Commentary on 2017 laws - comparable call
Page 20: WBF now advise that the TD should advise a player (away from the table) whether the call they intend to make is comparable.
(there had been some discussion on some forums as to whether this should be done or not)
Although this is in relation to an IB it presumably applies to all compatable calls i.e. after COOTS.
Comments
What the commentary actually says is " If the offender wants to know whether a replacement call fulfills the conditions of Law 27B1 the TD should tell him, also away from the table."
I think that is a bit different from at least one interpretation of what you wrote.
Also - page 33 - Law 68. If TD is called because of a potential claim and is asked "Can we continue to play on" - he can clarify the law rather than say "Not now I'm called and apply Law 70'.
denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call, the auction proceeds without
further rectification. Laws 26B and 16C do not apply but see D following.
(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.
Could you elaborate - my interpretation is that if a player says "My bid .. shows Hearts, my replacement bid shows hearts and diamonds, will that bar my partner" (1a) or "My bid shows 1 or 4 aces, my intended double shows 1 ace, will that bar my partner" (1b) - both answers being in the -ve of course.
What you initially wrote seemed to me to be saying that the TD routinely takes the player from the table and tells them whether or not the proposed replacement call is comparable.
For information, I think this discussion refers to this document:
http://www.worldbridge.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2017LawsCommentary.pdf