Bid out of turn and subsequent laws
Hi, this is my first post here so apologies if I have got the wrong category.
Some time ago as North I picked up the following grotty hand
Kxxxxx
xx
xx
Qxx
And plonked down 2S (all green) and immediately realised that I'd bid out of turn and partner was the dealer. The director was summoned and said that the first two bids would proceed as usual, but that I was required to make a comparable call. However no-one, including the director, could quite decide on what this meant. The auction continued
1H - (2D) - ?
3S here would be preemptive, but I really had no desire to bid on this abysmal hand, so elected to pass.
"But that's not a comparable call!" protested the director.
"Well see for yourself," I said, "what else can I do?"
The director eventually decided that pass therefore had to come under the definition of a comparable call as I really had no other sensible bid. The auction went on and our opponents ended up declaring in a part score.
Now looking at the laws, I have come to this conclusion; perhaps somebody would be kind enough to tell me if I've got the right idea:
1. Pass is an acceptable bid in my position
2. Passing here is not a bid contained wholly within an opening 2S preempt, and is therefore does not constitute a comparable call (23A)
3. If I do pass, partner is obliged to pass on the next round of bidding.
Please let me know if I have got the right idea here.
Many thanks,
Joe
Comments
Yes, I think you have the right idea. It's important to realise that there need not be a comparable call available to you, and if not then your partner will be barred and there could be lead penalties.
and even if there is a comparable call, you do not have to make one.
I assume that "Some time ago" still means post 2017 Laws!
First of all, the TD should have offered your LHO the opportunity to accept your call. (we assume that he did and it wasn;t acepted). (Initially law 29A)
The call is cancelled: your partner may make any call BUT he must carefully avoid making use of the fact that you have a weak 2 in spades. Law 29B and Law 31B
You are NOT required to make a comparable call. The laws merely state that if you do make a comparable call then partner is not barred from the auction for one round and lead penalties do not apply if you become defenders. Law 31A 2a and 2b
Pass is definately NOT a comparable call, since it specifies fewer denominations than the original call. (There are other criteria of course, but this simple test is mentioned in a recently published article about comparable calls.) Law 23A
So you have the right idea. (NB 'pass' is a 'call' not a 'bid'.)
Obviously there is more since the opponents ended up playing the contract: the TD should have given declarer the right to forbid your partner from leading one specific suit until he has lost the lead. (He should also advise your partner that knowledge about your 2S call is still unauthorised.)
You could have bid 2S! Partner would have had to pass for one round since 2S in this auction is not going to be a comparable call either (could be much stronger than a weak 2 I gather). Of course if the opponents kept the auction open your partner would have to act on the correct basis of the 2S response. (Once rectification has been assessed a pair may make any legal call even though they may appear to benefit from it - Law 10C4)
After your call is disallowed (due to being insufficient or out of turn) and not accepted by the opponents, when it's your turn to call, you basically have three options:
In your example, there's no legal correction (because RHO didn't pass), and so you only have the options of a comparable call, or barring partner. I believe 3!s would be a comparable call in this case, assuming it was pre-emptive (as both the 2!s opening and 3!s replacement calls have the same purpose, pre-empting in spades). However, you aren't forced to make it; you always have the option of barring partner instead. If you choose to pass (which is not a comparable call, as it doesn't indicate spade length), or bid 2!s (which is probably not a comparable call, because it doesn't show a weak hand), your partner would have to pass at their next turn, and then you could have a normal auction from there; if the opponents ended up declaring, they could also bar your partner from leading a suit of their choice (which would probably be spades, unless you showed them later in the auction).
Just be careful - the same purpose rule only applies if the information contained in the call about the hand is similar. The example given in the paper about Law 23 discusses a take-out double when a) one suit has been bid by opponents and b) two suits have been bid by opponents. Both calls have the same purpose "Please show your best unbid suit", but the first one shows tolerance in all three other suits - the second one only tolerance in the two unbid suits. They are not comparable. (Specific partnership understandings may make them comparable of course e.g. if you double on strength rather than shape)
I would regard 3 !s as comparable to the original 2 !s call because the suit length is similar (notionally 7 Vs 6) and so is the high card strength. Not because of the intent of the call (to pre-empt partner).
Your (a) is too precise - a similar meaning is acceptable (Law 23A1).
In respect of (b), the two examples in Law 23A3 are of calls which say nothing specific about the asker/relayer's hand. But the statement in the commentary is:
"If the replacement call has the same purpose, then it doesn’t even matter whether the strength or suits referred to are the same; the call is comparable by definition."
I assume that the intention is that for the purposes of Law 23A3 the expression "same purpose" is fairly narrowly defined, so that (for example) "finding out whether partner can support any of the unbid suits when the opponents have bid one suit" is not the same purpose as "finding out whether partner can support either of the unbid suits when the opponents have bid two suits".
That leaves Law 23A2: "defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call". I'm not sure that your (c) is really quite the same thing.
In general I think it is perhaps more helpful to start from the wording of the Law and then move on to interpretations.
Whilst the decision of the WBFLC to publish the Chairman's paper on Law 23 presumably means that they agree with it, it was a document prepared to inform the process which led to the commentary, so I assume that if there appears to be any conflict between the paper and the commentary, the latter should take precedence.
There are cases where you have none of these options but must repeat the previous call. For example, if you have made a rejected call out of turn at RHO's turn to call, insufficient or otherwise, and RHO then passes you must repeat the call. If it was insufficient then it could be rejected again and then your three options come into play.
I consider this to be a legal correction of the call-out-of-turn, and mentioned that it was mandatory to make that correction when possible.
Of course, if it's insufficient, it's legally correcting the call-out-of-turn but has an entirely different problem!