[Cyberyeti]

My LHO opens 1♣ out of turn down the club

I call the director, cancel the 1♣, open 1♠, LHO wants to overcall 2♣, is this comparable.

Director (who does frequent these boards) doesn't seem to know what to do next, he's playing, we're following him and he was a board behind when he vacated the table we're playing at.

It seems that many club directors aren't up to speed with this.

As I understand it, 2♣ may or may not be comparable, 1♣ was 4+, but it depends if you play a style where 2♣ can be bid on considerably less than an opening bid (don't laugh, some here play that a simple overcall shows less than an opening bid).

Also the player has the right to ask the director whether his call is comparable.

Anyway he bid 2♣ without silencing his partner, we bid 4♠ (which would have been -1), they bid 5♣ which was also -1 so we weren't damaged.

What worries me is that they could theoretically now appeal claiming director error, saying that if overcaller's partner had correctly (I don't know what they overcall on to know if it would have been correct) been silenced and thus unable to show his 5 card support ...

[blackshoe]

It would be nice if this were a simple ruling question, but it's not, so I'm moving it.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2019-February-16, 10:38, said:

It would be nice if this were a simple ruling question, but it's not, so I'm moving it.

If such a simple problem does not have a simple ruling then the law is seriously flawed.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2019-February-16, 10:47, said:

If such a simple problem does not have a simple ruling then the law is seriously flawed.

This is my view of the situation.

It can be dealt with in national events fine, but particularly for a club director who may be playing and may not have played the board yet, it creates impossible issues.

[gordontd]

I would expect the 2C to be considered comparable for most players, unless the pair has a very light two-level overcalling style.

I can't imagine a successful ruling in favour of an offending side who argued that they had been damaged by being allowed (not required) to bid without restriction.

An associated but not directly-applicable point: at the recent EBL TD course in Antalya, we were advised that any case of damage to a NOS following the application of Laws 23 or 27 should be dealt with under 23C or 27D and not to be considered as director's error.

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2019-February-16, 12:04, said:

I would expect the 2C to be considered comparable for most players, unless the pair has a very light two-level overcalling style.

I can't imagine a successful ruling in favour of an offending side who argued that they had been damaged by being allowed (not required) to bid without restriction.

An associated but not directly-applicable point: at the recent EBL TD course in Antalya, we were advised that any case of damage to a NOS following the application of Laws 23 or 27 should be dealt with under 23C or 27D and not to be considered as director's error.

But if the offending side is damaged by being silenced and they overturn the ruling that their call was comparable (or there was a comparable call), that is still director's error ?

The problem in clubs is that the playing director may compromise his own play of the board by the requirement to analyse whether a call is comparable or not as the player (as said in previous threads) has a right to know this.

[weejonnie]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-February-16, 13:01, said:

But if the offending side is damaged by being silenced and they overturn the ruling that their call was comparable (or there was a comparable call), that is still director's error ?

The problem in clubs is that the playing director may compromise his own play of the board by the requirement to analyse whether a call is comparable or not as the player (as said in previous threads) has a right to know this.

I would say that they could appeal to the DIC. If this turns out to be a matter of law then it would be adjudicated to be director's error.

Certainly a playing director could well be compromised - even more so if he has to take time to work out what conventional bids mean for the partnership. My gut reaction is that unless the TD has clear evidence that the call is NOT comparable he should rule it comparable and then adjudicate under 23C/ 27D as Gordon says. This is just trying to be practicable. This is one of the new problems the playing TD faces - he has to make a judgement call, then and there to allow play to continue: he cannot leave it until the end of the session/ when he has played the board himself.

[Cyberyeti]

weejonnie, on 2019-February-16, 14:48, said:

I would say that they could appeal to the DIC. If this turns out to be a matter of law then it would be adjudicated to be director's error.

Certainly a playing director could well be compromised - even more so if he has to take time to work out what conventional bids mean for the partnership. My gut reaction is that unless the TD has clear evidence that the call is NOT comparable he should rule it comparable and then adjudicate under 23C/ 27D as Gordon says. This is just trying to be practicable. This is one of the new problems the playing TD faces - he has to make a judgement call, then and there to allow play to continue: he cannot leave it until the end of the session/ when he has played the board himself.

Yup, which is why I'm not sure it's a good law for clubs. It depends on the director doing what can be a pretty deep analysis session, not only compromising his playing of that board, but possibly using up most of his time for a round so rendering him unable to play another board. We actually (as we were following the director and it was just before the last round so no serious knock-on effect) allowed him to start a board after the end of the round as it wasn't his fault he was late.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-February-16, 15:26, said:

Yup, which is why I'm not sure it's a good law for clubs. It depends on the director doing what can be a pretty deep analysis session, not only compromising his playing of that board, but possibly using up most of his time for a round so rendering him unable to play another board. We actually (as we were following the director and it was just before the last round so no serious knock-on effect) allowed him to start a board after the end of the round as it wasn't his fault he was late.

I think you have to apply a general rule where an overcall of 2C is comparable to an opening bid of 1C. There is very little extra information and the aim is to try to get "normal play" of the board. The TD can always step in if he thinks the partner of the person making an IB or BOOT has gained. And if people are ethical and pretend they did not see the IB or BOOT, then there should be no problem.

And you can't have the TD scrutinising the system in great detail and trying to rule - he or she should apply a simple principle.

[blackshoe]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-February-16, 13:01, said:

The problem in clubs is that the playing director may compromise his own play of the board by the requirement to analyse whether a call is comparable or not as the player (as said in previous threads) has a right to know this.

When you agree to be a playing director, you agree to live with those times when you cannot play a board because you were called to make a ruling on it.

[blackshoe]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-February-16, 15:26, said:

Yup, which is why I'm not sure it's a good law for clubs. It depends on the director doing what can be a pretty deep analysis session, not only compromising his playing of that board, but possibly using up most of his time for a round so rendering him unable to play another board.

This is not the place to discuss whether or how the law should be changed or be different to what it is.

Cyberyeti, on 2019-February-16, 15:26, said:

We actually (as we were following the director and it was just before the last round so no serious knock-on effect) allowed him to start a board after the end of the round as it wasn't his fault he was late.

Since when do players get to decide whether other players get to start a board? That's the director's job.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2019-February-16, 18:48, said:

Since when do players get to decide whether other players get to start a board? That's the director's job.

Director said to us, we haven't started the last board when the move was called, what do we want him to do, it was a teams comp, so it seemed fairer to let him play it.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2019-February-16, 18:09, said:

I think you have to apply a general rule where an overcall of 2C is comparable to an opening bid of 1C. There is very little extra information and the aim is to try to get "normal play" of the board. The TD can always step in if he thinks the partner of the person making an IB or BOOT has gained. And if people are ethical and pretend they did not see the IB or BOOT, then there should be no problem.

And you can't have the TD scrutinising the system in great detail and trying to rule - he or she should apply a simple principle.

There are plenty of people playing IJOs or other things that mean their simple overcall can be AQJxxx and out.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2019-February-16, 18:40, said:

When you agree to be a playing director, you agree to live with those times when you cannot play a board because you were called to make a ruling on it.

Yes, and the North London club awards A+/A+, since we don’t want to punish people for agreeing to be a playing director.

blackshoe, on 2019-February-16, 18:48, said:

Since when do players get to decide whether other players get to start a board? That's the director's job.

At that club we have a rulings director and a movement director. Others may have the same system.

[Cyberyeti]

Vampyr, on 2019-February-16, 20:23, said:

At that club we have a rulings director and a movement director. Others may have the same system.

We have a few qualified directors, but usually only one person directs on a given night,

[gordontd]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-February-16, 19:09, said:

There are plenty of people playing IJOs or other things that mean their simple overcall can be AQJxxx and out.

There is some guidance about this in a recently-released document from the WBFLC chairman.

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2019-February-17, 04:50, said:

There is some guidance about this in a recently-released document from the WBFLC chairman.

Jesus "A 1♠ overcall of a 1♥ opening replacing a 1♠ opening in first or second seat OOT is not comparable." depends what you overcall on, our simple overcalls are the same range as our opening bids, so why not ?

[gordontd]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-February-17, 15:28, said:

Jesus "A 1♠ overcall of a 1♥ opening replacing a 1♠ opening in first or second seat OOT is not comparable." depends what you overcall on, our simple overcalls are the same range as our opening bids, so why not ?

If they are the same range as your overcalls, then they could be considered comparable, but I must say you would be the first players I’ve encountered for whom this is true.

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2019-February-17, 16:27, said:

If they are the same range as your overcalls, then they could be considered comparable, but I must say you would be the first players I’ve encountered for whom this is true.

It's true, we WJO on hands many people overcall 1 and respond to overcalls largely the same as if we'd opened.

1♦ over 1♣ (unless the club is 2+) probably needs more to overcall than it does to open.

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-February-17, 03:56, said:

We have a few qualified directors, but usually only one person directs on a given night,

We have around 15 club and county directors, and a few who aren’t qualified but also direct. The movement director will usually not be one of these people. We find that spreading the tasks around makes it easier for the people involved. I am pretty sure that we get more volunteers this way.