out that "all 1NTs would have passed", and decides to hide their 4 card heart suit and bid 1NT, or 2 or 3 clubs (whichever shows the minimum raise) with 4 hearts and 5 clubs - hey, if they can survive it, fine. If they somehow manage to find 4♥ anyway - well, depending, that's what 23C is for. Now, 23C won't come into effect if the normal auction would have been 1♣-1♥; 3♥-4♥ (the good result wasn't a *function of* the infraction or the Law 23 process, they just got lucky); but if the 1NT bidder's hand is declarer, and the opponents play declarer to not have 4 hearts because of the 1NT call, and their defence would have been better in the normal auction, then yes, 23C adjustment.

Has it been a success? The number of "bad" hands with comparable calls have been noticeable; it's not easy to rule, and weaker directors probably don't handle it as well as in the old "bid NT and pray" days. And I *really* don't like the fact that I as a director has to make a judgement ruling (is it comparable?) alone and at the table, when judgement rulings should be consulted and take what time they take. But the number of "bid NT and pray" (or "pass and pray", for that matter) calls that "magically" worked, or the opponents didn't get the information from a "normal" auction to defend properly, and got no protection (explicitly from L10C4) - I'm not sure that all the "Comparable Call is a disaster" people remember those days. And frankly, I'm not sure I remember as many uncomfortable L23 rulings since 2017 than "bad" (for either side; not only the above, but offender's partner doing something that wasn't "NT and pray" - because they didn't understand that law or its ramifications either - in the 6 years before 2017. The number of "would be forcing" 2 bids that PooT pairs had to play simply because "this is my normal bid, I can't see why I shouldn't make it" still causes me to shudder, never mind all the others.

Should we be looking for a better solution? Of course. But it isn't anywhere near the worst Law we've had this century (I submit, as evidence, pre-2007 L25B2b(ii)).

[blackshoe]

pilowsky, on 2024-May-04, 19:58, said:

By making them do a quiz at the end and assuming they understand if they get better than 50%?

Sure, why not?

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2024-May-04, 22:06, said:

Should we be looking for a better solution? Of course. But it isn't anywhere near the worst Law we've had this century (I submit, as evidence, pre-2007 L25B2b(ii)).

I wasn't playing bridge in 2007 let alone before and that Law is indeed awful.
But I haven't seen worse "recent" changes than the current L23 as far as the TD at the table is concerned.
Noble intentions, but difficult to apply, difficult to explain, occasionally easy to exploit.
It's not at the top of my list for 2027 (the elephant in the room of electronic play is far more important) but still needs to be changed IMO, the question is how.

[pilun]

Thanks all.

I find it a bit awkward talking to South, the next player in line. "Condone and we keep going or have the auction revert to West, in which case ..."

There is a lot of detail to be produced here, then reproduced to West if South takes the revert-to-dealer option. So many words.

If I DON'T give South the full spiel and he chooses to condone the pass out of turn, he might well come back later with "If I'd known I could stuff up their auction, I would not have condoned the pass-out-of-turn."

Alternatively, if I give all the consequences, he might think I'm encouraging him to do the "decent thing" by condoning.

Maybe "in which case there may be issues for them"?

[blackshoe]

You can't control what people believe. You can only tell them what they need to know within the limits of the law and let them make their own decisions.

[sanst]

It's always a problem if you give players a choice. Think about the five options there are at a OLOOT. You have to explain a couple of times and most, especially the not so good players, choose the easiest one, which mostly is to condone. Not always the best one for them, but it's their choice and as long you have done your best to explain the options, don't feel guilty.

[pescetom]

I've rarely had a player accept an OLOOT, am I alone?
What I do see happen frequently is that given the five options players will choose the last one, to not accept and allow LHO to lead without restriction, then be unhappy about the putative lead remaining penalized (they hoped it could be picked up). I've learned to spell this out clearly in the options but it still fails to sink in or be accepted. Either they are used to the Law being misapplied or they are uncomfortable to 'inflict' any negative consequences on their opponents.

[Cyberyeti]

As far as I can see for us 1N is clearly comparable, 2N/3♣ are also very nearly comparable for us, and I'm not sure whether they would count, they are weak 5+ card raises of different ranges, but could theoretically at some vuls include hands that would open 3♣.

Is it a valid question to ask the director if he considers 2N/3♣ comparable ? And who should be at the table when this is done ?

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-May-07, 06:57, said:

Is it a valid question to ask the director if he considers 2N/3♣ comparable ? And who should be at the table when this is done ?

There was discussion about this, with some in the "just read the law" camp like Blackshoe (although his position may be more elaborate than stated so far here).

The WBF Commentary says that it is valid (*) and the director should answer, away from the table.

The EBU White Book (*) mentions taking the player away from the table "to find out whether a non-barring call is available" (or something similar), implying a proactive discussion rather than mere acceptance of questions.

(*) in the context of insufficient calls, but it's hard to imagine why not for all comparable call issues.

[mycroft]

Pilun: I have gone farther down the line (with weaker players at least) to: "if it is to your advantage to accept and..." That *should* make it clear that I am not pushing them to "just let it go" or "do the decent thing". Many, many more still accept than I think should, but I have made it clear what the Law (in this case L10C3) says.

[blackshoe]

If a player asks me directly (in conversation away from the table) whether a particular call is comparable in the case at hand, I will tell him yes or no. If a player asks me to tell him which calls would be comparable, I will not tell him that, as imo doing so would violate Law 40B2(d). If a player asks me a series of questions about specific calls I will stop answering after the first "yes" because it looks like he's trying to get around 40B2(d).

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2024-May-08, 04:31, said:

If a player asks me directly (in conversation away from the table) whether a particular call is comparable in the case at hand, I will tell him yes or no. ...

My view is that 40B2d is about self interest. The proscription to aids is a mechanism of self regulation that encourages players to not bite off more than they can comfortably chew- which self interest suggests will drive to minimize difficulty with propriety. This important lever is destroyed by circumvention.

Advisory rulings are such circumvention. By definition partners are expert (?perhaps the only expert) as to their methods. Thus, they do not need advisory rulings, and even so advisory rulings are irrelevant and perpetrate difficulties with the proprieties, particularly UI (not just by the TD). The notion of the WBFLC that it is desirable and proper to give advisory rulings rather than expect partners to cope with ramifications of their methods (and then rule should controversy result) is flawed.