Another Comparable Call question
Hi all
1D from opener 2C from next to play followed by 1H.
Player who bid 1H has 4 hearts and 6 HCPs and doesn't have any great desire to bid 2H!
1) System says after 1D-2C a double guarantees one of the majors with tolerance to go back to 3D if partner chooses the wrong one. Is X a CC? If not, is pass a CC?
2) System says after 1D-2C a double guarantees both the majors an. Is X a CC? If not, is pass a CC?
Cheers
Ed
Latest Posts on this Thread
- NICK WHITTEN30 Sep 2018 at 09:04AM
Hi Ed
I was hoping a National Director would answer this but it looks like thats not going to happen
So here is my view
In (1) X would NOT be comparable as it is not "more precise"
The withdrawn bid tells partner the suit is hearts not spadesIn (2) X showing hearts AND spades is more precise than the withdrawn bid (which showed hearts without confirming or denying the presence of a spade suit)
In either case 2H would be comparable (10+ (or whatever) is more precise than 6+)
BUT if opener avoids getting too high by allowing for the possibility partner is weaker than "normal" that is a case where Law 23C kicks in
cheers
Nick - Dougal WATSON07 Oct 2018 at 09:01PM
I *hate* Law 23A2 - the 'subset' arm of the comparable call law.
Looking at your question I came to an entirely different outcome to Nick's.
I saw none of the three options you mentioned as being Comparable Calls (CCs).
In the first two, the doubles, I saw the original insufficient 1H as possibly being a subset bid of those doubles ... but not the other way round. I also thought that the doubles were not of 'same or similar' meaning (Law23A1) or had 'the same purpose" (Law 23A3).
The pass, I saw as being more limited in it’s point count range than the 1H, but with a much wider range of card distributions. You could pass here with zero-hearts and 8HCP. To my mind that is also not comparable to the original 1H.
If confronted with this situation in a session I'd have probably adjudged none of those as being comparable and would have proceeded accordingly. Having said that I confess to continuing to have great difficulty with the intended meaning of that 'subset' provision, and hymbly accept the possibility (even likelihood) that I am entirely wrong.
You need to be logged in to reply to threads.
Click here to log in.
Click here to log in.
