[pran]

weejonnie, on 2019-March-30, 05:45, said:

You would prefer to go back to the "Partner is silenced for the rest of the auction/ next round" routine? AND with lead penalties.

CCs aren't perfect but they work in the vast majority of cases with their aim of producing a sensible auction to a sensible spot. If you don't like to take the risk that partner might have no comparable call available when you play the multi - then don't use the multi! Partner could have bid 3♦ over a natural 2♠ (weak) which would almost certainly have been regarded as comparable since it is similar in nature to 1♦. You can't expect to play highly artificial calls without some modicum of risk.

(As I said before - you are entitled to know the rules, but not entitled to know that your partner has broken them - in this scenario at least. Partner is allowed to know "Heaven's! I have bid out of turn, if I don't make a comparable call my partner will be silenced" - as that is the actual rule.You are not allowed to know "Heaven's! Partner has bid out of turn, If I make my normal call he won't have a comparable call to make" - since that arises from the withdrawn call - which is UI.)

Law 9B (After Attention Is Drawn to an Irregularity) said:

1. (a) The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.
[...]
2. No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

How can the fact that your partner has broken the rules be unauthorized information to you once the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification?

[lamford]

pran, on 2019-March-30, 05:57, said:

How can the fact that your partner has broken the rules be unauthorized information to you once the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification?

If you reread gordontd's posts on this matter, it might be apparent to you.

[pran]

pran, on 2019-March-30, 05:57, said:

How can the fact that your partner has broken the rules be unauthorized information to you once the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification?

lamford, on 2019-March-30, 10:11, said:

If you reread gordontd's posts on this matter, it might be apparent to you.

The fact that partner out of turn made a call (which was not accepted) is AI to me, but what that call was is UI to me.

So I am free to select any call different from the call I originally intended to make so long as my selection is only influenced by the fact that he made a COOT and not by any knowledge of what that COOT actually was.

There is an important distinction here.

[weejonnie]

No - although the law has been read out - the only part that applies to you is 16C

2. For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from
withdrawn actions of the non‐offending side is unauthorized. A player of an offending side
may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized
information if the other call or play is a logical alternative

All the TD says about comparable calls etc only applies to your partner. To you, partner hasn't made a call at all.

[sanst]

weejonnie, on 2019-March-30, 05:45, said:

You would prefer to go back to the "Partner is silenced for the rest of the auction/ next round" routine? AND with lead penalties.

No, certainly not. I want no restrictions at all, but the TD should after the play decide whether there was use of UI and act accordingly. And yes, the pre-2007 rules were not fairer but clearer. It seems that even the WBFLC needs discussions about what call is a CC. How is a simple TD at a club supposed to decide that?

[sanst]

lamford, on 2019-March-30, 10:11, said:

If you reread gordontd's posts on this matter, it might be apparent to you.

Try explaining that to the players at the table and make sure they act accordingly. This CC business isn’t working at all and it’s high time the WBFLC recognizes the fact.

[weejonnie]

sanst, on 2019-March-31, 02:03, said:

No, certainly not. I want no restrictions at all, but the TD should after the play decide whether there was use of UI and act accordingly. And yes, the pre-2007 rules were not fairer but clearer. It seems that even the WBFLC needs discussions about what call is a CC. How is a simple TD at a club supposed to decide that?

Well that simple TD (under your proposal) is going to have to make rather a lot of UI decisions instead of Comparable Call ones. Personally, I have no real problems (I think) with comparable calls.

What could the original call have meant? Suits, length, features, purpose.
What does the proposed comparable call mean? Suits, length, features, purpose.

(feature = high card points and/ or controls)

If the call shows the same (or more) suit lengths, similar (or more precise) features or the same purpose then I allow it.

If there is a difference and the partner makes use of that difference then I may adjust under 23C/ 27D.

[sanst]

weejonnie, on 2019-March-31, 02:17, said:

Well that simple TD (under your proposal) is going to have to make rather a lot of UI decisions instead of Comparable Call ones. Personally, I have no real problems (I think) with comparable calls.

What could the original call have meant? Suits, length, features, purpose.
What does the proposed comparable call mean? Suits, length, features, purpose.

(feature = high card points and/ or controls)

If the call shows the same (or more) suit lengths, similar (or more precise) features or the same purpose then I allow it.

If there is a difference and the partner makes use of that difference then I may adjust under 23C/ 27D.

First you have to decide on the comparability of the (proposed, the player can seek your advise) call. And then still there might be a UI case. In my view it’s much better to wait for the outcome and a call from the NOS if they think there has been use of UI. I don’t see how the actual situation is easier and less time consuming for the TD. I find it pretty difficult to explain the CC to players who have trouble understanding the idea., of whom there are many.

[weejonnie]

sanst, on 2019-March-31, 05:57, said:

First you have to decide on the comparability of the (proposed, the player can seek your advise) call. And then still there might be a UI case. In my view it’s much better to wait for the outcome and a call from the NOS if they think there has been use of UI. I don’t see how the actual situation is easier and less time consuming for the TD. I find it pretty difficult to explain the CC to players who have trouble understanding the idea., of whom there are many.

There is No UI in a comparable call case - law 23B. (And yes, it can be difficult to explain a comparable call since most players have probably not come accross it in the 18 months since its release.)

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2019-March-28, 13:28, said:

Why did North bid 2H? Pass looks obvious to me.

My guess is that he did not fully understand the "comparable call" rule. And I don't think a TD can really establish whether he does until he calls ... He just, I think, made the call he would have made without the BOOT.

[sanst]

weejonnie, on 2019-March-31, 11:23, said:

There is No UI in a comparable call case - law 23B. (And yes, it can be difficult to explain a comparable call since most players have probably not come accross it in the 18 months since its release.)

Sorry, I should have written “damaged”.

[sanst]

weejonnie, on 2019-March-31, 11:23, said:

There is No UI in a comparable call case - law 23B. (And yes, it can be difficult to explain a comparable call since most players have probably not come accross it in the 18 months since its release.)

There is when Law 23A and B are dropped, which is what I propose. The BOOT or IB is withdrawn and the bidding returns to whoever’s turn it is or is replaced by a sufficient bid and the auction continues without restrictions. The information from the withdrawn bid is UI for partner and lead restrictions apply. Law 23C can remain and the use of UI would be part of “damage caused by the infraction”.

[lamford]

sanst, on 2019-April-01, 04:28, said:

There is when Law 23A and B are dropped, which is what I propose. The BOOT or IB is withdrawn and the bidding returns to whoever’s turn it is or is replaced by a sufficient bid and the auction continues without restrictions. The information from the withdrawn bid is UI for partner and lead restrictions apply. Law 23C can remain and the use of UI would be part of “damage caused by the infraction”.

That is broadly the DavidBurn approach. As one might expect it is very sensible which is why it has not yet been adopted.

[barmar]

sanst, on 2019-March-31, 02:07, said:

Try explaining that to the players at the table and make sure they act accordingly. This CC business isn’t working at all and it’s high time the WBFLC recognizes the fact.

I think "isn't working at all" is an overbid.

Most of the time it's not that hard determining comparable calls. It seems difficult here because we only have threads about the tricky cases. These are the exceptions, not the norm.

[sanst]

barmar, on 2019-April-01, 19:26, said:

I think "isn't working at all" is an overbid.

Most of the time it's not that hard determining comparable calls. It seems difficult here because we only have threads about the tricky cases. These are the exceptions, not the norm.

Actually, it’s worse among club players in Holland. They usually correct their bid without the help of the director and without knowing the laws. Afterwards they might ask you what should have happened

[weejonnie]

sanst, on 2019-April-02, 01:58, said:

Actually, it’s worse among club players in Holland. They usually correct their bid without the help of the director and without knowing the laws. Afterwards they might ask you what should have happened

Maybe an article in a club magazine, or disseminated otherwise.

He who knows not and does not know thath he knows not can be taught - teach him.

[gordontd]

weejonnie, on 2019-April-02, 03:42, said:

Maybe an article in a club magazine, or disseminated otherwise.

He who knows not and does not know thath he knows not can be taught - teach him.

We in the EBU produced a very short notice for players about this at the time of the introduction of the new laws, which any other NBO would be welcome to print or link to if they thought it would be helpful.

[barmar]

sanst, on 2019-April-02, 01:58, said:

Actually, it’s worse among club players in Holland. They usually correct their bid without the help of the director and without knowing the laws. Afterwards they might ask you what should have happened

I'll bet they were doing the same thing under the old laws, too, so it's not really relevant.

[sanst]

barmar, on 2019-April-03, 09:21, said:

I'll bet they were doing the same thing under the old laws, too, so it's not really relevant.

I don’t bet and most certainly not when I’m sure to loose.

[BudH]

barmar, on 2019-April-01, 19:26, said:

I think "isn't working at all" is an overbid.

Most of the time it's not that hard determining comparable calls. It seems difficult here because we only have threads about the tricky cases. These are the exceptions, not the norm.

Much of the original problems that occurred when the new laws began to be used was in determining what information offender's LHO is allowed to have before deciding whether to accept the insufficient bid or call out of rotation.

Finally, we now have some guidance that the Director does not tell offender's LHO if offender has one or more calls that would keep offender's partner from being required to pass. However, offender's LHO can ask offender's partner questions about their system to help him guess the intended meaning of the illegal call to help him decide whether to accept it.

(By the way, I've found that offender's LHO often should accept the illegal call so that offender's partner is often at a guess at what offender was trying to do. If he doesn't accept it, offender often gets to clear up the ambiguity.)