[blml] L17E2 questions

[Sven Pran]

> On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst
> From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no>
> >
> > 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?
> 
> We now have 3 passes, one of which is OOT. West's status is in 
> limbo however. His substituted pass is cancelled without 
> penalty but does the penalty for the undercall of his own bid 
> still stand.  I think not though UI exists. We're in similar
> territory to 1D 3rd seat, very closely followed by
> 1C 1st seat, which we've chewed to death a number of times.

Not so fast!

I don't know if it was just a typo, but West's substituting (!) pass can not
be cancelled except under L17E2 if we decide that this law applies here.

The important question is whether his substituting pass becomes the third
pass in a row for the purpose of applying L17E2 or if this law was already
suspended for the case once North declined to condone the insufficient bid.

L17E protects a player from being deprived of his call because of three
passes in a row by the other three players, one of which is out of turn.
Literally it does not seem to apply when a player loses his right to call as
a consequence of his own selection among available corrections after an
irregularity.

This will become much clearer with the following scenario: 

North: 1S, East: pass, South: pass, West: 1H - insufficient bid not condoned
by North after which West replaces his IB with pass.

If North had wanted the opportunity to make another call he must condone the
insufficient bid, now the auction is definitely concluded.

Regards Sven