[blml] L17E2 questions

[John (MadDog) Probst]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no>
To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" <blml at amsterdamned.org>
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: [blml] L17E2 questions


>> 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.

Nope! L17 is an absolute. I'm clear on this point. The player in the next 
seat can use this fact to control the auction. I had one in Brighton last 
year where a player, after we'd discussed the Law for three or four minutes 
finally elected a pass in order to get a 2nd shot.
>
> 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.

Not the same scenario Sven. 17 is there to protect someone from being 
deprived of an opportunity to call. If he's got an opportunity then we never 
get to 17.  It's an "exception" Law to coin a phrase. We, (the lawmakers) 
recognise that we must allow everyone an opportunity to call on this round 
of the auction. That we can extend an auction by condoning an infraction is 
extra to this and not to do with 17.  John


>
> Regards Sven
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml