[RincewindW]

I've had a look at https://www.bridgeba...ding-law-27b1b/ but there are so many double and triple negatives that I am totally confused - not an uncommon situation.

Its a very simple (and I suspect not uncommon) situation as follows (playing basic Acol with 4cd majors)
N - 1N (12-14)
E - 2H
S - 2C (Stayman) failing to notice the 2H bid!

TD called and
Advises W they may accept the bid. W not interested
Advises S they must make a sufficient 'comparable' (not the actual word but similar) bid and suggests that the only comparable bid would be 2S (Why not 2N?)

S - 2S
W - P
N starts to bid but is advised by TD they must pass for the rest of the auction.

My questions
1. Why is 2N not also allowable? 2N does not deny the presence of a 4 card major
2. Why is N banned from bidding after S had made the recommended 'comparable' bid?

[P_Marlowe]

RincewindW, on 2025-October-15, 02:41, said:

I've had a look at https://www.bridgeba...ding-law-27b1b/ but there are so many double and triple negatives that I am totally confused - not an uncommon situation.

Its a very simple (and I suspect not uncommon) situation as follows (playing basic Acol with 4cd majors)
N - 1N (12-14)
E - 2H
S - 2C (Stayman) failing to notice the 2H bid!

TD called and
Advises W they may accept the bid. W not interested
Advises S they must make a sufficient 'comparable' (not the actual word but similar) bid and suggests that the only comparable bid would be 2S (Why not 2N?)

S - 2S
W - P
N starts to bid but is advised by TD they must pass for the rest of the auction.

My questions
1. Why is 2N not also allowable? 2N does not deny the presence of a 4 card major
2. Why is N banned from bidding after S had made the recommended 'comparable' bid?

I dont think that 2S is comparable to 2C, 2S showes 5 card suit and is to play,
2C asks p about a possible 4 card major.
Similar with regards to 2NT, it either promises a stopper, or would be Lebensohl,
also 2NT could be limited, the 2C Stayman Call does not Limit Responders hand.

If at all, I would assume, that X (as long as it is neg.) is comparable.

Now there is something like

"... or if the substituted bid would have been conventional, the offender's partner must pass to the end of auction."

in the version of the Law I found.

My take is, that a neg. X, is conventional (?), due to this he has to make / find a bid, knowing p will pass forever,
it is common to bid 3NT.

[axman]

RincewindW, on 2025-October-15, 02:41, said:

I've had a look at https://www.bridgeba...ding-law-27b1b/ but there are so many double and triple negatives that I am totally confused - not an uncommon situation.

Its a very simple (and I suspect not uncommon) situation as follows (playing basic Acol with 4cd majors)
N - 1N (12-14)
E - 2H
S - 2C (Stayman) failing to notice the 2H bid!

TD called and
Advises W they may accept the bid. W not interested
Advises S they must make a sufficient 'comparable' (not the actual word but similar) bid and suggests that the only comparable bid would be 2S (Why not 2N?)

The firing of this TD for crimes against bridge might have been avoided had he read the fabulous lawbook to the players in his ruling. In this instance he demanded that S make a comparable bid- a feat that possibly could not be satisfied (within the partnership method) when instead the proper ruling is the obscenity written in TFLB.

[mycroft]

I strongly disagree with the ruling, for all the reasons mentioned. If 2♠ is considered comparable by the director, then the auction should continue as normal after it. If it's "the only option", then, well, it's not the only option.

The director's job is to help determine (if you're anyone but axman) if there are comparable calls *in the players' system*, and outline what will happen if they take one of those calls and what will happen if they don't. It looks like none of those three things were done. Oh, and there's the "cheapest bid that shows the same denomination(s) as the insufficient bid, but I can't see this applying here as no denominations are *shown* by Stayman).

I would guess in most of the world that 3♥, "GF, asking if opener has 4 spades" would be an available call, and it is clearly a subset of "0+, asking if opener has 4 hearts or 4 spades". In much of the rest of the world, there's an equivalent (3♦, playing that style of Transfer Lebensohl, for example). Yeah, in much of the *sohl world there's information about heart stoppers, but players are allowed to know that 2NT would *not be* allowed as comparable, so responder might be fudging the stoppers thing ("Law 16C does not apply" and it doesn't reach the "could not have been reached without" standard of 27D).

In some of the world, double might be considered comparable, if it is negative ("promising" 4 spades). I'd be much warier of this one, as I always am when 27B3 is in the picture.

How do I know? I don't - that's why I have to talk to the players to know their system. Or check their cards. Or...

Re: your specific questions:

• 2NT would not usually be comparable, because "I have invitational values" (if natural) or "please bid 3♣ so I can show my hand" (Leb, which might be "weak, long clubs", but we know from the IB that it's "Stayman with a stopper") is not the same as "partner, I want to hear about your major suits" - i.e. "the information from the insufficient bid is either reproduced or subsumed in the information from the replacement bid. I was going to talk about "4-way transfers, 2♣ then 2NT is the only way to invite", but the more I think about it, the more I think that *is* comparable under 23A2 "defines a subset of the possible meanings..." Well, I guess that goes onto my list of "ask my Laws Guru" :-).
  
• Because 2♠ is 100% not comparable. As people are saying, that shows enough spades to want to play 2 and only 2♠ - at least 5. If the partnership is playing Crawling Stayman and would bid 2♣ then 2♠ to show their hand, then the difference here is that that would promise 5-4 in the majors, and 2♠ only shows the spades (so opener "knows" partner has hearts only from the IB).

As for why it was recommended as comparable and then ruled as if it were not comparable - either they did not understand the director when they said "it's your only reasonable option if you want to bid, but it's not comparable and partner will have to pass it" or the director wasn't clear and misled the player. Neither of which reflects best on the director, but as with everything in bridge, "Good Judgement comes from Experience. Experience comes from Bad Judgement". Education, not punishment, should be the goal, especially if there isn't anyone else who can or will direct the game :-).

[RincewindW]

Thanks to those who contributed.

re I think that "*is* comparable under 23A2 "defines a subset of the possible meanings . ." : Hhhmm: bridge bids are organised to minimise duplication and therefore I find 'a subset of possible meanings' quite hard to envisage. All bids have, sometimes subtly, different meanings.

Im truly grateful that I am a 'casual' player and dont feel the need poke around in the murkier corners of the Rules of Bridge - clearly that way lies insomnia :-). But just in case :-), what is the TFLB and where can I get one?

(I will ask the question of the event organisers and see what they say)

[blackshoe]

The Fine Law Book is published by ACBL and available in spiral-bound pocket sized hard copy from Baron Barclay. You can also look at it (and maybe download it, I haven't tried) on ACBL's website.

You may notice some difference between the hard copy and the pdf -- there have been some changes since publication.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2025-October-15, 14:19, said:

2NT would not usually be comparable, because "I have invitational values" (if natural) or "please bid 3♣ so I can show my hand" (Leb, which might be "weak, long clubs", but we know from the IB that it's "Stayman with a stopper") is not the same as "partner, I want to hear about your major suits" - i.e. "the information from the insufficient bid is either reproduced or subsumed in the information from the replacement bid. I was going to talk about "4-way transfers, 2♣ then 2NT is the only way to invite", but the more I think about it, the more I think that *is* comparable under 23A2 "defines a subset of the

I endorse your excellent reply, but also echo this doubt. If Stayman was not necessarily about majors (and for most players it is not, in the strong NT world at least) then a lot of the discussion goes out of the window.

[RincewindW]

pescetom, on 2025-October-16, 15:46, said:

I endorse your excellent reply, but also echo this doubt. If Stayman was not necessarily about majors (and for most players it is not, in the strong NT world at least) then a lot of the discussion goes out of the window.

OP said
. . . (playing basic Acol with 4cd majors)
N - 1N (12-14)

[RincewindW]

blackshoe, on 2025-October-16, 15:17, said:

The Fine Law Book is published by ACBL and available in spiral-bound pocket sized hard copy from Baron Barclay. You can also look at it (and maybe download it, I haven't tried) on ACBL's website.

You may notice some difference between the hard copy and the pdf -- there have been some changes since publication.

so 'The Fine Law Book' is actually "THE LAWS OF DUPLICATE 2017 EDITION"?

While searching, I actually ran across some Flow charts on ebu.co.uk which were rather easier to follow

[paulg]

RincewindW, on 2025-October-17, 01:38, said:

While searching, I actually ran across some Flow charts on ebu.co.uk which were rather easier to follow

The EBU White Book is also an excellent resource for tournament directors, available on https://www.ebu.co.u...cs-publications

[pescetom]

I have an interesting similar case that is cold enough by now to discuss... will post if after the weekend (regional teams).

[RincewindW]

paulg, on 2025-October-17, 02:12, said:

The EBU White Book is also an excellent resource for tournament directors, available on https://www.ebu.co.u...cs-publications

In this case, I think it just muddies the water!! (but does explain much of the rapid fire explanation I received from TD :-)

It says (8.27.1b) Otherwise, the insufficient bid may be corrected with a legal call (which in this case
could be a double, redouble or pass) that is a ‘Comparable Call’. That is a call that has at least as precise meaning as the insufficient bid

So it seems to be defining 'comparable' as 'at least as precise' which is, at least in my opinion, quite significantly different from 'comperable'

Better perhaps 'a call that has a meaning that is a subset of the agreed meanings of the IB'

[pescetom]

RincewindW, on 2025-October-17, 02:45, said:

In this case, I think it just muddies the water!! (but does explain much of the rapid fire explanation I received from TD :-)

It says (8.27.1b) Otherwise, the insufficient bid may be corrected with a legal call (which in this case
could be a double, redouble or pass) that is a ‘Comparable Call’. That is a call that has at least as precise meaning as the insufficient bid

So it seems to be defining 'comparable' as 'at least as precise' which is, at least in my opinion, quite significantly different from 'comperable'

Better perhaps 'a call that has a meaning that is a subset of the agreed meanings of the IB'

Yes that is sloppy writing, two entirely different meanings can be equally precise and a subset is more precise than the set.
The sense of the Law is equivalent or an entirely contained subset.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2025-October-17, 06:21, said:

Yes that is sloppy writing, two entirely different meanings can be equally precise and a subset is more precise than the set.
The sense of the Law is equivalent or an entirely contained subset.

True, a bid that shows only hearts is more precise than one that shows either spades or clubs. But I think the author of that line felt that it was obvious that "comparable" implies that the meanings be similar or overlapping. It's not intended to be interpreted mathematically without understanding the intent.

So given two similar meanings, we're just expected to determine which one is more precise, the original IB or the replacement.

[RincewindW]

RincewindW, on 2025-October-16, 14:17, said:

Thanks to those who contributed.


(I will ask the question of the event organisers and see what they say)

So the Bridge Club ran it up the pole to the EBU where the Deputy Chief TD replied as follows:

In general, when there has been an insufficient bid, and the next player chooses not to accept:
The offender can make a comparable call, and offender's partner is not silenced, OR
the offender can make another bid or pass, and offender's parter is silenced.

In this case, there is often not a comparable call to a stayman 2C.

I do not think 2S is comparable: it does not have a similar meaning ("weak with 5 S" against "asking for 4 card majors"), 2S does not show a subset of the hands that would bid 2C, and 2S does not serve the same purpose.

But if the director ruled that 2S was comparable, then South should be allowed to bid.

If the director had ruled that 2S was not comparable, then North should not have bid 2S because South would have to pass.

(For some pairs, a replacement of 2C with Double would be takeout and might be comparable; but if double is ruled to be not comparable, then North cannot double.)

If North has no comparable call, whatever North does will silence South, so North will have to guess.

To "explain" the ruling:
• why was S required to pass after N had corrected his insufficient bid to one that was deemed by the TD to be a valid sufficient bid (and so ‘comparable’ with the original 2C)?

The director was confused in saying 2S was comparable but then silencing South.

• If 2S was not a comparable bid, what would be a comparable bid

North does not have to make a comparable call (and may not have a comparable call)
North does not have a comparable bid - but a takeout double could be considered comparable.

• Is there any action that N could make that would allow N&S to continue in the auction

• Probably not.

North would not have bid 2S if they knew South would have to pass. Having bid 2S, and West rebid 3H, North can make any call now, North does not have to pass.

In short a serious minefield full of personal interpretation (eg a take out double COULD be considered comparable). Hardly ideal!

[pescetom]

RincewindW, on 2025-October-17, 10:14, said:

So the Bridge Club ran it up the pole to the EBU where the Deputy Chief TD replied as follows:

In general, when there has been an insufficient bid, and the next player chooses not to accept:
The offender can make a comparable call, and offender's partner is not silenced, OR
the offender can make another bid or pass, and offender's parter is silenced.

In this case, there is often not a comparable call to a stayman 2C.

I do not think 2S is comparable: it does not have a similar meaning ("weak with 5 S" against "asking for 4 card majors"), 2S does not show a subset of the hands that would bid 2C, and 2S does not serve the same purpose.

But if the director ruled that 2S was comparable, then South should be allowed to bid.

If the director had ruled that 2S was not comparable, then North should not have bid 2S because South would have to pass.

(For some pairs, a replacement of 2C with Double would be takeout and might be comparable; but if double is ruled to be not comparable, then North cannot double.)

If North has no comparable call, whatever North does will silence South, so North will have to guess.

To "explain" the ruling:
• why was S required to pass after N had corrected his insufficient bid to one that was deemed by the TD to be a valid sufficient bid (and so ‘comparable’ with the original 2C)?

The director was confused in saying 2S was comparable but then silencing South.

• If 2S was not a comparable bid, what would be a comparable bid

North does not have to make a comparable call (and may not have a comparable call)
North does not have a comparable bid - but a takeout double could be considered comparable.

• Is there any action that N could make that would allow N&S to continue in the auction

• Probably not.

North would not have bid 2S if they knew South would have to pass. Having bid 2S, and West rebid 3H, North can make any call now, North does not have to pass.

In short a serious minefield full of personal interpretation (eg a take out double COULD be considered comparable). Hardly ideal!

A fair and honest reply from the top.
As a TD, I agree with your last paragraph and have been saying the same ever since I saw this law and read the commentary.