Durham Bridge Club
Release 2.19p
0 0 0 0 0 0
Pages viewed in 2024
Membership Successes

2023 NEBA
Summer Pairs
Frank Bouweraerts
Irina Hendrickx

2022 NEBA
Swiss Pairs
John Dobson
Audrey Bainbridge

2021 NEBA
Gazette Cup
Joan Crompton
Irene Burns

2021 Runners-Up
NEBA CORWEN TROPHY
For Champion Pairs
Dorothy Pearson
Susan Penswick

2021 EBU
Easter Congress
9 High Tournament
Irina Hendrickx
James Foster

Club Tournament Winners

Club Champion
Evening 2022
Audrey Bainbridge

Club Champion
Afternoon 2022
Adrian Darnell

Durham City
Trophy 2022
Bill Dixon & Peter Sykes

Sykes Cup
2021
Nigel Martin
& Adrian Darnell

Cansino Cup
Pairs 2021
Margaret McCabe &
Iain Gordon

 

Comparable Calls
Comparable Calls

Introduction

Before the 2017 laws came into force, the penalty for calling out of turn was pretty drastic. If not accepted the call was cancelled and partner was required to pass. This meant that the player who had called out of turn had to guess the best contract, usually this meant that the non-offending side would gain a very good score through no effort of their own.

To give the offending side a reasonable chance of obtaining a sensible bridge result, but not by making use of unauthorised information, the WBF have introduced the concept of a 'comparable call', which is used whenever a call is cancelled (i.e. out of turn or an insufficient bid when the original call is not accepted by the other side.). The concept of a 'Comparable call' is handled in Law 23. Although this can still cause problems, it is a vast improvement on the previous situation.

What is a comparable call?

The definition is given in Law 23a

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A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call, if it: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 has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call, or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 defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call, or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 has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the withdrawn call.

Some examples may help.

"The same or similar meaning..." : The WBF seem inclined to say that a call that shows a hand less than 3 points different and less than 1 card diffeerent in each denomination will be regarded as similar  - this is not yet (as at 14 Feb 2018) codified in the laws.

An opening bid of 1  would be regarded as having a similar meaning to a 2-level overcall of hearts e.g. 1♠ - 2 since the values required for overcalling at the two level (usually) are similar to those of an opening bid. The fact that the 2-level overcall may guarantee more hearts than the opening call is alright.

However an overcall of 1♠ over 1♣ would not be regarded as similar - since overcalls at the one level (especially in spades!) may be made on much weaker hands (3 or more points less).

Defines a subset....

After a Blackwood bid, a 'double' of 5 if the partnership played DOPI (0 Aces) is a subset of insufficient response of 5♣ (0 or 4 Aces)

After an insufficient call of 1 (showing hearts) after a 1♠ opening bid, a Michaels Cue bid (2♠) Showing Hearts and a minor is a subset. (provided the high-card strength is similar!)

Has the same purpose...

A call of e.g. 3 asking partner to bid 3NT with a heart stop has the same purpose as an insufficient bid of 2 if that was also asking for a heart stop.

Bidding 3♣ (Stayman) would be regared as having the same purpose as an (insufficient) 2♣ - if one asked for 5-card majors and the other 4-card majors, the calls would still be similar.

The benefits of having a Comparable Call available (Law 23B)

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.

Note that 29B deals solely with a call out of rotation. Law 16C2 deals with unauthorised information from withdrawn calls.

Law 27 deals with an insufficient bid

(b) except as in (a), if the insufficient bid is corrected with a comparable call (see Law 23A) the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16C does not apply but see D following.

If a comparable call is NOT made (either through choice or inability) then the offender's partner will have to pass for at least one round, there may be lead penalties, and the director may assess an adjusted score if they think that the player at the time could have known that it would work to their advantage.

 

Some problems with Comparable Calls

  1. You are only allowed one call to replace the call you originally made. If you require two calls to provide the information then it is unlikely that the first call will be regarded as comparable.
  2. If the call you have to replace is a limit bid e.g. 1NT or a single raise then you may have great difficulty in finding a comparable call - although usually the lowest call that shows the same denominations can be used to replace an insufficient bid (but after a call out of rotation)

So what happens if an insufficient bid is made or a call is made out of rotation.

First of all : CALL THE DIRECTOR! NB All Directors have the same surname 'Please' - so use it when you call the director.

Sometimes players offer to 'make their call good' or simply pull out the cards for the appropriate level. This is a breach of procedure. The next player to call has the option of accepting the call out of rotation or insufficient bid, and must be given the opportunity to do so.

In the case of an insufficient bid, there are several possible procedures.

  1. The insufficient bid is accepted - play continues.
  2. The insufficient bid is replaced by the lowest bid/ call that shows the same denomination(s) as the insufficient bid. This does not have to be the same denomination actually bid.
  3. The insufficient bid is replaced by a comparable call.
  4. The player makes a different call that is neither 2 nor 3.

In the case of a call out of turn there are also several possibilities

  1. The call is accepted - if not it is withdrawn
  2. The call was a pass when RHO was to speak - offender must pass at next turn to call.
  3. The call was a non-pass when RHO was to speak - if RHO passes the call must be repeated and when admissable there is no further penalty.
  4. The call was made when partner or LHO (if offender has not previously bid) turn to call. In this case partner can make any legal call (but must be careful about unauthorised information) and then the result depends on the offender's next call. If comparable then there is minimal damage, if not comparable then lead penalties etc apply.

Partner makes a call out of rotation. If I make my usual call, he won't have a comparable one available. Can I change my call so he does?

NO!  The fact that you have knowledge of your partner's hand is unauthorised and you must carefully avoid making use of that information.

My call was withdrawn, I think that I have a comparable call available but am not sure. What should I do?

It's not clear! (One of the problems with the new law). Since the director will have to rule whether the call you are going to make is comparable, he should probably discuss it with you (away from the table). This is not set in stone, however. He may just state the law and when you make a call, wait to see if an opponent objects that it is not comparable (probably asking your partner), before allowing play to continue.

Opponents got into a better contract after having made a comparable call. Can I claim damage?

A tricky one this. It is not the comparable call that has caused the damage: for there to be damage it must be the original mistake that caused it. e.g. partner responds 1NT (which is insufficient) showing 6-9 points. He is allowed to replace it with 2NT (the same denomination at the lowest level), even though this shows 10-12 points. If opponents keep out of game due to the knowledge that the hand is weaker than shown, then the director may adjust the board, taking into account what would have happened if the 1NT response had never happened (which may be a part-score the other way)

The player who makes the comparable call will very rarely be the one that benefits from the original error - he has had to find a suitable call to replace his mistake. It is his partner that might benefit.