2017 Law Book
a member asked me what I would do if the wrong player opened the bidding - bid out of turn. I explained part of the answer when "move" was called and offered to complete the explanation at tea.
Referring to 2017 law book, I was asked what I was looking for, so explained BOT and was promptly advised that the offender and their partner could not bid again. "that is not quite right", then she replied well your book is out of date and XXXX knows more than you and has a new ruling in his book. I assured her that 2017 was the latest and then her partner, a retired TD, joined in and said it was written in 2016 and must be out of date and XXXX is correct. Now you all know this is stupid, especially as I had not asked for their opinions in the first place, but I would like to ask how often is the law book reviewed and rules changed.
I think XXXX is mis-reading the rulings and the TV Videos 3/4/5 cover the issue.
One query on this subject, when the offender cannot make a comparable call, the video states that his partner must pass for one round.
Video 4 comparable calls says that if the offender cannot find a CC, then their partner is barred from bidding for the rest of the auction, which is a slight difference to passing for one round.
Can anyone answer my two questions please?
Comments
The laws are updated every ten years or so and 2017 is the most recent set.
If a player makes an insufficient bid which is not accepted and the player fails to make a comparable call as a replacement, that player's partner must pass for the rest of the auction - L27B2.
If a player makes a call out of rotation which is not accepted and the player fails to make a comparable call at the proper turn to call, that player's partner must pass on the next round of the auction - L30B1b(ii) & L31A2b.
Note also Law 28B, which gives the actual dealer (or player whose turn it was to bid) the right to make his own bid. This will nullify the COOR, except for provisions of 16C2 (unauthorised information).
I'm not sure what the correct ruling would be in a situation where dealer's partner accepts the COOR. For example...
North to bid but still fiddling with his cards
East opens 1H
South passes
North says, "Hang on it's my bid" and bids 1S or, alternatively, doesn't notice what E and S are doing and simply bids 1S.
Certainly, if North gets in before South condones East's bid then North still has the right to make his own bid, cancelling East's bid.
One could also consider a related scenario: North to bid but West makes a bid. North doesn't notice and makes his own bid. Is North's bid accepting West's bid (29A) or cancelling it (28B)?
The Commentary on the Laws clarifies this. See Law 28 on page 21.
Thanks, Vlad
Not sure if the commentary covers the situation when (North being dealer) East bids out of turn and South accepts. It by calling.
It looks from 28B that "rectification has been assessed" by virtue of 29A (LHO calls thus all rectification has been forfeited) and if North bids it is now a COOT. This does seem a bit harsh - especially if North, not seeing what has happened makes what is now an insufficient bid.
May seem harsh, but it is North's partner who has saddled him (north) with the problem by accepting East's bid out of turn. You can't expect relief from your partner's actions!
The laws don't have any cross-referencing between 28B and 29A. By 28B, the auction proceeds as though the opponent had not called. Partner, however, has called and that might be considered a call out of turn.
There is in fact a cross reference in the Commentary, but it is a little confusing. It reads "The TD has to understand that Law 29A does not supersede Law 28B. The choice to take one's proper turn when on the offender's left, does not forfeit rectification of the call out of rotation". (Note the reference to taking one's proper turn when on the offender's left.)
However, Law 28 B says "Making such a call forfeits the right to rectification for the call out of rotation".
We had Laurie Kelso, Secretary of the WBFLC, take a training session in August when I pointed this out to him.
His response was 'Let me take a look, I drafted the Commentary"! After reading it he appears to have acknowledged that it needed amendment and he said to wait for the next minutes.
Going back to our problem where partner has called, Law 28 has the proviso '....before rectification has been assessed for a call out of rotation by an opponent'. With partner having called over the call out of rotation, what rectification can there be for the call out of turn? Hasn't South's call effectively 'assessed' rectification of the call out of turn by East, thereby rendering Law 28B inoperative?
Alan
The Commentary on the 2017 Laws of Bridge which was written by the Chairman of the WBF Laws Committee.
On the contrary, 29A says that the player forfeits the right to rectification, thus no rectification is to come, thus 28B is arguably still available.
Then again, we could liken it to South making a call out of turn when North is to bid, thus North loses his rights under 28B after actions by both East and South. Of course, this then brings us back to the problem of making a ruling when North tries to open the bidding after calls by both East and South. As Weejonnie comments, though, North is now under the hammer for having done nothing more than make his opening bid.
I am pretty sure that the combination of law 28B and law 29A is:
You can call over the opponent's call: if you do that then there is no further rectification. (29A) OR
You make your normal call in rotation:
a) If you made your call in rotation unaware that RHO had called then you have not lost your rights to rectification - which presumably means you can withdraw your bid (AI your side UI opponent's) and then apply appropriate rectification. (accept bid etc) OR
b) You can decide you want to keep your opening bid - in which case the call by your RHO is cancelled - no Law 26, but UI from call remains.
This (amongst other things) prevents accidental insufficient bids by the player whose turn it was to call. Equally it ensures that for example if you intended to open 2 Clubs and RHO bid 1 Heart then you can cancel his call and open 2 Clubs - such an action is not an 'election to call' under 29A