[Cyberyeti]

 blackshoe, on 2025-March-04, 23:04, said:

Question: Whose bid of hearts is not comparable to what?

1♦-P-1♥
and
1N-P-2♦(transfer)

are not comparable to a 1♥ opener by partner so would bar me.

[jillybean]

Both bids show hearts, and are unlimited, I think they should be allowed.
The purpose of the Laws is to restore equity, baring partner leads to a non bridge result.
At the end of the hand, the Director may need to review the outcome if the OS gained from the infraction.

edit: otoh, a 1H response is not comparable to a 1H opening bid. To satisfy the comparable call criteria, must partner make a gf heart bid after 1♦ / ?

[mycroft]

Right, same for 1NT-2♦. Not comparable, as it could be done on a 3-count with 5 hearts (but you know from the BOOT that partner has opening values - this is where my comment about "usually you can tell if the bid pulled was 1 level or 2/3" comes in).

One of the hardest things to understand with comparable call is which subset we're talking about. The legal call made, to be a comparable call (well, this element of comparable call), must show the same *or more specific* hand from the disallowed call. Frequently people will think that if the disallowed call is more specific than *the legal call*, it's okay - but that's exactly backwards. It's also very easy to mix up.

[Coelacanth]

 sanst, on 2025-March-05, 02:52, said:

FWIIW:the Dutch rules are the same as the EBU's. That makes more sense to me than the ACBL's or FIGB's. If treated as a COOT it's much easier for the director, for otherwise there's a lot of UI you have to deal with.
Given all the possible methods, oral, digital, bidding boxes, written and maybe even more, I quite understand why there's nothing about bidding boxes in the Laws but it's up to the RA's to deal with regulations about bidding.

I don't agree that treating this as a COOT makes it easier for the Director. There is UI either way, and "partner has opening bid values" is a lot less UI than "partner tried to open 1 Heart".

In my experience, this smaller amount of UI is also much easier for the player to deal with. OK, they now know partner has some values (or, if the COOT was a green card, partner lacks opening-bid values), but this is only relevant if a) they have a choice of calls; b) one of these calls is demonstrably suggested to be more likely to succeed; c) they choose that call even after being warned against the possible consequences of doing so; and d) the opponents end up damaged as a result.

The vast majority of the time, offender's partner has an obvious, no-LAs call, he makes that call, and we get on with our lives. Sometimes we need to revisit the UI later in the auction, but this is also quite rare.

If we treat this as a COOT, then in addition to offender's partner having more UI, we also will need to assess whether offender's later in-rotation call is comparable, potentially impose lead restrictions if the offending side ends up defending, etc. None of that sounds easier to me.

[jillybean]

Ok, I've come back full circle.

After a 1H BOOT, if partner opens 1nt, there is no comparable call.
" , if partner opens 1D, the only comparable call would be a strong GF jump in hearts, if that is available to the partnership?

[mycroft]

I agree with you in this case (as I probably should :-)

But we also have "yeah, I'll accept the pass and open 2nd seat" vs UI and comparable call; we have "it was on the table/it was three inches over" fights that Just Don't Happen with "clear the box with intent" (although I'm sure there are "cleared the box/wasn't quite above the 2♥ call"); we have "but I saw it, it was..." - in the EBU, it's "well, yes, that's because it's a made call"; and more.

OTOH, we have a lot fewer 25A calls, because the "pull 2♥, knock off the 2♠ call that came with it, put it down" isn't a made bid, so it's not a mispull. But I bet that, EBU or no, a lot of those are handled without the TD just like they are here.

[Cyberyeti]

 jillybean, on 2025-March-05, 12:25, said:

Ok, I've come back full circle.

After a 1H BOOT, if partner opens 1nt, there is no comparable call.
" , if partner opens 1D, the only comparable call would be a strong GF jump in hearts, if that is available to the partnership?

If partner opens 1N - 3♥ GF/SI would be available, but in practice, partner would have a hand not worth that and would have to choose between P/2♥/3N/4♥ with his 12 count 4513 to set the contract
SJS would be available over 1♦ but the hand was unsuitable.

[barmar]

 Cyberyeti, on 2025-March-05, 14:05, said:

If partner opens 1N - 3♥ GF/SI would be available, but in practice, partner would have a hand not worth that and would have to choose between P/2♥/3N/4♥ with his 12 count 4513 to set the contract

I don't think I know anyone who plays 3♥ natural over 1NT these days. The meanings I've encountered are

• 3-suiter with short hearts
  
• short hearts and both minors
  
• weak both majors

There are probably other artificial meanings I haven't run into. But if you're playing Jacoby and Texas transfers, there's little need for it to be natural.

When I first learned bridge it was natural+GF because I hadn't learned transfers yet. Nowadays we teach transfers to beginners. I remember my mother, who had been a social bridge player all her life, taking a duplicate class at her clubhouse, and complaining that she didn't like the transfers they were teaching.

[pescetom]

 sanst, on 2025-March-05, 02:52, said:

FWIIW:the Dutch rules are the same as the EBU's. That makes more sense to me than the ACBL's or FIGB's. If treated as a COOT it's much easier for the director, for otherwise there's a lot of UI you have to deal with.
Given all the possible methods, oral, digital, bidding boxes, written and maybe even more, I quite understand why there's nothing about bidding boxes in the Laws but it's up to the RA's to deal with regulations about bidding.

Yes on the whole I agree.
It is less of an issue than you might expect, but following the usual short-circuit between forum and real life it promptly came up when I was TD yesterday.
After opening 1♥ and receiving a simple raise to 2♥ unopposed, Opener thought for a while and extracted a card from the lower section of the box, then replaced it with 3♥, Responder passed. Director!

[Cyberyeti]

 barmar, on 2025-March-05, 15:25, said:

I don't think I know anyone who plays 3♥ natural over 1NT these days. The meanings I've encountered are

• 3-suiter with short hearts
  
• short hearts and both minors
  
• weak both majors

There are probably other artificial meanings I haven't run into. But if you're playing Jacoby and Texas transfers, there's little need for it to be natural.

When I first learned bridge it was natural+GF because I hadn't learned transfers yet. Nowadays we teach transfers to beginners. I remember my mother, who had been a social bridge player all her life, taking a duplicate class at her clubhouse, and complaining that she didn't like the transfers they were teaching.

2 red transfer but no texas. We indeed play this as GF/SI nat.

[mycroft]

I've done it before, too (although I prefer (31)(45) - really prefer the 3, even when playing "5332s are balanced", but the 1 is okay too).

It's nice to be able to say "we're playing in hearts, cuebid" as well as "we're playing in hearts, and I have a mild slam try" or "we're playing in hearts, keycard" (or, if you have it, "we're playing in hearts, and here's how many keycards I have").

But yeah, yet another minor case these days.