Law 30A - Pass out of rotation at RHO's turn to call
If not accepted, the Pass is withdrawn and the player must pass after RHO has called.
So we have a withdrawn call: Law 26.
I seem to remember there are no lead restrictions, but there's nothing to say that Law 26 does not apply. Do we assume that the Pass is a comparable call? If so, where does it say that? What about if it isn't?
Or have I got it wrong in the first place?
Comments
I also don't see any reason why Law 26 wouldn't apply if the pass were incomparable.
There are some situations in which the pass logically should be incomparable: imagine that N opens 1H as dealer, S passes out of turn, then E overcalls 3NT. This doesn't have a subset of meanings (passing an opening shows a very weak hand, passing an overcall doesn't), and doesn't have the same purpose (letting partner know that even a strong hand won't be sufficient for game), so the only potential reason it might be comparable is the "same or similar meaning" clause (23A1), which is too vague for me to be clear on whether it applies here or not.
I guess an even more drastic example would be opener passing out of turn at RHO's turn to call after 1H, (P), 1S – assuming that 1S is forcing (as it is in most normal systems), opener's pass basically has the meaning/purpose of revealing that the 1H opening was a psyche. If RHO overcalls, a pass doesn't do that any more, so it doesn't have a subset of meanings, the same purpose, nor a similar meaning.
Law 72 allows us to adjust in this sort of circumstance, but that doesn't seem to be reason not to apply the lead penalty as well.
How about the definition of "Pass" in the introduction to the Laws of duplicate bridge
"a call specifying that a player does not, at that turn, elect to bid, double or redouble"
Doesn't that say that effectively "pass" means the same thing whenever it is made?
If they say "no bid" then that is a different matter.
Following that reasoning, any call means the same thing regardless of when it is made.
The meaning of a call as defined in the definitions is not the same as the meaning assigned by partnership understanding.
Sorry, perhaps you weren't being serious.
There's a tendency to assume passes are comparable although as Ais points out, it's certainly possible to imagine situations where logically they aren't.
Actually Law 30 on passes out of rotation is a bit inconsistent here, the section on a pass at RHOs turn, LAW 30A, makes no mention of Law 26 not applying (or, indeed, applying). 30B does specify that law 26 applies if the bid is not comparable, and LAW 26 itself is actually similarly clear, there's no reason it couldn't apply if we decide the two passes aren't comparable.
Hi Robin I was being serious because Jeremy's situation depends on how he interprets "Pass" , hence "how about..."
Jeremy:- Law 30 C says that if the pass is artificial or is a pass of an artificial call then law 31 applies not Law 30.
So that implies that if pass isn't artificial or a pass of an artificial call then law 30 A or 30B are enforced, depending on the situation. Looking at Law 30A there is no mention of comparable calls or Law 26. The offender is told that they "must Pass" when it is their turn to bid, no consequences are included in that section of the law. However, in Law 30B both Law 23 and Law 26 are mentioned. So as I would understand it if pass out of rotation doesn't mean pass as per the definition then Law 31 comes into the matter.
I note that artificial call (pass) is defined as "2. A pass that promises more than a specified amount of strength". So If the pass first bid specifies more strength than expected then it should be considered an artificial call and Law 31 used for the pass out of rotation. So in addition if it means less strength than expected it can't be an artificial call. The only way to know If the pass means more than the definition of "pass", because of the greater strength, is to ask the meaning of the (first) pass out of rotation.
Law 26 refers to Law 23A and at 1) it says "has the same or similar meaning as the attributable call). So if pass out of rotation has an artificial meaning it isn't comparable but then Law 31 should have been followed, not Law 30A. To my mind law 30A is saying that if Law 31 does not apply then the forced Pass has the same meaning as the Pass out of rotation.
Sorry it is convoluted, I will go behind my parapet now.
There aren't many times when pass can plausibly show extra strength, assuming a pass from RHO, due to the risk of the board being passed out. Assuming no irregularities by the opponents, the only one I can think of is in a forcing pass system when partner has not yet called, but those systems aren't legal in most places.
There are some bidding sequences where pass would be artificial for many pairs, though, such as 1S, (P), 2S, (3S); it is not unreasonable to define X versus P entirely artificially in this sequence (typically showing something specific in spades) because you aren't expecting the opponents to play there. That's another way (other than forcing pass systems) to create a pass that's entirely incomparable with the pass out of rotation – presumably pass would have been natural without the overcall, and it's possible that an artificial pass after the overcall would be incomparable with the natural pass without.