[blml] L17E2 questions

[Robert Geller]

Hi David,

In your example L17E2 would not apply, because West has not yet passed.   
L17E2 applies only if there are THREE passes in a row, a player having been
skipped.   In your example of 
W		N		E		S
1C		(no call)		Pass		Pass
?

South's pass, for better or worse, has condoned East's POOT and
it is now West's legitimate turn to call, if I understand it, with the 
important exception that West is free to make any legal call
he wants to and have the auction continue, EXCEPT that if
West passes then (and only then), due to L17E2,  the auction reverts 
back to North, with East being treated as an offender under L16.

The more I think about it this is very strange, because L29A says
**********************************************************
LAW 29 - PROCEDURE AFTER A CALL OUT OF ROTATION
A. Forfeiture of Right to Rectification
Following a call out of rotation offender’s LHO may elect to call
thereby forfeiting the right to any rectification.
**********************************************************
It appears to me that after South's pass of East's POOT South has
condoned the POOT, thereby forfeiting the right to any rectification.
Under those circumstances, West should have the right to pass,
thereby being able to declare 1C if he chooses to.  Yet because of
the contradiction between L17E2 (which, being more specific, 
should take precedence over L29A) and L29A, West is apparently no longer
able to elect to play 1C undoubled.

Am I missing something here  Or am I correct in now thinking this whole
business is much worse than I initially thought, and that L17E2 and L29A are
contradictory?   

Did the DSC carefully consider the relation between L17E2
and L29A? (Perhaps not, as there is no cross-referencing.)

-Bob

 

David Burn さんは書きました:
>[RG]
>
>Let's consider as simple example.
>
>West opens 1C; North did not act because East, South and West all passed.
>
>[DALB]
>
>Random thoughts occurs to me: what information if any is authorised to the
>players at the table? What methods are North-South permitted to play?
>
>Suppose the hands look like this (game all, dealer West):
>
>West (playing a strong no trump)
>
>xxx  KQx  Axx  KJxx
>
>North (the victim)
>
>KQxxx  Axx  xx  Axx
>
>East (absent-minded) AJ10x  J109xx  Kxxx  None
>
>South (das Weltkind unterdessen)
>
>x  xx  QJ10x  Q109xxx
>
>West opens 1C. East, thinking that it was his deal, passes before North has
>a chance to act. South, not displeased to accept 1C as a final contract,
>passes also.
>
>Now the auction reverts to North. Should he overcall 1S in sixth position
>(as he would have done in second position without East's manque de pr駸ence
>・la table? Is he allowed to know why East passed West's 1C? Clearly if he
>does bid, he is going to get a worse score than if he had passed out 1C. Is
>he supposed to work this out?
>
>Suppose he bids 1S anyway, as players will. Is he then allowed to pass
>South's 2C? Should South's 2C be natural or a cue bid in this position? Are
>North-South allowed to have any understanding on the matter? 
>
>Can you see now why I think East-West should just get average minus (or be
>fined two tops or 24 IMPs if I had my way) rather than have North-South
>sweating out this kind of position under their own steam? If you want equity
>(as the 2007 Lawmakers wish to implement it), you will find it in the
>dictionary between "equine" and "excrement", and that is where it richly
>deserves to be.
>
>David Burn
>London, England
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>blml mailing list
>blml at amsterdamned.org
>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

-----------------------------------------------------
Robert (Bob) Geller,     Tokyo, Japan        geller at nifty.com