[gordontd]

---

Now South bid 1♠, West passed (condoning the 1♠ bid), North pointed out that the second 1♠ bid was insufficient, and before anyone could stop him, South tried to change his 1♠ bid to 1NT.

What is the status of the attempted 1NT bid?

(Unfortunately the bidding diagram doesn't seem to accept insufficient bids!)

[AlexJonson]

A fun hand.

I'll make a wild guess that 1NT is a bid out of turn.

[bluejak]

Law 27C makes it clear that the substituted bid is cancelled. But it does not make it clear what happens after that.

I can see the argument for a call out of turn, but I do not think so: if the next player had not accepted it then Law 27 accepts it as a substituted bid with various rectifications. So I think we have to accept it as an illegal substitution.

My guess it is just picked up, being UI to partner and AI to opponents. But I do not think the Law book is clear. Heavens to Murgatroyd, how very unusual!

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-July-01, 17:00, said:

Law 27C makes it clear that the substituted bid is cancelled. But it does not make it clear what happens after that.

I can see the argument for a call out of turn, but I do not think so: if the next player had not accepted it then Law 27 accepts it as a substituted bid with various rectifications. So I think we have to accept it as an illegal substitution.

My guess it is just picked up, being UI to partner and AI to opponents. But I do not think the Law book is clear. Heavens to Murgatroyd, how very unusual!

Isn't it clear that

Law 27A1 said:

Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender’s LHO. It is accepted if that player calls

takes precedence over the rest of Law 27?

I must ask how you rule if you are called to a table because of an insufficient bid and learns that the offender's LHO has already called (in turn)?

IMHO West here has accepted the insufficient bid of 1♠ and the turn to call is now in North.

Consequently the 1NT bid by South is a bid out of turn at his partner's turn to call and Law 31B applies.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 27C: if the offender replaces his insufficient bid before the director has ruled on rectification, unless the insufficient bid is accepted as A above allows, the substitution stands. The director applies the relevant foregoing section to the substitution.

The IB was accepted, so the substitution does not stand. However,

Quote

Law 9B2: No player shall take any action until the director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

and

Quote

Law 9C: Any premature correction of an irregularity by the offender may subject him to a further rectification (see the lead restrictions in Law 26).

Law 27C doesn't say what to do if the IB was accepted. However, in this case, the acceptance was by way of calling (he passed). So Sven is right, it is North's turn to bid. So the question is, "is 1NT a premature correction of the IB, or is it a bid out of turn"? I think since South was clearly trying to correct his IB, we should treat it as such, and not as a bid out of turn.

My ruling: South's 1♠ IB was accepted when West passed (Law 27A). The attempted correction is cancelled, and any information arising from it is UI to NS, AI to EW (Law 16D). Further, North drew attention to the IB before South attempted his correction. When attention is drawn to an irregularity, the director should be called, and no player shall take any action until the director has ruled (Law 9). That last is a very serious prohibition, which the laws say should draw a procedural penalty more often than not. Under the circumstances, I am issuing a warning: if this pair does this again, a PP in matchpoints will be assessed. Law 90 applies. (I'm basing this on the assumption that this is a normal club game, and these players are not necessarily aware of all their legal obligations, and have not been warned already).

Question: is there an issue here which should invoke Law 83, so that the TD should inform the players of their right to appeal? It seems to me not, that the ruling is a matter of law, but I've been wrong about that before.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-01, 19:07, said:

[...]
Law 27C doesn't say what to do if the IB was accepted. However, in this case, the acceptance was by way of calling (he passed). So Sven is right, it is North's turn to bid. So the question is, "is 1NT a premature correction of the IB, or is it a bid out of turn"? I think since South was clearly trying to correct his IB, we should treat it as such, and not as a bid out of turn.

My ruling: South's 1♠ IB was accepted when West passed (Law 27A). The attempted correction is cancelled, and any information arising from it is UI to NS, AI to EW (Law 16D). Further, North drew attention to the IB before South attempted his correction. When attention is drawn to an irregularity, the director should be called, and no player shall take any action until the director has ruled (Law 9). That last is a very serious prohibition, which the laws say should draw a procedural penalty more often than not. Under the circumstances, I am issuing a warning: if this pair does this again, a PP in matchpoints will be assessed. Law 90 applies. (I'm basing this on the assumption that this is a normal club game, and these players are not necessarily aware of all their legal obligations, and have not been warned already).

Question: is there an issue here which should invoke Law 83, so that the TD should inform the players of their right to appeal? It seems to me not, that the ruling is a matter of law, but I've been wrong about that before.

North called attention to the insufficient bid after West had subsequently called, i.e. at North's own turn to call. Therefore West's call was not in any way improper or premature.

I don't see how the attempted change of call by South now can be seen as anything else than a call out of turn at partner's turn to call unless South can convince the Director that Law 25A1 should apply? (And so far I have seen absolutely no indication that the insufficient bid was unintended?)

Law 25A1 said:

Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law.

See also Law 31B about bid out of rotation at "Partner's or LHO's Turn", and observe particularly the footnote (my enhancement).

Law 31B said:

When the offender has bid at his partner’s turn to call, or at his LHO’s turn to call, if the offender has not previously called**, offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when the pass damages the non-offending side). The lead restrictions of Law 26 may apply.

**Later calls at LHO’s turn to call are treated as changes of call, and Law 25 applies.

[blackshoe]

I did not mean to imply that West did anything improper. He did not. It is South's actions with which we should be concerned.

If you cannot see how the attempt to correct can be anything other than a bid out of turn, then your thinking is too rigid.

[gordontd]

Deleted

[gordontd]

L25b anyone?

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-02, 06:06, said:

I did not mean to imply that West did anything improper. He did not. It is South's actions with which we should be concerned.

If you cannot see how the attempt to correct can be anything other than a bid out of turn, then your thinking is too rigid.

No, I didn't suspect that you considered West's action in any way improper.

But once we accept this situation then South's attempt to bid 1NT is a bid out of turn (at partner's turn to call) regardless of what intention South might have with this bid (except as I stated if South claims a Law 25A1 ruling).

A player is never allowed to rectify his insufficient bid at his own discretion, he may only (and must) do so after his LHO refuses to accept the insufficient bid.

[Bbradley62]

Do we also inform North that his statement about the insufficiency of South's 1♠ call was an improper extraneous comment?

[pran]

Bbradley62, on 2011-July-02, 15:38, said:

Do we also inform North that his statement about the insufficiency of South's 1♠ call was an improper extraneous comment?

Was it?

Law 9A1 said:

Unless prohibited by Law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call.

I know of no law that prohibits North from drawing attention to South's irregularity, but as West has already (deliberately or accidentally) accepted the insufficient bid this is now all water under the bridge.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2011-July-02, 04:19, said:

I don't see how the attempted change of call by South now can be seen as anything else than a call out of turn at partner's turn to call unless South can convince the Director that Law 25A1 should apply? (And so far I have seen absolutely no indication that the insufficient bid was unintended?)

So if it wasn't unintended, maybe we should go to Law 25B:

Quote

Call Intended
1. A substituted call not permitted by A may be accepted by the offender’s
LHO. (It is accepted if LHO calls intentionally over it.) The first call is
then withdrawn, the second call stands and the auction continues.
2. Except as in 1 a substitution not permitted by A is cancelled. The original
call stands and the auction continues.
3. Law 16D applies to a call withdrawn or cancelled.

A further interesting point in this is the distinction that's made between a withdrawn call and a cancelled call, presumably with implications for the application of L26.

[RMB1]

Law 31 (footnote 11) says that calls out of rotation at LHO's turn to call when the player has already called are treated as changes of call, and refer to Law 25.

I believe the converse is true: changes of call beyond the scope of Law 25 should be treated as calls out of rotation. So the 1♠ bid stands and 1NT is a call out of rotation at partner's turn to call.

[blackshoe]

I'm not sure there's a legal basis for that position, Robin. What does "beyond the scope of Law 25" mean?

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on 2011-July-03, 18:05, said:

What does "beyond the scope of Law 25" mean?

It means I thought the words "before LHO has called" appeared in Law 25B, as they did before 2007.

Oops!

[bluejak]

pran, on 2011-July-02, 04:19, said:

I don't see how the attempted change of call by South now can be seen as anything else than a call out of turn at partner's turn to call unless ...

No, we know you cannot. But it is just as logical to say that I cannot see how an attempted change of call, even if too late, can be treated as anything else but an attempted change of call. In fact I think it is more logical.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-July-05, 11:01, said:

No, we know you cannot. But it is just as logical to say that I cannot see how an attempted change of call, even if too late, can be treated as anything else but an attempted change of call. In fact I think it is more logical.

As you never bothered to answer my direct question on July 2nd:

I must ask how you rule if you are called to a table because of an insufficient bid and learns that the offender's LHO has already called (in turn)?

I would be very interested in an answer to that question now.

(And from my statement which you commented with your own statement above you "cleverly" stripped away all the reasoning included in my statement. No wonder you can twist it then.)

[bluejak]

I did not twist it: I just consider you were wrong. Your main argument was that it was clear: the opposite is clear to me.

I do not have to answer your questions just because you tell me to.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-July-05, 18:34, said:

I did not twist it: I just consider you were wrong. Your main argument was that it was clear: the opposite is clear to me.

I do not have to answer your questions just because you tell me to.

Comments superfluous