Comparable call

RHO opens 1D and not seeing this you open 1C announced by your partner could be as short as 2. You are playing 5 card majors and a short club. Pointed out that this is an insufficient bid and your LHO does not accept your bid. Do you have a comparable call? It so happens you have 5 clubs but is this relevant?
I don't think I do but would welcome comments

Comments

  • Well, 1C means opening values and no 5 card major. An overcall of 2C means 5+ clubs (more specific than 2+) and normally no 5 card major (as not completed a 2-suited overcall).
    So all looks good so far, but what about values?
    It would depend on what a 2-level overcall shows. If around 11+ points then i would say that 2C is comparable to 1C. If overcalls could be 8/9+ points, then not comparable for me.

    2C isn't the lowest level bid showing the same suit as 1C does not show that suit.
  • Thanks Martin but the problem is that !C opener could be anything from 11 to 19 points whereas an overcall of 2C could be less than 11 but not more than 15 say otherwise a double etc

  • Double may be a comparable call, depending on what a take-out double of 1D would show. Some people might prefer to overcall a 5CM if they had one and otherwise use a take-out double just to show opening values.

    Peter Bushby Suffolk

  • Seems like no none has been paying attention.
    Firstly the person bidding out of turn.
    Secondly his partner for not saying “Partners bid out of turn.”
    Thirdly, I imagine The correct opener was looking at his hand and considering what to open, hence not noticing or expecting a bid on his right.
    Finally, openers partner, who presumably hadn’t seen the Bid out of Turn. Especially as he mentions “Could be two”
    Whilst I accept the laws rule the OOT bid was accepted. The TD was not called. I believe there should be some consideration for the correct opener to have the opportunity to accept the 1D opening or not accepting it. In which case the correct opener could open 1C and the 1D bidder would be required to make a comparable call at his turn.
  • @bnfe said:
    Thanks Martin but the problem is that !C opener could be anything from 11 to 19 points whereas an overcall of 2C could be less than 11 but not more than 15 say otherwise a double etc

    That sounds like a question of style. I wouldn't have less than about 11hcp for a two-level overcall and could have up to about 19, but I know others have a different approach. However, as long as the overcall couldn't be weaker than an opening bid, it sounds to me as though a 2C replacement bid would belong to a subset of a 1C opening bid.

  • Which of the players was the dealer on the hand?

  • @Tag said:
    Which of the players was the dealer on the hand?

    An excellent question!

    (ie. I'd have asked if you hadn't!! :) )

    Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live

  • Clearly your RHO is the dealer, otherwise bnfe would have said that the opening bid was out of rotation.

    This is an insufficient bid problem. Why is anyone treating it as a call out of rotation?

  • It's not clear to me that RHO was the dealer. This would suggest that two players failed to notice the 1D opening bid from dealer, rather than an unexpected 1D opening bid out of place. Anyway, I'm sure we'll get clarification.

  • This could be a law 28 problem if you open 1 Club as dealer and RHO has opened out of turn.

    2!c would be a comparable call since its meaning is one of those attributable to a 1 club opening bid - natural with clubs. the fact that 1!c could be short as two is irrelevant.

  • edited December 2019
    The issue may be the strength of the 2-level overcall.

    If say 11-15 HCP with 5+ clubs and no 5-card major, then this is a subset of the opening values of 11-19(20), and 2+ clubs with no 5-card major. No no issues with the replacement.

    What if the overcall is 9-15 or so? Would that make this bid incomparable?

    I would be tempted to let it run and play the hand and look if the UI of the intention to open 1C made a difference to the bidding/final result.
  • @bnfe said:
    Thanks Martin but the problem is that!c opener could be anything from 11 to 19 points whereas an overcall of 2C could be less than 11 but not more than 15 say otherwise a double etc

    When we are sure that this is so, then we can't accept a 2!c replacement as being a comparable call, but if it were me, it would be comparable as I wouldn't overcall 2!c without a hand that would also open 1!c

    But we have to decide whether it is comparable and we can't "let it run and" look at possible UI, because there is no reference to Law 16 in either Law 27 or Law 23. Indeed, Law 27 makes a point of saying in various places that Law 16 does not apply, and that is logical because if you do make a comparable call, your partner simply doesn't have any UI.

    Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live

  • @Senior_Kibitzer said:

    @bnfe said:
    Thanks Martin but the problem is that!c opener could be anything from 11 to 19 points whereas an overcall of 2C could be less than 11 but not more than 15 say otherwise a double etc

    When we are sure that this is so, then we can't accept a 2!c replacement as being a comparable call, but if it were me, it would be comparable as I wouldn't overcall 2!c without a hand that would also open 1!c

    But we have to decide whether it is comparable and we can't "let it run and" look at possible UI, because there is no reference to Law 16 in either Law 27 or Law 23. Indeed, Law 27 makes a point of saying in various places that Law 16 does not apply, and that is logical because if you do make a comparable call, your partner simply doesn't have any UI.

    +1

  • Surely you make a decision to allow the bid as comparable, with the option for appeal/review later. Is a director allowed to review and change their decision without an appeal from one of the NOS?
  • The non-offending side may need to call the TD and say they were damaged - or don't like the outcome.

    The director can decide that 27D/23C applies and make a ruling. Or the director can decide that in hindsight the ruling that the call was comparable was erroneous - and rule director's error and apply Law 82{something}

  • @Robin_BarkerTD said:
    Or the director can decide that in hindsight the ruling that the call was comparable was erroneous - and rule director's error and apply Law 82{something}

    It doesn't necessarily have to be director's error - the player may have neglected to tell you something important about their bidding system.

  • edited December 2019

    @JeremyChild said:

    @Robin_BarkerTD said:
    Or the director can decide that in hindsight the ruling that the call was comparable was erroneous - and rule director's error and apply Law 82{something}

    It doesn't necessarily have to be director's error - the player may have neglected to tell you something important about their bidding system.

    OK. Law 82C only requires that the ruling was ;incorrect' not that the director made an error. The shorthand 'rule director's error' comes from the heading of the Law 82C - and a desire to invoke some humility in the director!

  • edited December 2019

    I have a note in my WBF law book beside L23C, which says "No 82C". I think this means that we have been told that once you have deemed a call comparable, the only subsequent adjustment you can make is via L23C (or 27D) and not by treating it as Director's Error. I looked for a reference to this in the Laws Commentary and couldn't find one, but I do have a memory that the source of the edict was Ton Kooijman, the Chairman of the WBFLC.

Sign In or Register to comment.