[RunemPard]

This took place at our local club in Sweden. If other info is needed, I can supply it.

Quote

---

The 6♣ bid was actually never bid, but it will not let me show 5♣...the player made an insufficient bid after our ace reply. This hand is one that I honestly have no idea how to show, but I took a shot and made.

How will you handle this at MPs or teams?...and I will take the insufficient bid to the simple rulings forum for those interested.

The player on lead holds...

♠T9
♥J653
♦QT82
♣852

What I am curious about here, is that the player bid 5♣ after my partner's 5♥ reply. This was immediately taken back by her and replaced by a pass card. The killing lead here is a diamond into partner's void to set the grand, which was not done at our table anyways. However, has there been damage done by the 5♣ bid? What actions can she legally make?



I am not very good at bridge laws, so excuse me if this is beyond simple!

Thanks,

Don

[pran]

The legal options are:
1: South may accept the 5♣ bid and for instance double
2: If South does not accept the 5♣ bid then it is replaced with the Pass prematurely called by East. West is then forced to pass for the rest of the auction, but because East had already shown clubs with his 4♣ bid there is no further rectification.
3: And South may of course bid whatever he likes over the substituted pass from East.

But South may not for instance request a club lead from West (which would in case prevent an immediate ruff in diamonds by East). Absent the 4♣ bid this would have been another option for South.

[campboy]

Ah, but suppose South chooses to accept the 5♣ bid and bids 7♠. Can't he now forbid a diamond lead as a consequence of the withdrawn pass?

[iviehoff]

campboy, on 2013-February-06, 17:07, said:

Ah, but suppose South chooses to accept the 5♣ bid and bids 7♠. Can't he now forbid a diamond lead as a consequence of the withdrawn pass?

It's a good suggestion. The EBU White Book explains the application of L27C, but does not explicitly discuss whether L26 applies in this case. Let us read the laws and other relevant materials carefully and see whether we think L26 might apply in this case.

L27C applies when an insufficient bid is corrected prematurely, and offender's LHO has the option of accepting the original insufficient bid rather than its premature replacement. It is not explicitly stated there that L26 applies to the attempted replacement call so discarded. Nevertheless L26 applies even when there is not explicit reference to it (WBFLC minutes 2001-10-30#4). So we need to look at L26 to see if it applies.

L26 says "When an offending player’s call is withdrawn, and he chooses a different final call for that turn..."

It seems to me that the pass was not a call as described in L26, because it was not the offender's choice that a different final call for that turn applied, rather the reinstatement of 5C was imposed on him. I can only assume that the wording "he chooses" was put in the law consciously to ensure it applies only when the final call was indeed at the choice of the offender. They could easily have worded it without the suggestion of choice if they had not intended choice to be relevant.

I would therefore rule that the cancelled pass was UI to offender's partner (L16), but L26 doesn't apply.

[pran]

campboy, on 2013-February-06, 17:07, said:

Ah, but suppose South chooses to accept the 5♣ bid and bids 7♠. Can't he now forbid a diamond lead as a consequence of the withdrawn pass?

No:

Law 26 said:

When an offending player’s call is withdrawn, and he chooses a different* final call for that turn, then if he becomes a defender:
[...]

East didn't choose a different final call for that turn and the pass wasn't withdrawn, it was cancelled.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2013-February-07, 02:38, said:

the pass wasn't withdrawn, it was cancelled.

Quote

Laws Chapter I, Definitions: Withdrawn: Actions said to be “withdrawn” include actions that are “canceled” and cards that are “retracted”.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-07, 10:05, said:

Laws Chapter I, Definitions: Withdrawn: Actions said to be “withdrawn” include actions that are “canceled” and cards that are “retracted”.

Too right.

But whatever: East (in case) didn't choose a different final call for that turn.

[barmar]

pran, on 2013-February-07, 13:03, said:

Too right.

But whatever: East (in case) didn't choose a different final call for that turn.

Sure he did. He chose it when he replaced his insufficient bid with a pass. The fact that he did it before the TD came to the table, and this meant he was forced to repeat it when the 5♣ was rejected, doesn't change the fact that he chose it.

I think the only call that would not be deemed to be "chosen" by the player would be an imposed pass when a player is barred.

[iviehoff]

barmar, on 2013-February-07, 19:27, said:

Sure he did. He chose it when he replaced his insufficient bid with a pass. The fact that he did it before the TD came to the table, and this meant he was forced to repeat it when the 5♣ was rejected, doesn't change the fact that he chose it..

We are discussing a scenario where offender's LHO insists upon the 5C being reinstated.

[barmar]

iviehoff, on 2013-February-08, 09:35, said:

We are discussing a scenario where offender's LHO insists upon the 5C being reinstated.

Sorry, lost track of the discussion.

So the sequence is: offender bid 5♣, offender replaces it with Pass, director arrives, and offender's LHO accepts 5♣.

While the offender didn't choose [i]which[/] of his two calls would become the final one, he did choose each of them in the first place. So the question is whether that satisfies the criteria in 26.

[blackshoe]

I don't think it does.