[blackshoe]

Hm. On the general subject of comparable calls, to how much assistance in determining whether a call will be deemed comparable is a player entitled? At first thought, it seems to me "not much" other than reading Law 23 to him. I do think it's not appropriate for the director to say "tell me what call you want to make, and I'll tell you if it's comparable" and then if it's not to allow the player to make a different choice. Especially not appropriate to do that for him until he finds a comparable call.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-November-06, 10:51, said:

You seem to be assuming a level of self-awareness that may not really exist. I suspect most people aren't aware of at least 50% of the things they do that annoy other people. And in cases where they are aware, many may think it's the other people's problem, they're not doing anything wrong.

Many people suppress to a large extent awareness of things they do that might annoy others and even more so any motives they may have for not modifying such behaviour. This may even be a prerequisite to continually facing others and maintaining confidence about their abilities.

I'm in no hurry to discourage people who may well also be good players. But if they are consistently annoying people then partner and TD do well to remind them firmly all the same.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2019-November-06, 16:03, said:

Hm. On the general subject of comparable calls, to how much assistance in determining whether a call will be deemed comparable is a player entitled? At first thought, it seems to me "not much" other than reading Law 23 to him. I do think it's not appropriate for the director to say "tell me what call you want to make, and I'll tell you if it's comparable" and then if it's not to allow the player to make a different choice. Especially not appropriate to do that for him until he finds a comparable call.

I just discussed the same matter on another topic, as maybe you saw. The 2017 Laws Commentary seems to suggest that TD should ask exactly the question that you think is not appropriate. My objection is not that this is inappropriate but rather that it is unproductive and unfair to inexperienced players. My instinct given the law is to lead the question as in "if you were to ask me about bid X I would answer that it is comparable" - but having said that I recognise that such contortions are as ignoble as the law is impractical.

[blackshoe]

I guess I'll have to re-read that commentary.

[Vampyr]

ahydra, on 2019-November-01, 04:59, said:

I am worried about those who are less able-bodied being put at a disadvantage if the circumstances of a delay are not taken into account.

You should have led with this, because given your description of the situation above, posters have assumed that your partner was not disabled.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2019-November-06, 20:50, said:

I guess I'll have to re-read that commentary.

What it actually says is:
"The TD might also need to ask the offender what he meant to do when making the insufficient
bid. The TD should do this away from the table, to avoid creating UI. If the offender wants to
know whether a replacement call fulfills the conditions of Law 27B1 the TD should tell him, also
away from the table."

It's hard to see how anyone but SB will get to the point of wanting to know whether a replacement call fulfills the conditions of Law 27B1 and knowing that the TD will tell him if he asks but only then, unless the TD explains this peculiar situation inviting or leading questions.