[blackshoe]

Yes, and when the bidding comes back around to North, he's entitled to ask what 4♣ meant.

[barmar]

 campboy, on 2012-March-09, 16:57, said:

4♣ is prior in the perfectly ordinary sense of "occurring earlier than". It is subsequent to North's pass, sure; that seems to be all 21B2 is saying. It is prior to his attempt to change that pass.

Law 20F1 says that North, at his turn to call, "is entitled to know about calls actually made". The 4♣ call was actually made.

But it's not his turn to call until AFTER he decides whether to withdraw his earlier pass. The Law doesn't say "at his turn to call, or other times when these Laws require him to state a decision".

[RMB1]

 barmar, on 2012-March-10, 14:45, said:

But it's not his turn to call until AFTER he decides whether to withdraw his earlier pass. The Law doesn't say "at his turn to call, or other times when these Laws require him to state a decision".

Does this mean that on the auction:
3NT - Pass - late alert of 3NT
second hand can not ask the meaning of 3NT before deciding whether to change his Pass?

[campboy]

 barmar, on 2012-March-10, 14:45, said:

But it's not his turn to call until AFTER he decides whether to withdraw his earlier pass. The Law doesn't say "at his turn to call, or other times when these Laws require him to state a decision".

True (although, as Robin points out, it would make more sense if it did). I intended only to say that North can ask about 4♣ at some point, since Iviehoff seemed to be suggesting that he could never do so.

[Trinidad]

Should North be allowed to change his pass?

Rik

[pran]

If we want to get technical there is a way out of the situation with corrected explanation during the auction:

West makes a call - North makes a call - East makes a call and then announces that he failed to alert West's call (i.e. misinformation).

North now states that he wants (or may want) to withdraw his call, and the Director is called to the table.

Now it is definitely North's turn to call, and before making his (replacement) call he is certainly entitled to have all opponents' calls so far ("prior calls") explained.

And there is no law that prevents North from ending up making the same call as he made the first time, i.e. not changing his call after all.

[barmar]

 pran, on 2012-March-11, 02:56, said:

And there is no law that prevents North from ending up making the same call as he made the first time, i.e. not changing his call after all.

I was about to say the same thing.

So I think the only question remaining is what "prior" means. Does it just refer to time, so that the withdrawn 4♣ call is included because it happened in the past, or does it refer to the sequence of the legal auction, which no longer includes this call because the auction has been rewound?

[bluejak]

 MickyB, on 2012-March-07, 21:28, said:

Just to explain this question - it had been suggested to me that the TD made an error in allowing North to change his bid at this point, obviously if that's not true then there can be no case for redress.

I think you should get whoever thought this to read Law 21B1A.

 campboy, on 2012-March-09, 16:57, said:

4♣ is prior in the perfectly ordinary sense of "occurring earlier than". It is subsequent to North's pass, sure; that seems to be all 21B2 is saying. It is prior to his attempt to change that pass.

Law 20F1 says that North, at his turn to call, "is entitled to know about calls actually made". The 4♣ call was actually made.

I really cannot see how anyone can disagree with this. I know some of you do, but I cannot see the logic.