[blml] L17E2 questions

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of Robert Geller
> Sven Pran writes:
> > If West does not make the third pass in a row the auction 
> > will not end and North can again enter the auction,
> > but if West tries to conclude the auction with a third pass
> > in a row then L17E2 gives North back his turn to call.
> 
> But if we accept your argument (which is not unreasonable), 
> then shouldn't "(but see Law 17E2)" be added to L29A?   
> If this addition were made to the laws then the ambiguity 
> would be removed.   As it now stands a director who looks
> only at L29A will make a ruling that conflicts with L17E2.

Which demonstrates why it is important for a director to know (all) the
laws, but yes - I think such an added reference from L29A would have its
merits.

L17E2 is a specific law concerning only one particular exceptional case and
as such must precede any general law (e.g. L29A) that happens to incorporate
the same case.

A more important question is the situation pointed out by Ken Richardson:

1D, (no call), pass, 1C not condoned and corrected to pass, pass ?

In this particular situation I believe we should end up in L27D1 (and L23),
but I believe there can be similar cases not so trivial, for example:

West: 1D, East (out of turn): pass, South: pass, West: 1C 

North may now condone the insufficient 1C bid and continue the auction as if
no irregularity has occurred, but what if he decides not to condone and West
then replaces his insufficient bid with a pass?
 
Regards Sven