[steve2005]

3rd seat bids 1NT 15-17 balanced out of turn.
opponents do not accept bid.
What are the consequences?
1st seat will open 1♦ and opponents will pass.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 31B: 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, then:
1. Offender’s partner may make any legal call at his proper turn, but Law 16C2 applies.
2. Offender may make any legal call at his correct turn and the Director rules as in A2(a) or A2(b) above.

Quote

Law 16C2: When a call or play has been withdrawn as these laws provide:
…
2. For an offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action and from withdrawn actions of the non-offending side is unauthorized. A player of an offending side may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative.

Note: the provisions of Law 16C2 apply throughout the bidding and play of this hand.

Quote

Law 31A2:
…
(a) When the call is a comparable call (see Law 23A), there is no further rectification. Law 26B does not apply, but see Law 23C.
(b) When the call is not a comparable call (see Law 23A), offender’s partner must pass when next it is his turn to call. Laws 16C, 26B and 72C may apply.

Quote

Law 23:
A. Definition
A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call, if it:
1. has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call, or
2. defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call, or
3. has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the withdrawn call.
B. No Rectification
When a call is cancelled (as per Law 29B) and the offender chooses at his proper turn to replace the irregularity with a comparable call, then both the auction and play continue without further rectification. Law 16C2 does not apply, but see C following.
C. Non-Offending Side Damaged
If following the substitution of a comparable call [see Laws 27B1(b), 30B1(b)(i), 31A2(a) and 32A2(a)] the Director judges at the end of the play that without the assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged, he shall award an adjusted score [see Law 12C1(b)].

[blackshoe]

I would rule 4NT by 3rd seat is a comparable call.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2019-July-07, 21:28, said:

I would rule 4NT by 3rd seat is a comparable call.

4NT natural, or Blackwood or RKCB? I'm not sure I would think any of them is comparable.

[sanst]

What if the opener passes? The offender can again put 1NT on the table and partner isn’t restricted. Well, that isn’t the question here, I know, but it could save you from a problem.

[Vampyr]

sanst, on 2019-July-08, 01:33, said:

What if the opener passes? The offender can again put 1NT on the table and partner isn’t restricted. Well, that isn’t the question here, I know, but it could save you from a problem.

Doesn’t pass the smell test though does it.

[sanst]

Vampyr, on 2019-July-08, 01:41, said:

Doesn’t pass the smell test though does it.

That’s true, but it allows the auction to run it’s normal course. The partner of the NT opener usually decides the contract. In this case, after the 1♦ opening, there is, as far as I can see, no call available for the offender that doesn’t silence the opener. So the probable outcome is 3NT, which might or might not be a good result, but is a gamble, anyway. That is the situation the lawmakers tried to avoid.

[RMB1]

If dealer has a 1D opening bid then to Pass as dealer (in order to let 3rd hand open 1NT) would be in breach of Law 16.

[gordontd]

sanst, on 2019-July-08, 02:52, said:

That’s true, but it allows the auction to run it’s normal course. The partner of the NT opener usually decides the contract. In this case, after the 1♦ opening, there is, as far as I can see, no call available for the offender that doesn’t silence the opener. So the probable outcome is 3NT, which might or might not be a good result, but is a gamble, anyway. That is the situation the lawmakers tried to avoid.

Indeed it is, but I don't think anyone, themselves included, imagined they would have 100% success in that.

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2019-July-08, 00:40, said:

4NT natural, or Blackwood or RKCB? I'm not sure I would think any of them is comparable.

Natural. Here it would show 16 or 17 hearts balanced. If they have some different agreement, then probably not comparable. I mentioned 4NT. I’m not sure about 3NT, showing balanced 13-15 because only the top end of that range fits, but maybe that’s comparable too. OTOH both bids would deny a four card major, which the withdrawn call does not. Maybe that makes both not comparable.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2019-July-08, 08:50, said:

I’m not sure about 3NT, showing balanced 13-15 because only the top end of that range fits, but maybe that’s comparable too. OTOH both bids would deny a four card major, which the withdrawn call does not. Maybe that makes both not comparable.

I would probably allow 3NT under the "same or similar meaning" criteria. They're not exactly the same, but they're similar -- they both show balanced hands of close to the same range. Most pairs don't have a good way to show 16-17 balanced when partner opens.

And it seems unlikely to damage the opponents to allow it -- they could miss a slam that they might find if opener could take advantage of knowing partner could have 16-17 HCP.

However, if they and up in 3NT when they probably would have bid 4Major in a normal auction, and this turns out to be better, I would adjust based on 23C.

[steve2005]

sanst, on 2019-July-08, 01:33, said:

What if the opener passes? The offender can again put 1NT on the table and partner isn't restricted. Well, that isn't the question here, I know, but it could save you from a problem.

Director told 1st seat to make their normal call.
I don't know hand but they are conservative bidders so I would think passing would be taking advantage of UI and that partner will likely be allowed to make some sort of NT call even if opps bid.

[steve2005]

blackshoe, on 2019-July-07, 21:21, said:

Note: the provisions of Law 16C2 apply throughout the bidding and play of this hand.

I can read the rules and have an idea what rules apply.
But the meaning is not clear to me.
What should happen?

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2019-July-08, 09:37, said:

I would probably allow 3NT under the "same or similar meaning" criteria. They're not exactly the same, but they're similar -- they both show balanced hands of close to the same range. Most pairs don't have a good way to show 16-17 balanced when partner opens.

And it seems unlikely to damage the opponents to allow it -- they could miss a slam that they might find if opener could take advantage of knowing partner could have 16-17 HCP.

However, if they and up in 3NT when they probably would have bid 4Major in a normal auction, and this turns out to be better, I would adjust based on 23C.

That seems fair enough.

[blackshoe]

steve2005, on 2019-July-08, 11:19, said:

I can read the rules and have an idea what rules apply.
But the meaning is not clear to me.
What should happen?

It's very similar to what should happen when a BIT or alert or failure to alert or question or answer to a question occurs. Basically, the partner of the player whose call was withdrawn has UI from that withdrawn call, and he must not base any future action on this hand on that UI. If, after the hand, he is found to have done so, the director adjusts the score.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-July-08, 09:37, said:

I would probably allow 3NT under the "same or similar meaning" criteria. They're not exactly the same, but they're similar -- they both show balanced hands of close to the same range.

One of the WBFLC gurus said that being within 2 HCP was enough here, IIRC.

barmar, on 2019-July-08, 09:37, said:

Most pairs don't have a good way to show 16-17 balanced when partner opens.

When partner opens 1NT 15-17 balanced, possibly without a singleton? 4NT seems both natural and logical to me.

[steve2005]

The director ruled after 1♦ opening bid 1st seat 3rd seat must pass once which of course ended the auction with a pass in 4th seat.

[RMB1]

steve2005, on 2019-July-08, 15:40, said:

The director ruled after 1♦ opening bid 1st seat 3rd seat must pass once which of course ended the auction with a pass in 4th seat.

On dear. The laws on calls out of rotation do not silence offender. Offender is not required to make a comparable call. In this case, offender can make a call which will silence opener for one round. From here, I would guess that offender would bid 3NT.

[blackshoe]

steve2005, on 2019-July-08, 15:40, said:

The director ruled after 1♦ opening bid 1st seat 3rd seat must pass once which of course ended the auction with a pass in 4th seat.

The director, it seems, has made a mistake.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2019-July-08, 18:17, said:

The director, it seems, has made a mistake.

This seems to happen a lot. It seems like many directors can't read the law clearly, to see that the rules are different depending on the relation of the offending player to the player whose turn it actually was to call.