[jillybean]

1♣. oops it was my RHO turn to bid (Dealer)

(1♠) 2♣ - 2♣ is not a 'comparable call'

does 31. A.2 b apply now and partner is banned at his next turn?

(b) When the call is not a comparable call (see Law 23A), offender’s partner must pass when next it is his turn to call. Laws 16C, 26B and 72C may apply.

[sfi]

jillybean, on 2024-February-25, 22:07, said:

1♣. oops it was my RHO turn to bid (Dealer)

(1♠) 2♣ - 2♣ is not a 'comparable call'

does 31. A.2 b apply now and partner is banned at his next turn?

(b) When the call is not a comparable call (see Law 23A), offender’s partner must pass when next it is his turn to call. Laws 16C, 26B and 72C may apply.

Assuming 1C was natural, I would treat 2C as a comparable call (it broadly defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call). However, if the director does not rule that way, then yes - Law 31.A.2 applies. The first change is that offender's partner must pass for one round, and then the director considers the UI, potential lead restrictions and other potential damage.

[TylerE]

It would to depend to me on system specfics.

Playing a bog standard North American 2/1 type system my gut instinct is that 2♣ *is* a comparable call, and I feel pretty solid on that. If it's more of a "natural or balanced" (e.g. 2+) I'm closer to not comparable.

[sfi]

TylerE, on 2024-February-26, 14:55, said:

If it's more of a "natural or balanced" (e.g. 2+) I'm closer to not comparable.

But natural is a subset of "natural or balanced" ...

[smerriman]

It's so easy to get the subset definition backwards. To be comparable as a subset, the question is, is there a hand which overcalls 2♣, which would not have opened 1♣?

I would say yes, because there are hands that overcall 2♣ that would have opened 1NT; so not comparable for me (partner would have UI that you don't have anything in the 1NT range).

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2024-February-26, 15:05, said:

It's so easy to get the subset definition backwards. To be comparable as a subset, the question is, is there a hand which overcalls 2♣, which would not have opened 1♣?

I would say yes, because there are hands that overcall 2♣ that would have opened 1NT; so not comparable for me (partner would have UI that you don't have anything in the 1NT range).

I firmly agree with you and so does most of northern Europe... but not Italy alas which is for a permissive initial interpretation and then see.
And there is at least one hand in the WBF commentary which seems to negate a literal application of the inherent logic of the Law.
Whichever side one is on, this Law needs revision in 2027 (if not earlier).

[sfi]

pescetom, on 2024-February-26, 15:58, said:

I firmly agree with you and so does most of northern Europe... but not Italy alas which is for a permissive initial interpretation and then see.

What's your objection to a permissive interpretation? Most of the time it lets the hand continue in a sensible way and the director simply deals with the edge cases as required. This seems superior to an approach where you penalise one side as a matter of course early in the process.

To be specific, why not see what happens with the 2C overcall and work out whether the small areas of non-overlap matter on the hand in the OP?

[jillybean]

Thanks all.
We definitely need a subset of the Laws for your average club Director and player.

I don't see how 1♣ (2+) oops (1♠) 2♣ is a comparable call.

Where is this commentary to the laws.Can someone put a reference to this please?

1♣ ooops. Director please.
"Dealer have your bid, OS make your bid sufficient" "Director" walks away from table

[pescetom]

sfi, on 2024-February-26, 17:30, said:

What's your objection to a permissive interpretation? Most of the time it lets the hand continue in a sensible way and the director simply deals with the edge cases as required. This seems superior to an approach where you penalise one side as a matter of course early in the process.

That is a good argument for changing the Law, not for wishing it away.

Neither the Laws nor the Commentary on how to interpret them suggest this approach.

Yes it's frequent and normal that we have to interpret a Law in an unusual situation, but here there is nothing that the Law was not formulated to deal with: we can't say "let's pretend it is a subset and make up our own rules if we don't like the result". That is elusion, not interpretation.

[sfi]

pescetom, on 2024-February-27, 02:27, said:

[We] can't say "let's pretend it is a subset and make up our own rules if we don't like the result". That is elusion, not interpretation.

They laws and the commentary don't say that. The commentary talks specifically about 'Similar Strength' calls, making it clear that they can be accepted as a comparable call. It sounds like we're reading different documents because I'm paraphrasing directly from the section of page 18 of the Laws Commentary. What I don't get is where your interpretation arises, and I'm still intrigued to understand why we're interpreting the scrolls so differently.

To directly quote page 20 of the commentary:

Quote

When determining whether a call is comparable, some flexibility towards the
offender is in order, especially concerning the strength shown.

[Coelacanth]

smerriman, on 2024-February-26, 15:05, said:

It's so easy to get the subset definition backwards. To be comparable as a subset, the question is, is there a hand which overcalls 2♣, which would not have opened 1♣?

I would say yes, because there are hands that overcall 2♣ that would have opened 1NT; so not comparable for me (partner would have UI that you don't have anything in the 1NT range).

Surely the hands that would open 1NT would also overall 1NT; I don't know many pairs that play a radically different range for 1NT openers vs overcalls.

[jillybean]

Coelacanth, on 2024-February-27, 09:24, said:

Surely the hands that would open 1NT would also overall 1NT; I don't know many pairs that play a radically different range for 1NT openers vs overcalls.

I play 10-13 or 12-14 nt, my 1nt overcall is 15-17

[pescetom]

sfi, on 2024-February-27, 03:25, said:

They laws and the commentary don't say that. The commentary talks specifically about 'Similar Strength' calls, making it clear that they can be accepted as a comparable call. It sounds like we're reading different documents because I'm paraphrasing directly from the section of page 18 of the Laws Commentary. What I don't get is where your interpretation arises, and I'm still intrigued to understand why we're interpreting the scrolls so differently.

The commentary gives a lot of rope on Strength differences and a small amount on length differences, with many examples drawing more or less fine lines.
It has a lot less to say about Subsets and the only related example as I recall is perfectly black and white (weak 6 spades comparable to multi).

Which reflects the differences in wording when the Laws define these two classes of Comparable Call:

Quote

- have the same or a similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call, or
- define a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call, or
- have the same purpose (...) as that attributable to the withdrawn call.

'Or a similar' (my emphasis) acknowledges that there is a "gray area" (as the Commentary notes) in equivalence of meaning.
But subset (and purpose) are not similarly qualified.

Another thing the Commentary says specifically is the guiding principle:

Quote

The intention is clear: If the illegal call does not provide any substantial information
other than what is subsequently conveyed by the legal call, that legal call is deemed
to be a ‘comparable call’.

In the case of OP, the illegal call provides the substantial other information that the hand is not a 10-13 (or 12-14) HCP 5332 (maybe also excluding some or all 5422 and 6332 according to 1NT agreements).

[smerriman]

Coelacanth, on 2024-February-27, 09:24, said:

Surely the hands that would open 1NT would also overall 1NT; I don't know many pairs that play a radically different range for 1NT openers vs overcalls.

Many do play a different range, but even if you don't, a lack of spade stopper would definitely prevent it.

[jillybean]

Where does this commentary exist?

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2024-February-27, 12:34, said:

Where does this commentary exist?

Here.

It's an invaluable and thoughtfully written document, although not at it's best when addressing CC, perhaps because there were too many cracks to paint over (Double as a replacement for strong 1♣ is a fluke, but at least genial. Pass as exactly 1 keycard (rather than an odd number of keycards) and hence comparable to 1 or 4 keycards is merely contrived).

[jillybean]

Thanks, the links didn't appear, didn't work from my phone, but do from my MAC

Oh, it's for Tournament Directors.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2024-February-27, 13:27, said:

Here.

It's an invaluable and thoughtfully written document, although not at it's best when addressing CC, perhaps because there were too many cracks to paint over (Double as a replacement for strong 1♣ is a 1 in a 1000 fluke, but at least genial. Pass as exactly 1 keycard (rather than an odd number of keycards) and hence comparable to 1 or 4 keycards is merely contrived).

This is interesting reading!
I'd say after reading this I would have to rule 1C(2+) ooops. (1S) 2C is not a comparable call and partner is banned from bidding 1st round.

The laws say the BOOTer can make any legal call after RHO bid, X or XX.
When would X or XX be a legal call? Playing 4cM 1H oops. (1S) X?

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2024-February-27, 22:30, said:

When would X or XX be a legal call? Playing 4cM 1H oops. (1S) X?

Following the Commentary, 1H(4cM)oops (1S) X would only be legal if the convention card also shows that takeout of spades promises 4 hearts.

And an example of a legal XX might be 1♣(2+)oops 1♥ (X) XX where XX shows 10+ HCP (considered close enough to opening strength). Which sounds clear enough, but what if the BOOT was 1♦(4+) rather than 1♣(2+)? And/or opponents X promised spades? The devil is in the detail, and never more so than in applying this Law.

[smerriman]

sfi, on 2024-February-26, 17:30, said:

To be specific, why not see what happens with the 2C overcall and work out whether the small areas of non-overlap matter on the hand in the OP?

How would you do this as a director? It seems it would involve going through literally every single card played by the defender (assuming they end on defense), determining all logical alternatives, and deciding if the one played is demonstrated by the fact that the missing HCP/shape in partner's hand can't add to something in the 1NT range, and whether a different card may instead have led to a different result. It feels like this would take hours to determine..

The point of the subset rule is that it immediately removes all traces of UI, so you don't have to do this.