[Chris3875]

Before dealer (East) could make her opening bid, her partner bid 3H which was not accepted by North. I cancelled the bid and the auction reverted to East who was told to pass throughout the auction. While she sat there thinking (about what I'm not sure because her only option was to Pass) North suddenly chimed in with a Pass.

I told East that she could accept the pass and the auction would proceed and that she still had to pass throughout - or she could refuse to accept the pass out of turn and that the auction would still be with her, she would still have to pass throughout, and that North would have to pass at his first turn. What a mess - was that correct - and yes, they were all pretty new players !

[blackshoe]

Looks right to me. There's also Laws 23 and 26 to consider.

[Chris3875]

Cheers Ed, thanks. The other Laws didn't come into play because West bid 4H when the bidding came back to her (and made it - her partner had 22 points).

The funniest part about the bidding sequence was when North passed out of turn (accepted by East), East passed and then South tried to pass out (we do double lines at the conclusion of the bidding). When I asked, "aren't you going to give West a turn?", they said "3 passes is the finish of the bidding!!"

[blackshoe]

[axman]

Chris3875, on Jun 27 2010, 06:05 PM, said:

Before dealer (East) could make her opening bid, her partner bid 3H which was not accepted by North. I cancelled the bid and the auction reverted to East who was told to pass throughout the auction. While she sat there thinking (about what I'm not sure because her only option was to Pass) North suddenly chimed in with a Pass.

I told East that she could accept the pass and the auction would proceed and that she still had to pass throughout - or she could refuse to accept the pass out of turn and that the auction would still be with her, she would still have to pass throughout, and that North would have to pass at his first turn. What a mess - was that correct - and yes, they were all pretty new players !

As offender has not previously [well, I suppose he has at least in some other auction, and having so called I then suppose that his partner has no enforced pass due to this COOT] called, let us suppose that the law does not mean what it says but means something else in which case it may mean whatever we wish it to; we then might believe that L31B provides in this case that offender’s partner must pass for the remainder of the auction. So, the offending call having been canceled and the turn reverted to offender’s partner who must pass at that turn and future turns, in fact does not pass. This is among other things an act of insubordination. Of the other things is suggested a breach of L73 has occurred; to wit- silenced partner having found out that partner was so eager to open OOT with 3H has contemplated what might have been and probably will not be without an accurate picture of his hand. And some idea is so much more useful to partner than no idea at all. And thus a L16 and L23 spiel is due.

As for N POOT not accepted, it is canceled and the auction reverts to E who must pass, and N must repeat that pass [L30A] at his next turn. [note that L23 has ramifications for N]

As all of this dribble has taken quite some time there have been some additional information provided, namely that W selected 4H which made largely due to an abundance of honors in the insubordinate hesitator’s collection of cards.

As such, W has demonstrated that by his breach of L16 a severe breach of L73B1 has occurred and has egregiously taken advantage. An adjusted score of 3H making whatever is appropriate and a one board PP is insufficient for the breach of L16, L73, and insubordination.

[blackshoe]

axman, on Jun 27 2010, 09:38 PM, said:

let us suppose that the law does not mean what it says

I stopped right there.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Jun 28 2010, 04:39 AM, said:

axman, on Jun 27 2010, 09:38 PM, said:

let us suppose that the law does not mean what it says

I stopped right there.

I didn't but read on (well - tried to).

And I am surprised that he managed to write so many words without even coming close to mentioning Law 34 - leading to Law 17E2.

[Chris3875]

I got lost after the first few lines, but put it down to the 2 glasses of wine I had with dinner.

[blackshoe]

I had a beer a couple of days ago, but I don't think that counts.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Jun 28 2010, 09:30 AM, said:

I had a beer a couple of days ago, but I don't think that counts.

You recovered, didn't you?

[bluejak]

Chris3875, on Jun 28 2010, 09:14 AM, said:

I got lost after the first few lines, but put it down to the 2 glasses of wine I had with dinner.

I got lost even earlier with no wine.

[campboy]

Isn't he just saying that East's delay before making the enforced pass could have been a deliberate attempt to communicate that she had a good hand?

That seems quite far-fetched to me. I think the most likely explanation of the pause is simply that East is no more aware of such niceties as whose turn it might be than are the other players at the table.

[shyams]

If South (instead of North) had placed a pass card on the table before East did, would that pass be also deemed out of turn? I would think not, but would like to hear the Law experts opinions.

[RMB1]

shyams, on Jun 28 2010, 02:43 PM, said:

If South (instead of North) had placed a pass card on the table before East did, would that pass be also deemed out of turn? I would think not, but would like to hear the Law experts opinions.

I think this answers your question.

The Laws of Duplicate Bridge, on 2007, said:

LAW 28: CALLS CONSIDERED TO BE IN ROTATION
A. RHO Required to Pass
A call is considered to be in rotation when it is made by a player at his RHO’s turn to call if that opponent is required by law to pass.