[sanst]

---

N starts with 1♥, E 4♦ and S 3♠, splinter. S hasn't seen E's bid. W doesn't accept and S bids, after consulting the TD who allows this change under law 23A, 4NT, RKCB. N bids 5♥, E and S pass, W raises to 6♦ and N goes now for slam, 6♥, which makes.
Do you agree with the TD that 4NT is a comparable bid which doesn't silence N? What do you decide when EW call you afterwards and claim that they have been damaged by S's 3♠? And what if S had bid a 5♥ slam try instead of 4NT?

Here is Law 23:

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A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call, if it: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 has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call, or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 defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call, or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 has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the withdrawn call.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)].

[barmar]

No, it's not a comparable call. Splinter has a very specific meaning (it shows a good raise and shortness in the bid suit), and RKCB has a specific purpose (it's an asking bid); other than both being moves towards slam, they don't have anything in common.

There's probably no call available that's comparable to the splinter in the actual auction. So any bid by South other than 4♥ bars North for the rest of the auction. So he essentially has to guess how many hearts to bid.

BTW, why did North bid 5♥? The bid to show 2 key cards and a void is 5NT. While one might choose not to show a void in partner's suit, a void in the opponent's suit is great.

[barmar]

That said, I'm not sure that the damage is directly attributable to the IB. EW could have defended 5♥, but they gave NS another bite at the apple when they bid 6♦. But without the director's error, they might not have been in that position anyway.

Are EW accusing North of using the UI that South has short spades? That would indeed be a serious infraction. The withdrawn call is AI to EW (the known double fit may be why West bid again -- although he could also have bid 5♠ to play a level lower), UI to North.

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2017-July-09, 14:20, said:

That said, I'm not sure that the damage is directly attributable to the IB. EW could have defended 5♥, but they gave NS another bite at the apple when they bid 6♦. But without the director's error, they might not have been in that position anyway.

Are EW accusing North of using the UI that South has short spades? That would indeed be a serious infraction. The withdrawn call is AI to EW (the known double fit may be why West bid again -- although he could also have bid 5♠ to play a level lower), UI to North.

Note "Law 16C2 does not apply."

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2017-July-09, 14:40, said:

Note "Law 16C2 does not apply."

When the call is replaced with a comparable call, there isn't really much UI, since the replacement conveys essentially the same information. That's why 16C2 doesn't apply.

When it's replaced with a non-comparable call, UI shouldn't apply during the auction, since partner is barred. There could be UI issues during the play if the offending side becomes defenders.

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2017-July-09, 15:00, said:

When the call is replaced with a comparable call, there isn't really much UI, since the replacement conveys essentially the same information. That's why 16C2 doesn't apply.

When it's replaced with a non-comparable call, UI shouldn't apply during the auction, since partner is barred. There could be UI issues during the play if the offending side becomes defenders.

The problem is that it shouldn't have been allowed as a comparable call. Having done so, this should probably be adjusted under Director's Error.

[sanst]

barmar, on 2017-July-09, 14:11, said:

BTW, why did North bid 5♥? The bid to show 2 key cards and a void is 5NT. While one might choose not to show a void in partner's suit, a void in the opponent's suit is great.

That's certainly not standard over here.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-July-09, 14:11, said:

No, it's not a comparable call. Splinter has a very specific meaning (it shows a good raise and shortness in the bid suit), and RKCB has a specific purpose (it's an asking bid); other than both being moves towards slam, they don't have anything in common.

There's probably no call available that's comparable to the splinter in the actual auction. So any bid by South other than 4♥ bars North for the rest of the auction. So he essentially has to guess how many hearts to bid.

BTW, why did North bid 5♥? The bid to show 2 key cards and a void is 5NT. While one might choose not to show a void in partner's suit, a void in the opponent's suit is great.

How is 4♥ comparable to 3♠?

[BudH]

This should be very easy to see a comparable call has not been made. In this auction, if 5S was not played as Exclusion but was a splinter, that would be a comparable call.

Does the offender's partner know something significant from the withdrawn bid not known from the replaced call? YES, therefore not a comparable call.

[lamford]

BudH, on 2017-July-10, 03:09, said:

This should be very easy to see a comparable call has not bern made. In this auction, if 5S was not played as Exclusion but was a splinter, that would be a comparable call.

Does the offender's partner know something significant from the withdrawn bid not known from the replaced call? YES, therefore not a comparable call.

Without the director error, South might have punted 6H (I would have) or he might have bid 4H. There is no point bidding 5H as that silences North. Both sides are treated as non-offending, so I think NS get +980. I think EW should get -100 for 6Dx-1 as the best result they might have achieved without the director error (I don't think 5D= is plausible). Certainly they should get at least half of -100 and half of -300 for 6Dx-2. What actually happened after the director error is irrelevant.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2017-July-09, 14:11, said:

So any bid call by South other than 4♥ bars North for the rest of the auction. So he essentially has to guess how many hearts to bid.

FYP

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2017-July-10, 05:37, said:

Without the director error, South might have punted 6H (I would have) or he might have bid 4H. There is no point bidding 5H as that silences North. Both sides are treated as non-offending, so I think NS get +980. I think EW should get -100 for 6Dx-1 as the best result they might have achieved without the director error (I don't think 5D= is plausible). Certainly they should get at least half of -100 and half of -300 for 6Dx-2. What actually happened after the director error is irrelevant.

When law 16C1(b) says

Quote

The Director in awarding an assigned adjusted score should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the infraction not occurred.

I think "the infraction" refers to the player's infraction, i.e. the insufficient bid, not the director's infraction.

If you think NS will reach 6♥ some of the time and EW will be allowed to play in 6♦X some of the time, I think you should be awarding something like:

NS: 60% of +980, 20% each of +100 and +300
EW: 40% of -980, 30% each of -100 and -300

[barmar]

VixTD, on 2017-July-10, 06:41, said:

When law 16C1(b) says
I think "the infraction" refers to the player's infraction, i.e. the insufficient bid, not the director's infraction.

If you think NS will reach 6♥ some of the time and EW will be allowed to play in 6♦X some of the time, I think you should be awarding something like:

NS: 60% of +980, 20% each of +100 and +300
EW: 40% of -980, 30% each of -100 and -300

I'm not sure that applies when resolving a director's error. 82C says:

Quote

If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non-offending for that purpose.

[VixTD]

barmar, on 2017-July-10, 09:07, said:

I'm not sure that applies when resolving a director's error. 82C says:

Yes, that's what I'm doing: treating both sides as non-offending.

[sanst]

What I'm wondering about is 23A2: "defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call". What is a subset in bridge? In this case 3♠ has as meaning:

• hearts is trump
  
• it's game at least
  
• I've a singleton or void in spades.

And 4NT:

• hearts is trump
  
• it's game+1 at least
  
• how many key cards do you have?

It's clear that the problem is in point 3, 1 and 2 meet the requirements. So, I agree with TD error.
But what if the bidding was 1♥-(4♦)-2NT, Jacoby raise, GF and estabishing hearts as trump? 4NT would IMO "define a subset of the possible meanings etc". Am I correct?

[gordontd]

sanst, on 2017-July-11, 06:28, said:

What I'm wondering about is 23A2: "defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call". What is a subset in bridge? In this case 3♠ has as meaning:

• hearts is trump
  
• it's game at least
  
• I've a singleton or void in spades.

And 4NT:

• hearts is trump
  
• it's game+1 at least
  
• how many key cards do you have?

It's clear that the problem is in point 3, 1 and 2 meet the requirements. So, I agree with TD error.
But what if the bidding was 1♥-(4♦)-2NT, Jacoby raise, GF and estabishing hearts as trump? 4NT would IMO "define a subset of the possible meanings etc". Am I correct?

Yes, if 4NT is RKCB or similar.

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2017-July-11, 06:32, said:

Yes, if 4NT is RKCB or similar.

It might depend on your style of Jacoby 2NT. In many partnerships it denies side shortness (they would make a splinter raise), but Blackwood would not.

It also feels kind of wrong to consider a "showing" bid to be comparable to an "asking" bid, just because the types of hands can be inferred from the question asked and they happen to be similar to those that would make the showing bid.

[WellSpyder]

barmar, on 2017-July-11, 10:46, said:

It also feels kind of wrong to consider a "showing" bid to be comparable to an "asking" bid, just because the types of hands can be inferred from the question asked and they happen to be similar to those that would make the showing bid.

It feels OK to me. Of course you bid the same hand differently in different situations since the possibilities are different, but if partner doesn't know any more from your two attempts to bid your hand as they do from the one that is legal, then there is no problem.