BBO Discussion Forums: Comparable call - BBO Discussion Forums

South had opened the auction with a pass out of turn. The TD explained the options, W didn't accept the POOT and N started with 1♥, E 1♠ and all passed. Down -2.
S explained her pass as being comparable, where 2♦, the systematic call, was not comparable and neither was 2NT, double or 2♠. 1NT was too much of an underbid and was therefore rejected. She didn't like 3NT with only 1 spade stopper and a partner who might have a weak, 10 ... 12 HCP, hand.
EW had a bad score, because one pair bid 4♥ and made an overtrick, the five other NS pairs had less than 200. Is this just bad luck or do you use Law 23C, since S would never had passed 1♠ without the POOT.

South didn't gain from the infraction since she couln't make use of her systemic call. North of course didn't gain either since there was no additional information available. The good result was obtained by good luck.

(From an EBU article based on e-mails by Max Bavin)

Let us also consider in more detail the concept of 'assistance'. The infractor himself can
hardly gain any assistance from his own infraction; in fact, most likely all he's got himself is a
load of hindrance and several unpalatable options available to him.

The player who MIGHT have gained assistance is the infractor's partner, as when the subtle
difference between the original call and the valid replacement assists him in taking the
winning decision. Hopefully this line of thinking might be helpful; it certainly answers what is
sometimes referred to as the Prague case* [score stands - no assistance gained through the
infraction].
...
Only if South could have known that the POOT would damage opponents would an adjusted score be available.

If this isn't clear, an example of assistance would be e.g. a NT bid showing 15-17 replacing one that showed 14-16. (Which I would regard as similar): because the player can't have 17 points (known because of the COOT i.e. infraction) partner does not make a game try - and 3NT would have gone down.

* The Prague case is one where a player called 1♠ out of turn and then (to make a comparable call) bid 2♠ with an unsuitable hand (too weak) after a 2♣ call intervened. Partner jumped to 4♠ which made/

Neither North or South gained any assistance from the infraction so Law 23C does not apply. South could have chosen to pass without the infraction.

weejonnie, on 2019-March-23, 14:41, said:

That’s not what Law 23C says. The “could have been aware” clause is in Law 72C. I’m wandering what would have happened had ChCh sitting S and SB W.

South passed out of turn and must pass at his/her first opportunity. Comparable calls not applicable in this case.

Edited 4/4/19: Just learned from ACBL Director that Comparable Calls (Law 23) are more complicated than first explained. If 1♣ may be short (2) then opening 1♣ out of turn and not accepted, there is NO Comparable Call if partner opens the bidding.

PrecisionL, on 2019-March-24, 08:03, said:

Where did you find that rule?

Law 30B1 said:

sanst, on 2019-March-24, 03:11, said:

I was paying the people who read these discussions the compliment of assuming they knew whence that comment came.

OK I understand the distinction as outlined by weejonnie and RMB1 and believe that that is the current interpretation of law. However I still find it hard to accept that this interpretation is correct or just in-light of Law 12B.1

1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take
away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists
when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than
would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.

My emphasis. Here, without the POOT the bidding and result would almost certainly have been different. So how have the innocent not received a less favorable result?

Universe 1. No infraction and south chooses to pass. Bad luck.
Universe 2. POOT and then south decides to pass because they feel they have no comparable call but really wanted to bid something. Not bad luck, EW are shafted by the infraction and the laws.

There is a difference in that law 23 is more specific and tells us how to handle the situation after a comparable call. Only after we decide that the offending side has gained, after a comparable call, due to the assistance of the infraction then we apply law 12. If a comparable call has not been made then we can go directly to law 12.

Again from the article quited above

"In determining whether to adjust a score under this law, I suggest we compare and contrast
the following two statements; 'without the assistance gained through the infraction' and
'had the infraction not occurred'. The former of course being precisely what law 23C actually
says and means, the latter most definitely being precisely what it does not say or mean."

This is a consequence of 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."

weejonnie, on 2019-March-25, 03:05, said:

Law 30B1 is more specific than either Law 23 or Law 12, and is the first law to be applied after the opening pass out of turn by South.

So here North is free to make any legal call at his (first) turn, but Law 16C2 applies.
Then South may make any legal call at his first turn to call, and this call should be tried under Law 23.

pran, on 2019-March-25, 05:10, said:

Yep - but Law 23 may bounce back to law 30B2 if the call isn't comparable - and then 10C4: there is nothing in the rectification under 30B2 that gives the director the right to award an adjusted score. Law 12B2 applies.

weejonnie, on 2019-March-25, 08:54, said:

Law 72 C may apply (see Law 30B2)

OK I agree.
I guess I believe the law should more closely reflect online bridge where the POOT could not occur. In this case EW get a worse result than they would have had in an online or electronic environment.

Why should the law reflect a situation that doesn't apply?