[BudH]

In my opinion, we need at least a few dozen examples (and not obvious ones) for when a call might or might not be comparable, especially when we are being asked to be liberal deeming a call to be "similar" to allow a chance for a real bridge result on a board. So I'll start with one and likely will post several others later.

Example #1:

As part of training local club directors on the upcoming law changes, I used the following example which happened to me at the table very recently. North opened a weak 2D before dealer West made a call. East did not accept it and West opened 1S. Under the present (2007) laws, North was instructed if he bid diamonds at any level, his partner would be required to pass once, otherwise he would be required to pass forever. Also, lead penalties would apply when his partner gained the lead the first time if he became a defender and never legally bid diamonds.

(1S)-?

As for use of the new (2017) laws in this case, would a 2D overcall or (weak) 3D jump overcall be considered comparable to a weak 2D bid?

The group agreed the playing strength of a 2D overcall would be too different to be considered comparable. I agreed.

As for the weak 3D jump overcall, we agreed it would be close enough. My emphasis to our directors to consider what the offender's partner knows about offender's hand from the new call and how much extra he knows from the replaced call. In this example, it is true North is far more likely to hold a SIX card suit than a SEVEN card suit knowing he tried to open 2D. That probably is not enough to prevent 3D from being considered comparable with the emphasis on being liberal with term "similar".

I did mention that if it was felt South did not take a sacrifice later which seemed indicated possibly with the knowledge North was unlikely to hold a 7-bagger, an adjusted score might be necessary.

Opinions?

[axman]

BudH, on 2017-July-12, 05:17, said:

In my opinion, we need at least a few dozen examples (and not obvious ones) for when a call might or might not be comparable, especially when we are being asked to be liberal deeming a call to be "similar" to allow a chance for a real bridge result on a board. So I'll start with one and likely will post several others later.

Example #1:

As part of training local club directors on the upcoming law changes, I used the following example which happened to me at the table very recently. North opened a weak 2D before dealer West made a call. East did not accept it and West opened 1S. Under the present (2007) laws, North was instructed if he bid diamonds at any level, his partner would be required to pass once, otherwise he would be required to pass forever. Also, lead penalties would apply when his partner gained the lead the first time if he became a defender and never legally bid diamonds.

(1S)-?

As for use of the new (2017) laws in this case, would a 2D overcall or (weak) 3D jump overcall be considered comparable to a weak 2D bid?

The group agreed the playing strength of a 2D overcall would be too different to be considered comparable. I agreed.

As for the weak 3D jump overcall, we agreed it would be close enough. My emphasis to our directors to consider what the offender's partner knows about offender's hand from the new call and how much extra he knows from the replaced call. In this example, it is true North is far more likely to hold a SIX card suit than a SEVEN card suit knowing he tried to open 2D. That probably is not enough to prevent 3D from being considered comparable with the emphasis on being liberal with term "similar".

I did mention that if it was felt South did not take a sacrifice later which seemed indicated possibly with the knowledge North was unlikely to hold a 7-bagger, an adjusted score might be necessary.

Opinions?

Bud, imo the lawmakers are out to lunch. BOOT is a form of fortune telling- at least it ought to be. He has taken his turn so he ought to be required to keep it, albeit when it finally becomes his turn. Then it merely is the matter of judging whether the infracting call is appreciably different from the repetition of the infracting call that determines whether the pard is subject to enforced pass. To put it differently- why should a lawbreaker get more turns than the opponents? This way there is some chance that the turns of each side have some balance.

[barmar]

The way I see it, "comparable call" is based on the idea that bidding is a conversation where players describe the kinds of hands they have, or ask and answer questions. So the idea is that if you can make a call that serves roughly the same purpose in the conversation, we've recovered from the irregularity in the most equitable way.

Anyway, this thread isn't the appropriate place to discuss whether the new Law is appropriate. It's been approved by the WBFLC, we just have to learn how to apply it properly. And axman's complaint could just as well be leveled against the old IB law.

[steve2005]

similar doesn't mean exact. so just cause 2D opening is usually 6 and 3D is on average 6.5 or whatever doesn't mean they are not similar.

[blackshoe]

Agree with Steve, and with Barry that this isn't the place to discuss whether the new law is good or bad.

[BudH]

I'm not sure why, after all the time to comment negatively on the new Law 23 (Comparable Calls) and related law changes, why now, of all times, comments are being made against it. I'm not happy with all the law changes, but it is what it is and we need to live with it, and be as consistent as possible in applying the new laws.

At least for the comments made thus far, there seem to be no objections to 3D (weak jump overcall) being comparable to a weak 2D bid, but not a 2D overcall.

I'm sure I'll come up with some tougher possibilities in the future.

A quick question. When it comes to using Law 23C after the fact when you had allowed, as in this case, the 3D weak jump overcall, if you feel strongly the offender's partner might well have taken one too many pushes in a competitive auction if he didn't know the 3D bid was likely a 6-bagger, would an adjusted score be appropriate? And can it be a weighted average under 12C(1)© if you felt (or a player poll) shows about half the time (or slightly more often) a player took the push not taken by offender's partner?

---------------------------------------
12C(1)©: "An assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results, but only outcomes that could have been achieved in a legal manner may be included."

[gordontd]

BudH, on 2017-July-12, 17:55, said:

And can it be a weighted average under 12C(1)© if you felt (or a player poll) shows about half the time (or slightly more often) a player took the push not taken by offender's partner?

My view is that it frequently would be a weighted score. This is not a situation where we are hampered by concerns of "Reveley rulings".