Hi Ed

I would allow 2H as comparable (close enough for that) but be prepared to adjust if the offending side gained an advantage solely attributable to their error

I look at it this way:

If every hand which would make the replacement call would also have made the withdrawn call, then it is comparable.

Not exactly the case here because of the minor difference in minimum suit length and points.

But near enough IMO

We are advised to err on the side of being comparable in borderline cases so as to maximise the chance of getting a normal bridge result

Thats how I see it

I am prepared to stand corrected by any National director

cheers
Nick

Thanks Nick.

Playing DONT if they held 4 hearts and 5 spades they would bid 2H. But they would open 1S. 1H opener denies spades being longer than hearts, 2H doesn't. I personally think that disqualifies it as a CC. 

I agree, it would be great if Murray or some other experienced ND would participate in this forum and gice their guidance. I thought that was the point of it.

Cheers

Ed

Hi Ed

I see two pertinent points here (neither of which answers this particular question )

[1] The laws (increasingly with the new version) aim at getting a normal bridge result following an irregularity wherever this can reasonably be done.

In doing so there is the option for the director to adjust (27D also 23C and 50E4) if the irregularity helped the offending side.

But if offenders partner must pass then there is no provision for adjusting in the event of a wild punt giving a spectacularly good result for the offending side (unless 72C applies).

[2] There are two main explanations for an insufficient bid:

(a) Didn't notice RHO's bid

(b) Just wrote the wrong number

The offending player shouldn't be divulging which to anyone (except privately to the director), although it might become apparent with what he chooses to correct it to.

In this example if (b) was the case then a correction may be made applying Law 27B1(a) without a need to judge whether the replacement call was comparable.

cheers
Nick

Good points Nick

So what if it was a) and they meant to open 1H as they have 12 HCPs and 6 hearts but didn't see the RHO bid,

Then X (showing long suit 10-15 HCP) becomes the CC does it not?

Cheers

Ed

Hi Ed

No, double would not be comparable as it is not a SUBSET of the withdrawn call

What I think the director should do (if the bid isn't accepted) is take the player away from the table and find out what he intended to bid (you could just look at his hand but that practice is frowned upon)

and then

if it was an attempted overcall (with both majors) then 2H would allow the bidding to continue
or

if it was an attempted 1H opening then a change to 2H does NOT specify the same denominations so there would be no comparable call available.
The offending player may make any legal bid or pass (but not X) and partner would always have to pass (as in the old laws)

Hi Giles

My initial reaction would be to disagree with your initial reaction 

on the grounds that the withdrawn call contains additional information not  in the replacement call

BUT

a recent case in a Junior tournament suggests otherwise?

N: 1C   E: 1S   S: 1S   

I don't know what the ruling at the table was but a recently qualified director asked about it and got this reply from a National director

            Is West's 1S meant to be showing a spade suit or a cue bid asking for a spade stopper for NTs

            If West was showing a spade suit I think 1NT would be okay (ie a subset)

            If West was using 1S as a cue bid then 2S would be comparable

            This is only my view

I fully agree with your last bit "I'd like more discussion please"

cheers
Nick

Hi Giles

The problem is there is no such thing as the “meaning” of a bid which is illegal (because, say, it is insufficient)

The important thing is a player must not receive “extra” information from a withdrawn call.
So a X showing an unspecified long suit when the withdrawn call specified the suit is not allowed.

I believe the simplest approach is to look at all possible meanings of the replacement call.
If all of those would have made the withdrawn call then it is Ok

With the directors option to apply 27D or 23C offset any unfair advantage the offending side might get from their mistake

cheers
Nick