Does law 26B apply when a call is withdrawn by the offending side after application of 21B2?
Do lead the restrictions specified in law 26B apply after a call is withdrawn by an offending side in line with 21B2?
Here's the situation (face to face bridge):
West opens, North makes a conventional bid and south , initially fails to alert this (MI). East asumes the bid is natural and calls. South bids, (a bid, not just a pass).
Before west can call, south now remembers that north's call should have been alerted, he alerts and explains the meaning of north's bid.
The TD is called and Law 21B 1 is applied: Now aware of what north's bid means, East elects to change his call. South also elects to change his call (Law 21B 2). His original call before his late alert, is now a "withdrawn" call.
Here South is the offender (he alerted late). So if South subsequently becomes a defender, do lead restrictions, under Law 26B, apply becasue of any withdrawn call that South has made? Or is law 16C sufficient in this situation?
Mark Humphris
Mark Humphris
Comments
I see no reason why 26B doesn't apply - the call was withdrawn.
Of course, South's replacement call may have been comparable, leading to no lead restrictions. The definitons clarify that "withdrawn" includes actions that are ‘cancelled’.
Thanks Jeremy, for clarification , I am assuming south withdraws their bid and replaces with a call that is not comparable.
Mark Humphris
It's a bit intriguing, the Laws read a little bit as if 26B maybe wasn't supposed to apply here, for instance 21B2 specifically references 16C but not 26B, there's no other requirement for South to make a comparable call here.
But like Jeremy, I can't find any compelling reason why 26B doesn't apply, legally we have a withdrawn call and an offending side. And it feels correct that 26B apply here, since we're protecting EW from NS gaining from an infraction.
There are references to Law 26B for Insufficient bids and calls out of turn, but no references to Law 26B in Law 21 or in Law 16D, so how would a club TD know to look up Law 26B in Mark's case? My initial view was that lead restrictions should not apply. I then checked the WBF Commentary on the Laws and found nothing relevant, and then the EBU White Book, and there it is in Para 8.26.1. "It does apply, even if there is no reference from another law."
Perhaps Law 21B will in 2027 include a reference to Law 26B as well as 16D? It should not need clarifications by NBOs.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
It seemed to me that Souths call was not Withdrawn, but rather Cancelled when E chose to change their previous call. So the card from South is replaced in the bidding box and E changes their call. Then S has to call (the same call may not even be possible now, if E's call takes the bidding beyond S's original call).
So, I looked to the Law Book and under definitions there is a circular definition - Cancelled (see Withdrawn). Withdrawn (calls that are cancelled, cards retracted). Retracted ( see Withdrawn).
So, it seems that this call was withdrawn and the restrictions apply.
Gordon asked me recently about a Law 26B case where the original infraction and ruling (leading to a withdrawn call) did not involve comparable calls. We concluded that Law 26B was badly constructed for that purpose, but the law should be applied as written. This arose from some discussion among international TDs - I don't know if there was any international consensus.